Mauricio C. Ulep vs.

The Legal Clinic, INC

BM. No. 533, June 17, 1993
EN BANC
Regalado, J.

Facts:

Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic,
Inc., to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to
the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law." It is the submission
of petitioner that the advertisements conducted by the respondent are champertous,
unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal
profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs
sought in his petition as herein before quoted. In its answer to the petition, respondent
admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is
not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services"
through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal
services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light
of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly
decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, INC. As
advertised by it constitutes practice of law and;
2. Whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein
complained of.

Ruling:

The court defines practice of law, as any activity, in or out of the court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. The
practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying
the aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and
observations of the aforetasted bar associations that the activities of respondent, as
advertised, constitute "practice of law." On the issue of the validity of the questioned
advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
statements of facts. He is not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair statement or regarding his qualification or legal
services. The Canons of Professional Ethics also warned that lawyers should not resort
to indirect advertisements of professional employment. The Standard of legal profession
condemns lawyers; advertisement of his talents. A lawyer should not advertise his talent
or skills in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The Canon of the
profession tells us that the best advertisement possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation and good and efficient to client and the community. Hence, the Court ruled to
RESTRAIN the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing publications
or dissemination of any advertisement in any form similar to that of Annex A and B and
from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity or operation prescribed by law or the
Code of Professional Ethics.
Pimentel v. Legal Education Board
GR Nos. 230642, 242954 & A.M. No. 20-03-04-SC
[November 9, 2021])
 Villahermosa, Sr. v. Caracol
AC No. 746, SCRA 320
January 21, 2015

Facts:

OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela who had two sons,
Fernando and Efren. When the agrarian reform law was enacted, emancipation patents
and titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the
program, who in turn sold the parcels of land to complainant's spouse, Raymunda
Villahermosa. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued
a decision ordering the cancellation of the emancipation patents and TCTs derived from
OCT No. 433 stating that it was not covered by the agrarian reform law. This decision
was appealed to and affirmed by the DARAB Central Board and the Court of Appeals.
Atty. Caracol, as "Add'l Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant," filed a motion for execution
with the DARAB, Malaybalay, Bukidnon praying for the full implementation of the
decision. Atty Caracol filed a Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and
Demolition which he signed as "Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren Babela. Villahermosa filed
this complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the motions since he
obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and the counsel of record. Villahermosa posited
that Efren could not have authorized Atty. Caracol to file the second motion because
Efren had already been dead for more than a year. He claimed that Atty. Caracol's real
client was a certain Ernesto 1. Aguirre, who had allegedly bought the same parcel of
land. Atty. Caracol insists that Efren and Ernesto authorized him to appear as
"additional counsel". He said that he had consulted Atty. Aquino who advised him to go
ahead with the filing. Moreover, he stated that he was not aware that there was a waiver
of rights executed in Emesto Aguirre's favor. In its Report and Recommendation, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) found that
Atty. Caracol committed deceitful acts and misconduct.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Caracol is guilty of deceit, gross of misconduct and violation of oath
under Sec. 27. Rule 138 of the ROC.

Ruling:

YES.

The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section 21 provides for a presumption of a lawyer's
appearance on behalf of his client, hence: SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. An
attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he
appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court
for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable
grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in
a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose,
whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may
thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorney willfully appearing in court
for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for
contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transactions.
(Emphases supplied) Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act as
counsel for a person without being retained nor may he appear in court without being
employed unless by leave of court. If an attorney appears on a client's behalf without a
retainer or the requisite authority neither the litigant whom he purports to represent nor
the adverse party may be bound or affected by his appearance unless the purported
client ratifies or is estopped to deny his assumed authority. If a lawyer corruptly or
willfully appears as an attorney for a party to a case without authority, he may be
disciplined or punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in
his official transaction. Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed away at the
time he filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition.
As an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he should have informed the Court of
his client's passing and presented authority that he was retained by the client's
successors-in-interest and thus the parties may have been substituted. Atty. Caracol
was found guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of oath under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, he was suspended from the practice of
law for one year.

Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 (1982)

Facts:

Dr. Domiciano F. Villahermosa, Sr. filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Isidro
L. Caracol. The complaint alleged deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of oath in
relation to Atty. Caracol's representation in two land cases. The land in question
covered 23.3018 hectares in Valencia, Bukidnon and was originally granted as a
homestead patent to Micael Babela. After the enactment of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, the land was transferred to beneficiaries of the program who
eventually sold it to Dr. Villahermosa's spouse. On March 2, 1994, the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a decision ordering the
cancellation of the emancipation patents and titles derived from the original certificate of
title. Atty. Caracol, as "Add'l Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant," filed a motion for
execution and a motion for the issuance of a second alias writ of execution and
demolition. Dr. Villahermosa filed the complaint, alleging that Atty. Caracol had no
authority to file these motions and that he introduced falsified and manufactured
evidence into the proceedings.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Caracol introduced falsified and manufactured evidence into the
proceedings.

Ruling:

The court found Atty. Caracol guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of oath.
He was suspended from the practice of law for one year. The court adopted the findings
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD), which
concluded that Atty. Caracol committed deceitful acts and misconduct. The IBP CBD
found that Atty. Caracol did not present credible evidence to prove his authority to file
the motions and that he misled and misrepresented himself to the DARAB. The court
also noted that Atty. Caracol knew that one of the plaintiffs had already passed away
but failed to inform the court and present authority from the client's successors-in-
interest. The court based its decision on Section 21 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
which states that an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any
cause in which he appears.
However, the presiding judge may require the attorney to produce or prove his authority
if reasonable grounds are shown. The court emphasized that even if a lawyer is
retained by a client, the attorney-client relationship terminates upon the death of either
the client or the lawyer. The court also cited previous cases that highlighted the
importance of attorneys acting with fairness, honesty, and candor towards the courts
and their clients. Atty. Caracol's actions were found to be in violation of his lawyer's oath
and the rules of professional conduct.
People v. Marti

Facts:

Defendant Andre Marti was convicted of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for
attempting to ship packages containing marijuana.
Marti claimed that he was only doing a favor for a stranger he met in a pub.
On August 14, 1987, Marti and his common-law wife went to the booth of "Manila
Packing and Export Forwarders" to send four gift-wrapped packages to a friend in
Zurich, Switzerland.
The proprietor of the booth, Anita Reyes, asked to inspect the packages, but Marti
refused and assured her that they only contained books, cigars, and gloves.
The packages were placed in a box and sealed.
Before delivery to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, the proprietor's
husband, Job Reyes, opened the box for final inspection and discovered a peculiar
odor.
He found dried marijuana leaves inside the packages and reported it to the NBI
(National Bureau of Investigation).
The NBI agents went to the Reyes' office, where Job Reyes opened the packages in
their presence and found more dried marijuana leaves.
The NBI agents took custody of the packages and conducted a laboratory examination,
confirming that they contained marijuana.

Issue:
Whether the evidence obtained through the search and seizure of the packages is
admissible in court, considering the defendant's claim of violation of his constitutional
rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained through the search and seizure of
the packages is admissible in court. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
search and seizure applies to actions of the government and its agents, not private
individuals. The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be
extended to acts committed by private individuals, such as the proprietor of the
forwarding agency in this case. The mere presence of NBI agents during the search did
not convert it into a warrantless search and seizure, as the search was initiated by the
private individual and not the law enforcers. The exclusionary rule, which prohibits the
admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional safeguards, applies to
evidence obtained by the government or its agents, not evidence obtained by private
individuals. The defendant's claim that he was not the owner of the packages and was
only doing a favor for a stranger was deemed incredulous and self-serving. Denials, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are given no weight in law. The
defendant's previous conviction for possession of hashish in Germany and the
connection between the consignee of the packages and drug abuse further weakened
his credibility. In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the
defendant, ruling that the evidence obtained through the search and seizure of the
packages was admissible in court.