ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

BAR MATTER No. 553

June 17, 1993

REGALADO, J.:

FACTS:
Mauricio C. Ulep filed a petition to the court to order a cease and desist on the respondent and
prohibit it from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other
than those allowed by law.
The petitioner complained the advertisements are as follows:
The advertisements reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession,
and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the Bar as well as the legal
profession he was ashamed and was offended by the said advertisements.
Respondent admits the fact of the said advertisement and publication but claims that it was not
engaged in the practice of law but rendering of legal support services through paralegals with
the use of technology. The respondent argues that the services advertised are legal services
and the act of advertising these services should be allowed considering the case of John R.
Bates and O’Steen vs. State Bar Arizona that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein, we required the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Philippine Bar Association, Philippine Lawyers Association,
U.P. Women’s Lawyers Circle, Women Lawyers Association, and Federation International De
Abogadas to submit their respective position papers on the controversy as well as their
memoranda. They responded and extended their valuable services and cooperation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the services offered by the Legal Clinic Inc., as advertised constitutes
practice of law and can be subject of advertisements.
- Yes. Even though he denied that it was not engage in any practice of law and claimed it
was use for advertising the legal support services through paralegals (legal assistants’)
and also the use of the name “Legal Clinic, Inc.” gives the impression that the
respondent is being operated by lawyers and that it can render legal services to which
such practice is not allowed as the services it offered includes various legal problems
wherein the client may avail from simple documentation to a complex litigation and
corporate undertakings which was beyond the domain of paralegals and are exclusive
functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law.
However, the advertisement in question has a message being conveyed that Filipinos
can avoid legal consequences of a marriage celebrated in accordance with our law by
simply going to Guam for divorce to which it was misleading and encourages or serve to
induce violation of Philippine law and this can be considered the dark side of legal
 practice where Philippine laws are exploited for the sake of profit and malpractice.
Thereby it destroys and demeaning the integrity of the Bar.

Under the Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

The Higher Court has the power to suppress and punish the Legal Clinic and its
corporate officers for its unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical misleading and
immoral advertising under the Section 1, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and to
add that the practice of law is not a profession open to all who wish to engage in it nor
can be assigned to another (5 Am. Jur. 270).
In resolving the issue the consideration should be given to the protection of the general
public from danger of being exploited by unqualified persons or entities who may engage
in the practice of law.
Also, Under the Rule 2.03 – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
The pertinent part of the decision reads:
Under the Section 25 of Rule 127 which expressly provides that the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
And Canon 27, Code of Ethics – the most worthy and effective advertisement as
possible, even for a young lawyer is the establishment of a well-mannered reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome
of character and conduct.

RULING:
Wherefore the court issued a Restrain and Enjoin to the Legal Clinic, Inc. from issuing or
publication of any advertisement in any form which is of the same as purpose of this petition.