CASE OF ULEP - LEGAL ETHICS

8/11/2019 CASE OF ULEP - LEGAL ETHICS

1/22


2/22

confidence of the co unity in the inte!rity of the e (ers of the (ar and that,as a e (er of the e!a profession, he is asha ed and offended (y the saidadvertise ents, hence the re iefs sou!ht in his petition as herein(efore Auoted.

In its ans*er to the petition, respondent ad its the fact of pu( ication of said

advertise ent at its instance, (ut c ai s that it is not en!a!ed in the practice of a* (ut in the renderin! of " e!a support services" throu!h para e!a s *ith theuse of odern co puters and e ectronic achines. Respondent further ar!uesthat assu in! that the services advertised are e!a services, the act of advertisin! these services shou d (e a o*ed supposed yin the i!ht of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of

Arizona , ! reported y decided (y the United States Supre e Court on Fune 8,6D88.

Considerin! the critica i p ications on the e!a profession of the issues raisedherein, *e reAuired the &6' Inte!rated %ar of the Phi ippines &I%P', &5' Phi ippine

%ar $ssociation &P%$', &9' Phi ippine La*yers $ssociation &PL$', &:' U.P.Go ens La*yers Circ e &GILOCI', &/' Go en La*yers $ssociation of thePhi ippines &GL$P', and &0' =ederacion Internationa de $(o!adas &=I2$' tosu( it their respective position papers on the controversy and, thereafter, their

e oranda. 3 The said (ar associations readi y responded and e#tended their va ua( e services and cooperation of *hich this Court ta)es note *ithappreciation and !ratitude.

The ain issues posed for reso ution (efore the Court are *hether or not theservices offered (y respondent, The Le!a C inic, Inc., as advertised (y itconstitutes practice of a* and, in either case, *hether the sa e can proper y (e

the su(Hect of the advertise ents herein co p ained of.%efore proceedin! *ith an in7depth ana ysis of the erits of this case, *e dee itproper and en i!htenin! to present hereunder e#cerpts fro the respectiveposition papers adopted (y the afore entioned (ar associations and the

e oranda su( itted (y the on the issues invo ved in this (ar atter.

6. Integrated Bar of the Philippines +

### ### ###

Not*ithstandin! the su(t e anner (y *hich respondent endeavored to

distin!uish the t*o ter s, i .e ., " e!a support services" vis-a-vis " e!a services",co on sense *ou d readi y dictate that the sa e are essentia y *ithoutsu(stantia distinction. =or *ho cou d deny that docu ent search, evidence!atherin!, assistance to ay an in need of (asic institutiona services fro!overn ent or non7!overn ent a!encies i)e (irth, arria!e, property, or (usiness re!istration, o(tainin! docu ents i)e c earance, passports, oca or forei!n visas, constitutes practice of a*

### ### ###


3/22

The Inte!rated %ar of the Phi ippines &I%P' does not *ish to a)e issue *ithrespondent s forei!n citations. Suffice it to state that the I%P has ade itsposition anifest, to *it, that it stron! y opposes the vie* espoused (yrespondent &to the effect that today it is a ri!ht to advertise one s e!a services'.

The I%P accordin! y dec ares in no uncertain ter s its opposition to respondent s

act of esta( ishin! a " e!a c inic" and of conco itant y advertisin! the sa ethrou!h ne*spaper pu( ications.

The I%P *ou d therefore invo)e the ad inistrative supervision of this 4onora( eCourt to perpetua y restrain respondent fro underta)in! hi!h y unethicaactivities in the fie d of a* practice as aforedescri(ed. "

### ### ###

$. The use of the na e "The Le!a C inic, Inc." !ives the i pression thatrespondent corporation is (ein! operated (y a*yers and that it renders e!aservices.

Ghi e the respondent repeated y denies that it offers e!a services to the pu( ic,the advertise ents in Auestion !ive the i pression that respondent is offerin!

e!a services. The Petition in fact si p y assu es this to (e so, as ear ier entioned, apparent y (ecause this &is' the effect that the advertise ents have

on the readin! pu( ic.

The i pression created (y the advertise ents in Auestion can (e traced, first of a , to the very na e (ein! used (y respondent < "The Le!a C inic, Inc." Such ana e, it is respectfu y su( itted connotes the renderin! of e!a services for

e!a pro( e s, Hust i)e a edica c inic connotes edica services for edicapro( e s. ore i portant y, the ter "Le!a C inic" connotes a*yers, as the ter

edica c inic connotes doctors.

=urther ore, the respondent s na e, as pu( ished in the advertise ents su(Hectof the present case, appears *ith &the' sca e&s' of Hustice, *hich a the orereinforces the i pression that it is (ein! operated (y e (ers of the (ar andthat it offers e!a services. In addition, the advertise ents in Auestion appear *ith a picture and na e of a person (ein! represented as a a*yer fro -ua ,and this practica y re oves *hatever dou(t ay sti re ain as to the nature of the service or services (ein! offered.

It thus (eco es irre evant *hether respondent is ere y offerin! " e!a supportservices" as c ai ed (y it, or *hether it offers e!a services as any a*yer active y en!a!ed in a* practice does. $nd it (eco es unnecessary to a)e adistinction (et*een " e!a services" and " e!a support services," as therespondent *ou d have it. The advertise ents in Auestion eave no roo for dou(t in the inds of the readin! pu( ic that e!a services are (ein! offered (y

a*yers, *hether true or not.

%. The advertise ents in Auestion are eant to induce the perfor ance of actscontrary to a*, ora s, pu( ic order and pu( ic po icy.

It ay (e conceded that, as the respondent c ai s, the advertise ents inAuestion are on y eant to infor the !enera pu( ic of the services (ein! offered(y it. Said advertise ents, ho*ever, e phasi e to -ua divorce, and any a*


4/22

student ou!ht to )no* that under the =a i y Code, there is on y one instance*hen a forei!n divorce is reco!ni ed, and that is+

$rtic e 50. . . .

Ghere a arria!e (et*een a =i ipino citi en and a forei!ner is

va id y ce e(rated and a divorce is thereafter validl o!tained a!road ! the alien spo"se capacitating hi# or her to re#arr ,the =i ipino spouse sha have capacity to re arry under Phi ippine La*.

It ust not (e for!otten, too, that the =a i y Code &defines' a arria!e asfo o*s+

$rtic e 6. arria!e is special contract of per#anent "nion(et*een a an and *o an entered into accordance *ith a* for the esta( ish ent of conHu!a and fa i y ife. It is the fo"ndationof the fa#il and an inviola!le social instit"tion *hose nature,conseAuences, and incidents are !overned (y a* and notsu(Hect to stipu ation, e#cept that arria!e sett e ents ay fi#the property re ation durin! the arria!e *ithin the i itsprovided (y this Code.

%y si p y readin! the Auestioned advertise ents, it is o(vious that the essa!e(ein! conveyed is that =i ipinos can avoid the e!a conseAuences of a arria!ece e(rated in accordance *ith our a*, (y si p y !oin! to -ua for a divorce.This is not on y is eadin!, (ut encoura!es, or serves to induce, vio ation of Phi ippine a*. $t the very east, this can (e considered "the dar) side" of e!apractice, *here certain defects in Phi ippine a*s are e#p oited for the sa)e of profit. $t *orst, this is outri!ht a practice.

Ru e 6.15. < $ a*yer sha not counse or a(et activities ai edat defiance of the a* or at essenin! confidence in the e!asyste .

In addition, it ay a so (e re evant to point out that advertise ents such as thatsho*n in $nne# "$" of the Petition, *hich contains a cartoon of a otor vehic e*ith the *ords "Fust arried" on its (u per and see s to address thosep annin! a "secret arria!e," if not su!!estin! a "secret arria!e," a)es i!ht of the "specia contract of per anent union," the invio a( e socia institution," *hichis ho* the =a i y Code descri(es arria!e, o(vious y to e phasi e its sanctityand invio a(i ity. Gorse, this particu ar advertise ent appears to encoura!e

arria!es ce e(rated in secrecy, *hich is su!!estive of i ora pu( ication of app ications for a arria!e icense.

If the artic e "R# for Le!a Pro( e s" is to (e revie*ed, it can readi y (econc uded that the a(ove i pressions one ay !ather fro the advertise entsin Auestion are accurate. The Sharon Cuneta7-a((y Concepcion e#a p e a oneconfir s *hat the advertise ents su!!est. 4ere it can (e seen that cri ina actsare (ein! encoura!ed or co itted&a (i!a ous arria!e in 4on! >on! or Las 3e!as' *ith i punity si p y (ecausethe Hurisdiction of Phi ippine courts does not e#tend to the p ace *here the cri eis co itted.


5/22

Even if it (e assu ed, arg"endo , &that' the " e!a support services" respondentoffers do not constitute e!a services as co on y understood, theadvertise ents in Auestion !ive the i pression that respondent corporation is(ein! operated (y a*yers and that it offers e!a services, as ear ier discussed.Thus, the on y o!ica conseAuence is that, in the eyes of an ordinary ne*spaper reader, e (ers of the (ar the se ves are encoura!in! or inducin! theperfor ance of acts *hich are contrary to a*, ora s, !ood custo s and thepu( ic !ood, there(y destroyin! and de eanin! the inte!rity of the %ar.

### ### ###

It is respectfu y su( itted that respondent shou d (e enHoined fro causin! thepu( ication of the advertise ents in Auestion, or any other advertise ents si i ar thereto. It is a so su( itted that respondent shou d (e prohi(ited fro further perfor in! or offerin! so e of the services it present y offers, or, at the very

east, fro offerin! such services to the pu( ic in !enera .

The I%P is a*are of the fact that providin! co puteri ed e!a research,e ectronic data !atherin!, stora!e and retrieva , standardi ed e!a for s,

investi!ators for !atherin! of evidence, and i)e services *i !reat y (enefit thee!a profession and shou d not (e stif ed (ut instead encoura!ed. 4o*ever,*hen the conduct of such (usiness (y non7 e (ers of the %ar encroaches uponthe practice of a*, there can (e no choice (ut to prohi(it such (usiness.

$d itted y, any of the services invo ved in the case at (ar can (e (etter perfor ed (y specia ists in other fie ds, such as co puter e#perts, *ho (yreason of their havin! devoted ti e and effort e#c usive y to such fie d cannotfu fi the e#actin! reAuire ents for ad ission to the %ar. To prohi(it the fro"encroachin!" upon the e!a profession *i deny the profession of the !reat(enefits and advanta!es of odern techno o!y. Indeed, a a*yer usin! aco puter *i (e doin! (etter than a a*yer usin! a type*riter, even if (oth are&eAua ' in s)i .

%oth the %ench and the %ar, ho*ever, shou d (e carefu not to a o* or to eratethe i e!a practice of a* in any for , not on y for the protection of e (ers of the %ar (ut a so, and ore i portant y, for the protection of the pu( ic.Techno o!ica deve op ent in the profession ay (e encoura!ed *ithoutto eratin!, (ut instead ensurin! prevention of i e!a practice.

There i!ht (e nothin! o(Hectiona( e if respondent is a o*ed to perfor a of itsservices, (ut on y if such services are ade avai a( e e#c usive y to e (ers of the %ench and %ar. Respondent *ou d then (e offerin! technica assistance, not

e!a services. $ ternative y, the ore difficu t tas) of carefu y distin!uishin!(et*een *hich service ay (e offered to the pu( ic in !enera and *hich shou d(e ade avai a( e e#c usive y to e (ers of the %ar ay (e underta)en. This,

ho*ever, ay reAuire further proceedin!s (ecause of the factua considerationsinvo ved.

It ust (e e phasi ed, ho*ever, that so e of respondent s services ou!ht to (eprohi(ited outri!ht, such as acts *hich tend to su!!est or induce ce e(rationa(road of arria!es *hich are (i!a ous or other*ise i e!a and void under Phi ippine a*. Ghi e respondent ay not (e prohi(ited fro si p ydisse inatin! infor ation re!ardin! such atters, it ust (e reAuired to inc ude,in the infor ation !iven, a disc ai er that it is not authori ed to practice a*, that


6/22

certain course of action ay (e i e!a under Phi ippine a*, that it is notauthori ed or capa( e of renderin! a e!a opinion, that a a*yer shou d (econsu ted (efore decidin! on *hich course of action to ta)e, and that it cannotreco end any particu ar a*yer *ithout su(Hectin! itse f to possi( e sanctionsfor i e!a practice of a*.

If respondent is a o*ed to advertise, advertisin! shou d (e directed e#c usive yat e (ers of the %ar, *ith a c ear and un ista)a( e disc ai er that it is notauthori ed to practice a* or perfor e!a services.

The (enefits of (ein! assisted (y para e!a s cannot (e i!nored. %ut no(odyshou d (e a o*ed to represent hi se f as a "para e!a " for profit, *ithout suchter (ein! c ear y defined (y ru e or re!u ation, and *ithout any adeAuate andeffective eans of re!u atin! his activities. $ so, a* practice in a corporate for

ay prove to (e advanta!eous to the e!a profession, (ut (efore a o*ance of such practice ay (e considered, the corporation s $rtic e of Incorporation and%y7 a*s ust confor to each and every provision of the Code of ProfessionaResponsi(i ity and the Ru es of Court. 5

5. Philippine Bar Association +

### ### ###.

Respondent asserts that it "is not en!a!ed in the practice of a* (ut en!a!ed in!ivin! e!a support services to a*yers and ay en, throu!h e#periencedpara e!a s, *ith the use of odern co puters and e ectronic achines" &pars. 5and 9, Co ent'. This is a(surd. UnAuestiona( y, respondent s acts of ho din!out itse f to the pu( ic under the trade na e "The Le!a C inic, Inc.," and so icitin!e p oy ent for its enu erated services fa *ithin the rea of a practice *hichthus yie ds itse f to the re!u atory po*ers of the Supre e Court. =or respondentto say that it is ere y en!a!ed in para e!a *or) is to stretch credu ity.Respondent s o*n co ercia advertise ent *hich announces a certain Att .$on Par%inson to (e hand in! the fie ds of a* (e ies its pretense. =ro aindications, respondent "The Le!a C inic, Inc." is offerin! and renderin! legal services throu!h its reserve of a*yers. It has (een he d that the practice of a* isnot i ited to the conduct of cases in court, (ut inc udes dra*in! of deeds,incorporation, renderin! opinions, and advising clients as to their legal right and then ta%e the# to an attorne and as% the latter to loo% after their case in co"rt See artin, Le!a and Fudicia Ethics, 6D;: ed., p. 9D'.

It is apt to reca that on y nat"ral persons can en!a!e in the practice of a*, andsuch i itation cannot (e evaded (y a corporation e p oyin! co petent a*yersto practice for it. O(vious y, this is the sche e or device (y *hich respondent"The Le!a C inic, Inc." ho ds out itse f to the pu( ic and so icits e p oy ent of its

e!a services. It is an odio"s vehicle for deception, especia y so *hen the pu( ic

cannot venti ate any !rievance for #alpractice a!ainst the (usiness conduit.Precise y, the i itation of practice of a* to persons *ho have (een du yad itted as e (ers of the %ar &Sec. 6, Ru e 69;, Revised Ru es of Court' is tosu(Hect the e (ers to the discipline of the Supre e Court. $ thou!hrespondent uses its !"siness na#e , the persons and the a*yers *ho act for itare su(Hect to court discip ine. The practice of a* is not a profession open to a*ho *ish to en!a!e in it nor can it (e assi!ned to another &See / $ . Fur. 581'.It is a personal right i ited to persons *ho have Aua ified the se ves under the

a*. It fo o*s that not on y respondent (ut a so a the persons *ho are actin! for respondent are the persons en!a!ed in unethica a* practice. #


7/22

9. Philippine &a ers' Association +

The Phi ippine La*yers $ssociation s position, in ans*er to the issues statedherein, are *it+

6. The Le!a C inic is en!a!ed in the practice of a*

5. Such practice is unauthori ed

9. The advertise ents co p ained of are not on y unethica , (ut a so is eadin!and patent y i ora and

:. The 4onora( e Supre e Court has the po*er to supress and punish the Le!aC inic and its corporate officers for its unauthori ed practice of a* and for itsunethica , is eadin! and i ora advertisin!.

### ### ###

Respondent posits that is it not en!a!ed in the practice of a*. It c ai s that itere y renders " e!a support services" to ans*ers, iti!ants and the !enerapu( ic as enunciated in the Pri ary Purpose C ause of its $rtic e&s' of Incorporation. &See pa!es 5 to / of Respondent s Co ent'. %ut its advertisedservices, as enu erated a(ove, c ear y and convincin! y sho* that it is indeeden!a!ed in a* practice, a (eit outside of court.

$s advertised, it offers the !enera pu( ic its advisory services on Persons and=a i y Re ations La*, particu ar y re!ardin! forei!n divorces, annu ent of

arria!es, secret arria!es, a(sence and adoption I i!ration La*s,particu ar y on visa re ated pro( e s, i i!ration pro( e s the Invest ents La*of the Phi ippines and such other re ated a*s.

Its advertised services un ista)a( y reAuire the app ication of the aforesaid a*,the e!a princip es and procedures re ated thereto, the e!a advices (asedthereon and *hich activities ca for e!a trainin!, )no* ed!e and e#perience.

$pp yin! the test aid do*n (y the Court in the aforecited $!rava Case, theactivities of respondent fa sAuare y and are e (raced in *hat a*yers and

ay en eAua y ter as "the practice of a*." 7

:. ( .P . )o#en &a ers' *ircle +

In reso vin!, the issues (efore this 4onora( e Court, para ount considerationshou d (e !iven to the protection of the !enera pu( ic fro the dan!er of (ein!e#p oited (y unAua ified persons or entities *ho ay (e en!a!ed in the practiceof a*.

$t present, (eco in! a a*yer reAuires one to ta)e a ri!orous four7year course of study on top of a four7year (ache or of arts or sciences course and then to ta)eand pass the (ar e#a inations. On y then, is a a*yer Aua ified to practice a*.

Ghi e the use of a para e!a is sanctioned in any Hurisdiction as an aid to thead inistration of Hustice, there are in those Hurisdictions, courses of study and@or standards *hich *ou d Aua ify these para e!a s to dea *ith the !enera pu( ic as


8/22

such. Ghi e it ay no* (e the opportune ti e to esta( ish these courses of studyand@or standards, the fact re ains that at present, these do not e#ist in thePhi ippines. In the eanti e, this 4onora( e Court ay decide to a)e

easures to protect the !enera pu( ic fro (ein! e#p oited (y those *ho ay(e dea in! *ith the !enera pu( ic in the !uise of (ein! "para e!a s" *ithout (ein!Aua ified to do so.

In the sa e anner, the !enera pu( ic shou d a so (e protected fro thedan!ers *hich ay (e (rou!ht a(out (y advertisin! of e!a services. Ghi e itappears that a*yers are prohi(ited under the present Code of ProfessionaResponsi(i ity fro advertisin!, it appears in the instant case that e!a servicesare (ein! advertised not (y a*yers (ut (y an entity staffed (y "para e!a s."C ear y, easures shou d (e ta)en to protect the !enera pu( ic fro fa in! preyto those *ho advertise e!a services *ithout (ein! Aua ified to offer suchservices. $

$ perusa of the Auestioned advertise ents of Respondent, ho*ever, see s to!ive the i pression that infor ation re!ardin! va idity of arria!es, divorce,annu ent of arria!e, i i!ration, visa e#tensions, dec aration of a(sence,

adoption and forei!n invest ent, *hich are in essence, e!a atters , *i (e!iven to the if they avai of its services. The Respondent s na e < The Le!aC inic, Inc. < does not he p atters. It !ives the i pression a!ain thatRespondent *i or can cure the e!a pro( e s (rou!ht to the . $ssu in! thatRespondent is, as c ai ed, staffed pure y (y para e!a s, it a so !ives the

is eadin! i pression that there are a*yers invo ved in The Le!a C inic, Inc., asthere are doctors in any edica c inic, *hen on y "para e!a s" are invo ved inThe Le!a C inic, Inc.

Respondent s a e!ations are further (e ied (y the very ad issions of itsPresident and aHority stoc)ho der, $tty. No!a es, *ho !ave an insi!ht on thestructure and ain purpose of Respondent corporation in the afore entioned"Star*ee)" artic e." 9

/. )o#en &a er's Association of the Philippines +

$nne#es "$" and "%" of the petition are c ear y advertise ents to so icit cases for the purpose of !ain *hich, as provided for under the a(ove cited a*, &are' i e!aand a!ainst the Code of Professiona Responsi(i ity of a*yers in this country.

$nne# "$" of the petition is not on y i e!a in that it is an advertise ent to so icitcases, (ut it is i e!a in that in (o d etters it announces that the Le!a C inic, Inc.,cou d *or) out@cause the ce e(ration of a secret arria!e *hich is not on y i e!a(ut i ora in this country. Ghi e it is advertised that one has to !o to saida!ency and pay P/01 for a va id arria!e it is certain y foo in! the pu( ic for va id

arria!es in the Phi ippines are so e ni ed on y (y officers authori ed to do so

under the a*. $nd to e p oy an a!ency for said purpose of contractin! arria!eis not necessary.

No a ount of reasonin! that in the US$, Canada and other countries the trend isto*ards a o*in! a*yers to advertise their specia s)i s to ena( e peop e too(tain fro Aua ified practitioners e!a services for their particu ar needs can

Hustify the use of advertise ents such as are the su(Hect atter of the petition, for one &cannot' Hustify an i e!a act even (y *hatever erit the i e!a act ayserve. The a* has yet to (e a ended so that such act cou d (eco e Hustifia( e.


9/22

Ge su( it further that these advertise ents that see to proHect that secretarria!es and divorce are possi( e in this country for a fee, *hen in fact it is not

so, are hi!h y reprehensi( e.

It *ou d encoura!e peop e to consu t this c inic a(out ho* they cou d !o a(outhavin! a secret arria!e here, *hen it cannot nor shou d ever (e atte pted, and

see) advice on divorce, *here in this country there is none, e#cept under theCode of us i Persona La*s in the Phi ippines. It is a so a!ainst !ood ora sand is deceitfu (ecause it fa se y represents to the pu( ic to (e a( e to do that*hich (y our a*s cannot (e done &and' (y our Code of ora s shou d not (edone.

In the case &of' In re Ta!uda, /9 Phi . 98, the Supre e Court he d that so icitationfor c ients (y an attorney (y circu ars of advertise ents, is unprofessiona , andoffenses of this character Hustify per anent e i ination fro the %ar. 1%

0. +ederacion Internacional de A!ogados +

### ### ###

6.8 That entities ad itted y not en!a!ed in the practice of a*, such asana!e ent consu tancy fir s or trave a!encies, *hether run (y a*yers or not,

perfor the services rendered (y Respondent does not necessari y ead to theconc usion that Respondent is not un a*fu y practicin! a*. In the sa e vein,ho*ever, the fact that the (usiness of respondent &assu in! it can (e en!a!ed inindependent y of the practice of a*' invo ves )no* ed!e of the a* does notnecessari y a)e respondent !ui ty of un a*fu practice of a*.

. . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . actin! as a consu tant can render effective service un ess he is fa i iar *ith such statutes andre!u ations. 4e ust (e carefu not to su!!est a course of conduct *hich the a* for(ids. It see s . . . .c ear that &theconsu tant s' )no* ed!e of the a*, and his use of that)no* ed!e as a factor in deter inin! *hat easures he shareco end, do not constitute the practice of a* . . . . It is noton y presu ed that a en )no* the a*, (ut it is a fact that

ost en have considera( e acAuaintance *ith (road featuresof the a* . . . . Our )no* ed!e of the a* < accurate or inaccurate < ou ds our conduct not on y *hen *e are actin!for ourse ves, (ut *hen *e are servin! others. %an)ers, iAuor dea ers and ay en !enera y possess rather precise )no* ed!eof the a*s touchin! their particu ar (usiness or profession. $!ood e#a p e is the architect, *ho ust (e fa i iar *ith onin!,(ui din! and fire prevention codes, factory and tene ent housestatutes, and *ho dra*s p ans and specification in har ony *ith

the a*. This is not practicin! a*.

%ut suppose the architect, as)ed (y his c ient to o it a fire to*er,rep ies that it is reAuired (y the statute. Or the industria re ationse#pert cites, in support of so e easure that he reco ends, adecision of the Nationa La(or Re ations %oard. $re theypracticin! a* In y opinion, they are not, provided no separatefee is char!ed for the e!a advice or infor ation, and the e!a


10/22

Auestion is su(ordinate and incidenta to a aHor non7 e!apro( e .

It is ar!e y a atter of de!ree and of custo .

If it *ere usua for one intendin! to erect a (ui din! on his and to

en!a!e a a*yer to advise hi and the architect in respect to the(ui din! code and the i)e, then an architect *ho perfor ed thisfunction *ou d pro(a( y (e considered to (e trespassin! onterritory reserved for icensed attorneys. Li)e*ise, if the industriare ations fie d had (een pre7e pted (y a*yers, or custop aced a a*yer a *ays at the e (o* of the ay personne an.%ut this is not the case. The ost i portant (ody of the industriare ations e#perts are the officers and (usiness a!ents of the

a(or unions and fe* of the are a*yers. $ on! the ar!er corporate e p oyers, it has (een the practice for so e years tode e!ate specia responsi(i ity in e p oyee atters to a

ana!e ent !roup chosen for their practica )no* ed!e and s)iin such atter, and *ithout re!ard to e!a thin)in! or ac) of it.

ore recent y, consu tants i)e the defendants have the sa eservice that the ar!er e p oyers !et fro their o*n specia i edstaff.

The hand in! of industria re ations is !ro*in! into a reco!ni edprofession for *hich appropriate courses are offered (y our

eadin! universities. The court shou d (e very cautious a(outdec arin! JthatK a *idespread, *e 7esta( ished ethod of conductin! (usiness is un a*fu , or that the considera( e c ass of

en *ho custo ari y perfor a certain function have no ri!ht todo so, or that the technica education !iven (y our schoo scannot (e used (y the !raduates in their (usiness.

In deter#ining hether a #an is practicing la , e sho"ld consider his or% for an partic"lar client or c"sto#er, as ahole . I can i a!ine defendant (ein! en!a!ed pri ari y to

advise as to the a* definin! his c ient s o( i!ations to hise p oyees, to !uide his c ient s o( i!ations to his e p oyees, to!uide his c ient a on! the path charted (y a*. This, of course,*ou d (e the practice of the a*. %ut such is not the fact in thecase (efore e. 2efendant s pri ari y efforts are a on!econo ic and psycho o!ica ines. The a* on y provides thefra e *ithin *hich he ust *or), Hust as the onin! code i itsthe )ind of (ui din! the i its the )ind of (ui din! the architect

ay p an. he incidental legal advice or infor#ation defendant #a give, does not transfor# his activities into the practice of la . &et #e add that if, even as a #inor feat"re of his or%, he

perfor#ed services hich are c"sto#aril reserved to #e#!ersof the !ar, he o"ld !e practicing la . =or instance, if as part of a*e fare pro!ra , he dre* e p oyees *i s.

$nother (ranch of defendant s *or) is the representations of thee p oyer in the adHust ent of !rievances and in co ective(ar!ainin!, *ith or *ithout a ediator. This is not per se thepractice of a*. $nyone ay use an a!ent for ne!otiations and

ay se ect an a!ent particu ar y s)i ed in the su(Hect under


11/22

discussion, and the person appointed is free to accept thee p oy ent *hether or not he is a e (er of the (ar. 4ere,ho*ever, there ay (e an e#ception *here the (usiness turnson a Auestion of a*. ost rea estate sa es are ne!otiated (y(ro)ers *ho are not a*yers. %ut if the va ue of the and dependson a disputed ri!ht7of7*ay and the principa ro e of the ne!otiator is to assess the pro(a( e outco e of the dispute and persuadethe opposite party to the sa e opinion, then it ay (e that on y a

a*yer can accept the assi!n ent. Or if a controversy (et*eenan e p oyer and his en !ro*s fro differin! interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is Auite i)e y that defendant shou dnot hand e it. %ut I need not reach a definite conc usion here,since the situation is not presented (y the proofs.

2efendant a so appears to represent the e p oyer (eforead inistrative a!encies of the federa !overn ent, especia y(efore tria e#a iners of the Nationa La(or Re ations %oard. $na!ency of the federa !overn ent, actin! (y virtue of an authority!ranted (y the Con!ress, ay re!u ate the representation of parties (efore such a!ency. The State of Ne* Fersey is *ithoutpo*er to interfere *ith such deter ination or to for(idrepresentation (efore the a!ency (y one *ho the a!encyad its. The ru es of the Nationa La(or Re ations %oard !ive to aparty the ri!ht to appear in person, or (y counse , or (y other representative. Ru es and Re!u ations, Septe (er 66th, 6D:0,S. 519.96. Counse here eans a icensed attorney, and ther representative one not a a*yer. In this phase of his *or),defendant ay a*fu y do *hatever the La(or %oard a o*s,even ar!uin! Auestions pure y e!a . &$uer(acher v. Good, /9 $.5d ;11, cited in Stats)y, Introduction to Para e!a is J6D8:K, atpp. 6/:76/0.'.

6.; =ro the fore!oin!, it can (e said that a person en!a!ed in a a*fu ca in!&*hich ay invo ve )no* ed!e of the a*' is not en!a!ed in the practice of a*provided that+

&a' The e!a Auestion is su(ordinate and incidenta to a aHor non7 e!apro( e .

&(' The services perfor ed are not custo ari y reserved to e (ers of the (ar .

&c' No separate fee is char!ed for the e!a advice or infor ation.

$ these ust (e considered in re ation to the *or) for any particu ar c ient as a*ho e.

6.D. If the person invo ved is (oth a*yer and non7 a*yer, the Code of Professiona Responsi(i ity succint y states the ru e of conduct+

Ru e 6/.1; < $ a*yer *ho is en!a!ed in another profession or occupationconcurrent y *ith the practice of a* sha a)e c ear to his c ient *hether he isactin! as a a*yer or in another capacity.


12/22

6.61. In the present case. the Le!a C inic appears to render *eddin! services&See $nne# "$" Petition'. Services on routine, strai!htfor*ard arria!es, i)esecurin! a arria!e icense, and a)in! arran!e ents *ith a priest or a Hud!e,

ay not constitute practice of a*. 4o*ever, if the pro( e is as co p icated asthat descri(ed in "R# for Le!a Pro( e s" on the Sharon Cuneta7-a((yConcepcion7Richard -o e case, then *hat ay (e invo ved is actua y thepractice of a*. If a non7 a*yer, such as the Le!a C inic, renders such servicesthen it is en!a!ed in the unauthori ed practice of a*.

6.66. The Le!a C inic a so appears to !ive infor ation on divorce, a(sence,annu ent of arria!e and visas &See $nne#es "$" and "%" Petition'. Pure y!ivin! infor ationa ateria s ay not constitute of a*. The (usiness is si i ar tothat of a (oo)store *here the custo er (uys ateria s on the su(Hect anddeter ines on the su(Hect and deter ines (y hi se f *hat courses of action tota)e.

It is not entire y i pro(a( e, ho*ever, that aside fro pure y !ivin! infor ation,the Le!a C inic s para e!a s ay app y the a* to the particu ar pro( e of thec ient, and !ive e!a advice. Such *ou d constitute unauthori ed practice of a*.

It cannot (e c ai ed that the pu( ication of a e!a te#t *hichpu( ication of a e!a te#t *hich purports to say *hat the a* isa ount to e!a practice. $nd the ere fact that the princip es or ru es stated in the te#t ay (e accepted (y a particu ar reader asa so ution to his pro( e does not affect this. . . . . $pparent y it isur!ed that the conHoinin! of these t*o, that is, the te#t and thefor s, *ith advice as to ho* the for s shou d (e fi ed out,constitutes the un a*fu practice of a*. %ut that is the situation*ith any approved and accepted te#ts. 2acey s (oo) is so d tothe pu( ic at ar!e. here is no personal contact or relationship

ith a partic"lar individ"al. or does there exist that relation of confidence and tr"st so necessar to the stat"s of attorne and

client. /IS IS /0 0SS0 IA& O+ &01A& PRA* I*0 2 /0 R0PR0S0 A IO A $ A$VISI 1 O+ A PAR I*(&AR P0RSO I A PAR I*(&AR SI (A IO . $t ost the (oo)assu es to offer !enera advice on co on pro( e s, and doesnot purport to !ive persona advice on a specific pro( epecu iar to a desi!nated or readi y identified person. Si i ar y thedefendant s pu( ication does not purport to !ive persona adviceon a specific pro( e pecu iar to a desi!nated or readi yidentified person in a particu ar situation < in their pu( icationand sa e of the )its, such pu( ication and sa e did not constitutesthe un a*fu practice of a* . . . . There (ein! no e!ai pedi ent under the statute to the sa e of the )it, there *as noproper (asis for the inHunction a!ainst defendant aintainin! anoffice for the purpose of se in! to persons see)in! a divorce,separation, annu ent or separation a!ree ent any printed

ateria or *ritin!s re atin! to atri onia a* or the prohi(itionin the e orandu of odification of the Hud! ent a!ainstdefendant havin! an interest in any pu( ishin! house pu( ishin!his anuscript on divorce and a!ainst his havin! any personacontact *ith any prospective purchaser. The record does fu ysupport, ho*ever, the findin! that for the chan!e of 8/ or 611for the )it, the defendant !ave e!a advice in the course of persona contacts concernin! particu ar pro( e s *hich i!ht


13/22

arise in the preparation and presentation of the purchaser sasserted atri onia cause of action or pursuit of other e!are edies and assistance in the preparation of necessarydocu ents &The inHunction therefore sou!ht to' enHoin conductconstitutin! the practice of a*, particu ar y *ith reference to the!ivin! of advice and counse (y the defendant re atin! to specificpro( e s of particu ar individua s in connection *ith a divorce,separation, annu ent of separation a!ree ent sou!ht andshou d (e affir ed. &State v. Ginder, 9:;, NMS 52 581 J6D89K,cited in Stats)y, s"pra at p. 616.'.

6.65. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strict y non7dia!nostic,non7advisory. "It is not controverted, ho*ever, that if the services "invo ve !ivin!

e!a advice or counse in!," such *ou d constitute practice of a* &Co ent,par. 0.5'. It is in this i!ht that =I2$ su( its that a factua inAuiry ay (enecessary for the Hudicious disposition of this case.

### ### ###

5.61. $nne# "$" ay (e ethica y o(Hectiona( e in that it can !ive the i pression&or perpetuate the *ron! notion' that there is a secret arria!e. Gith a theso e nities, for a ities and other reAuisites of arria!es &See $rtic es 5, et se3 .,=a i y Code', no Phi ippine arria!e can (e secret.

5.66. $nne# "%" ay i)e*ise (e ethica y o(Hectiona( e. The second para!raphthereof &*hich is not necessari y re ated to the first para!raph' fai s to state the

i itation that on y "para e!a services " or " e!a support services", and not e!aservices, are avai a( e." 11

$ prefatory discussion on the eanin! of the phrase "practice of a*" (eco ese#i!ent for the proper deter ination of the issues raised (y the petition at (ar. On

this score, *e note that the c ause "practice of a*" has on! (een the su(Hect of Hudicia construction and interpretation. The courts have aid do*n !eneraprincip es and doctrines e#p ainin! the eanin! and scope of the ter , so e of *hich *e no* ta)e into account.

Practice of a* eans any activity, in or out of court, *hich reAuires theapp ication of a*, e!a procedures, )no* ed!e, trainin! and e#perience. Toen!a!e in the practice of a* is to perfor those acts *hich are characteristic of the profession. -enera y, to practice a* is to !ive advice or render any )ind of service that invo ves e!a )no* ed!e or s)i . 1!

The practice of a* is not i ited to the conduct of cases in court. It inc udes e!aadvice and counse , and the preparation of e!a instru ents and contract (y*hich e!a ri!hts are secured, a thou!h such atter ay or ay not (e pendin!in a court. 13

In the practice of his profession, a icensed attorney at a* !enera y en!a!es inthree principa types of professiona activity+ e!a advice and instructions toc ients to infor the of their ri!hts and o( i!ations, preparation for c ients of


14/22

docu ents reAuirin! )no* ed!e of e!a princip es not possessed (y ordinaryay an, and appearance for c ients (efore pu( ic tri(una s *hich possess po*er

and authority to deter ine ri!hts of ife, i(erty, and property accordin! to a*, inorder to assist in proper interpretation and enforce ent of a*. 1"

Ghen a person participates in the a tria and advertises hi se f as a a*yer, he isin the practice of a*. 15 One *ho confers *ith c ients, advises the as to their e!a ri!hts and then ta)es the (usiness to an attorney and as)s the atter to oo)

after the case in court, is a so practicin! a*. 1# -ivin! advice for co pensationre!ardin! the e!a status and ri!hts of another and the conduct *ith respectthereto constitutes a practice of a*. 17 One *ho renders an opinion as to theproper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that e#tent,practicin! a*. 1$

In the recent case of *a etano vs. 4onsod , 19 after citin! the doctrines in severacases, *e aid do*n the test to deter ine *hether certain acts constitute

"practice of a*," thus+% ac) defines "practice of a*" as+

The rendition of services reAuirin! the )no* ed!e and the app ication of e!aprincip es and techniAue to serve the interest of another *ith his consent. It is not

i ited to appearin! in court, or advisin! and assistin! in the conduct of iti!ation,(ut e (races the preparation of p eadin!s, and other papers incident to actionsand specia proceedin!s, conveyancin!, the preparation of e!a instru ents of a )inds, and the !ivin! of a e!a advice to c ients. It e (races a advice toc ients and a actions ta)en for the in atters connected *ith the a*.

The practice of a* is not i ited to the conduct of cases on court.&Land Tit e $(stract and Trust Co. v. 2*or)en , 65D Ohio St. 59, 6D9N. E. 0/1'. $ person isa so considered to (e in the practice of a* *hen he+

. . . . for va ua( e consideration en!a!es in the (usiness of advisin! person,fir s, associations or corporations as to their ri!ht under the a*, or appears in arepresentative capacity as an advocate in proceedin!s, pendin! or prospective,(efore any court, co issioner, referee, (oard, (ody, co ittee, or co issionconstituted (y a* or authori ed to sett e controversies and there, in suchrepresentative capacity, perfor s any act or acts for the purpose of o(tainin! or defendin! the ri!hts of their c ients under the a*. Other*ise stated, one *ho, ina representative capacity, en!a!es in the (usiness of advisin! c ients as to their ri!hts under the a*, or *hi e so en!a!ed perfor s any act or acts either in court

or outside of court for that purpose, is en!a!ed in the practice of a*. &State e#.re . c)ittric) v. C.S. 2ud ey and Co., 615 S. G. 5d ;D/, 9:1 o. ;/5'.

This Court, in the case of Philippines &a ers Association v . Agrava &61/ Phi .689, 6807688',stated+

The practice of a* is not i ited to the conduct of cases or iti!ation in court ite (races the preparation of p eadin!s and other papers incident to actions andspecia proceedin!s, the ana!e ent of such actions and proceedin!s on (eha f


15/22

of c ients (efore Hud!es and courts, and in addition, conveyin!. In !enera , aadvice to c ients, and a action ta)en for the in atters connected *ith the a*incorporation services, assess ent and conde nation services conte p atin! anappearance (efore a Hudicia (ody, the forec osure of a ort!a!e, enforce ent of a creditor s c ai in (an)ruptcy and inso vency proceedin!s, and conductin!proceedin!s in attach ent, and in atters or estate and !uardianship have (eenhe d to constitute a* practice, as do the preparation and draftin! of e!ainstru ents, *here the *or) done invo ves the deter ination (y the trained e!a

ind of the e!a effect of facts and conditions. &/ $ . Fr. p. 505, 509'.

Practice of a* under odern conditions consists in no s a part of *or)perfor ed outside of any court and havin! no i ediate re ation to proceedin!sin court. It e (races conveyancin!, the !ivin! of e!a advice on a ar!e varietyof su(Hects and the preparation and e#ecution of e!a instru ents coverin! ane#tensive fie d of (usiness and trust re ations and other affairs. $ thou!h thesetransactions ay have no direct connection *ith court proceedin!s, they area *ays su(Hect to (eco e invo ved in iti!ation. They reAuire in any aspects ahi!h de!ree of e!a s)i , a *ide e#perience *ith en and affairs, and !reatcapacity for adaptation to difficu t and co p e# situations. These custo aryfunctions of an attorney or counse or at a* (ear an inti ate re ation to thead inistration of Hustice (y the courts. No va id distinction, so far as concerns theAuestion set forth in the order, can (e dra*n (et*een that part of the *or) of the

a*yer *hich invo ves appearance in court and that part *hich invo ves adviceand draftin! of instru ents in his office. It is of i portance to the *e fare of thepu( ic that these anifo d custo ary functions (e perfor ed (y personspossessed of adeAuate earnin! and s)i , of sound ora character, and actin! ata ti es under the heavy trust o( i!ations to c ients *hich rests upon aattorneys. & oran, Co ents on the Ru es o Court, 3o . 9 J6D89 ed.K, pp. 00/7000, citin! In Re Opinion of the Fustices J assK, 6D: N. E. 969, Auoted in RhodeIs. %ar $ssoc. v. $uto o(i e Service $ssoc. JR.I.K 6D8 $. 69D, 6::'.

The practice of a*, therefore, covers a *ide ran!e of activities in and out of

court. $pp yin! the afore entioned criteria to the case at (ar, *e a!ree *ith theperceptive findin!s and o(servations of the aforestated (ar associations that theactivities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of a*."

The contention of respondent that it ere y offers e!a support services canneither (e serious y considered nor sustained. Said proposition is (e ied (yrespondent s o*n description of the services it has (een offerin!, to *it+

Le!a support services (asica y consists of !ivin! ready infor ation (y trainedpara e!a s to ay en and a*yers, *hich are strict y non7dia!nostic, non7advisory, throu!h the e#tensive use of co puters and odern infor ationtechno o!y in the !atherin!, processin!, stora!e, trans ission and reproduction

of infor ation and co unication, such as co puteri ed e!a researchencodin! and reproduction of docu ents and p eadin!s prepared (y ay en or a*yers docu ent search evidence !atherin! ocatin! parties or *itnesses to a

case fact findin! investi!ations and assistance to ay en in need of (asicinstitutiona services fro !overn ent or non7!overn ent a!encies, i)e (irth,

arria!e, property, or (usiness re!istrations educationa or e p oy ent recordsor certifications, o(tainin! docu entation i)e c earances, passports, oca or forei!n visas !ivin! infor ation a(out a*s of other countries that they ay findusefu , i)e forei!n divorce, arria!e or adoption a*s that they can avai of preparatory to e i!ration to the forei!n country, and other atters that do not


16/22

invo ve representation of c ients in court desi!nin! and insta in! co puter syste s, pro!ra s, or soft*are for the efficient ana!e ent of a* offices,corporate e!a depart ents, courts and other entities en!a!ed in dispensin! or ad inisterin! e!a services. !%

Ghi e so e of the services (ein! offered (y respondent corporation ere yinvo ve echanica and technica )no*ho*, such as the insta ation of co puter syste s and pro!ra s for the efficient ana!e ent of a* offices, or theco puteri ation of research aids and ateria s, these *i not suffice to Hustify ane#ception to the !enera ru e.

Ghat is pa pa( y c ear is that respondent corporation !ives out e!a infor ationto ay en and a*yers. Its contention that such function is non7advisory and non7dia!nostic is ore apparent than rea . In providin! infor ation, for e#a p e,a(out forei!n a*s on arria!e, divorce and adoption, it strains the credu ity of this Court that a the respondent corporation *i si p y do is oo) for the a*,furnish a copy thereof to the c ient, and stop there as if it *ere ere y a

(oo)store. Gith its attorneys and so ca ed para e!a s, it *i necessari y have toe#p ain to the c ient the intricacies of the a* and advise hi or her on the proper course of action to (e ta)en as ay (e provided for (y said a*. That is *hat itsadvertise ents represent and for the *hich services it *i conseAuent y char!eand (e paid. That activity fa s sAuare y *ithin the Hurisprudentia definition of "practice of a*." Such a conc usion *i not (e a tered (y the fact that respondentcorporation does not represent c ients in court since a* practice, as the *ei!htof authority ho ds, is not i ited ere y !ivin! e!a advice, contract draftin! andso forth.

The aforesaid conc usion is further stren!thened (y an artic e pu( ished in the

Fanuary 69, 6DD6 issue of the Star*ee)@The Sunday a!a ine of the Phi ippinesStar, entit ed "R# for Le!a Pro( e s," *here an insi!ht into the structure, ainpurpose and operations of respondent corporation *as !iven (y its o*n"proprietor," $tty. Ro!e io P. No!a es+

This is the )ind of (usiness that is transacted everyday at The Le!a C inic, *ithoffices on the seventh f oor of the 3ictoria %ui din! a on! U. N. $venue in ani a.No atter *hat the c ient s pro( e , and even if it is as co p icated as theCuneta7Concepcion do estic situation, $tty. No!a es and his staff of a*yers,*ho, i)e doctors are "specia ists" in various fie ds can ta)e care of it. The Le!aC inic, Inc. has specia ists in ta#ation and cri ina a*, edico7 e!a pro( e s,

a(or, iti!ation, and fa i y a*. These specia ist are (ac)ed up (y a (attery of para e!a s, counse ors and attorneys.

$tty. No!a es set up The Le!a C inic in 6D;:. Inspired (y the trend in the edicafie d to*ard specia i ation, it caters to c ients *ho cannot afford the services of the (i! a* fir s.

The Le!a C inic has re!u ar and *a )7in c ients. "*hen they co e, *e start (yana y in! the pro( e . That s *hat doctors do a so. They as) you ho* youcontracted *hat s (otherin! you, they ta)e your te perature, they o(serve you


17/22

for the sy pto s and so on. That s ho* *e operate, too. $nd once the pro( ehas (een cate!ori ed, then it s referred to one of our specia ists.

There are cases *hich do not, in edica ter s, reAuire sur!ery or fo o*7uptreat ent. These The Le!a C inic disposes of in a atter of inutes. "Thin!s i)epreparin! a si p e deed of sa e or an affidavit of oss can (e ta)en care of (y our

staff or, if this *ere a hospita the residents or the interns. Ge can ta)e care of these atters on a *hi e you *ait (asis. $!ain, )un! (a!a sa hospita , out7patient, hindi )ai an!an! a7confine. It s Hust i)e a co on co d or diarrhea,"e#p ains $tty. No!a es.

Those cases *hich reAuires ore e#tensive "treat ent" are dea t *ithaccordin! y. "If you had a rich re ative *ho died and na ed you her so e heir, andyou stand to inherit i ions of pesos of property, *e *ou d refer you to aspecia ist in ta#ation. There *ou d (e rea estate ta#es and arrears *hich *ou dneed to (e put in order, and your re ative is even ta#ed (y the state for the ri!htto transfer her property, and on y a specia ist in ta#ation *ou d (e proper y trainedto dea *ith the pro( e . No*, if there *ere other heirs contestin! your richre atives *i , then you *ou d need a iti!ator, *ho )no*s ho* to arran!e the

pro( e for presentation in court, and !ather evidence to support the case.!1

That fact that the corporation e p oys para e!a s to carry out its services is notcontro in!. Ghat is i portant is that it is en!a!ed in the practice of a* (y virtueof the nature of the services it renders *hich there(y (rin!s it *ithin the a (it of the statutory prohi(itions a!ainst the advertise ents *hich it has caused to (epu( ished and are no* assai ed in this proceedin!.

=urther, as correct y and appropriate y pointed out (y the U.P. GILOCI, saidreported facts sufficient y esta( ish that the ain purpose of respondent is toserve as a one7stop7shop of sorts for various e!a pro( e s *herein a c ient ay

avai of e!a services fro si p e docu entation to co p e# iti!ation andcorporate underta)in!s. ost of these services are undou(ted y (eyond thedo ain of para e!a s, (ut rather, are e#c usive functions of a*yers en!a!ed inthe practice of a*. !!

It shou d (e noted that in our Hurisdiction the services (ein! offered (y privaterespondent *hich constitute practice of a* cannot (e perfor ed (y para e!a s.On y a person du y ad itted as a e (er of the (ar, or hereafter ad itted assuch in accordance *ith the provisions of the Ru es of Court, and *ho is in !oodand re!u ar standin!, is entit ed to practice a*. !3

Pu( ic po icy reAuires that the practice of a* (e i ited to those individua s founddu y Aua ified in education and character. The per issive ri!ht conferred on thea*yers is an individua and i ited privi e!e su(Hect to *ithdra*a if he fai s toaintain proper standards of ora and professiona conduct. The purpose is to

protect the pu( ic, the court, the c ient and the (ar fro the inco petence or dishonesty of those un icensed to practice a* and not su(Hect to the discip inarycontro of the court. !"


18/22

The sa e ru e is o(served in the a erican Hurisdiction *herefro respondent*ou d *ish to dra* support for his thesis. The doctrines there a so stress that thepractice of a* is i ited to those *ho eet the reAuire ents for, and have (eenad itted to, the (ar, and various statutes or ru es specifica y so provide. !5 Thepractice of a* is not a a*fu (usiness e#cept for e (ers of the (ar *ho have

co p ied *ith a the conditions reAuired (y statute and the ru es of court. On ythose persons are a o*ed to practice a* *ho, (y reason of attain entsprevious y acAuired throu!h education and study, have (een reco!ni ed (y thecourts as possessin! profound )no* ed!e of e!a science entit in! the toadvise, counse *ith, protect, or defend the ri!hts c ai s, or ia(i ities of their c ients, *ith respect to the construction, interpretation, operation and effect of

a*. !# The Hustification for e#c udin! fro the practice of a* those not ad itted tothe (ar is found, not in the protection of the (ar fro co petition, (ut in theprotection of the pu( ic fro (ein! advised and represented in e!a atters (yinco petent and unre ia( e persons over *ho the Hudicia depart ent cane#ercise itt e contro . !7

Ge have to necessari y and definite y reHect respondent s position that theconcept in the United States of para e!a s as an occupation separate fro the

a* profession (e adopted in this Hurisdiction. Ghatever ay (e its erits,respondent cannot (ut (e a*are that this shou d first (e a atter for Hudicia ru esor e!is ative action, and not of uni atera adoption as it has done.

Para e!a s in the United States are trained professiona s. $s ad itted (yrespondent, there are schoo s and universities there *hich offer studies andde!rees in para e!a education, *hi e there are none in the Phi ippines. !$ $s theconcept of the "para e!a s" or " e!a assistant" evo ved in the United States,

standards and !uide ines a so evo ved to protect the !enera pu( ic. One of theaHor standards or !uide ines *as deve oped (y the $ erican %ar $ssociation*hich set up -uide ines for the $pprova of Le!a $ssistant Education Pro!ra s&6D89'. Le!is ation has even (een proposed to certify e!a assistants. There area so associations of para e!a s in the United States *ith their o*n code of professiona ethics, such as the Nationa $ssociation of Le!a $ssistants, Inc. andthe $ erican Para e!a $ssociation. !9

In the Phi ippines, *e sti have a restricted concept and i ited acceptance of *hat ay (e considered as para e!a service. $s pointed out (y =I2$, so epersons not du y icensed to practice a* are or have (een a o*ed i itedrepresentation in (eha f of another or to render e!a services, (ut such a o*a( eservices are i ited in scope and e#tent (y the a*, ru es or re!u ations !rantin!per ission therefor. 3%

$ccordin! y, *e have adopted the $ erican Hudicia po icy that, in the a(sence of constitutiona or statutory authority, a person *ho has not (een ad itted as anattorney cannot practice a* for the proper ad inistration of Hustice cannot (ehindered (y the un*arranted intrusion of an unauthori ed and uns)i ed person


19/22

into the practice of a*. 31 That po icy shou d continue to (e one of encoura!in!persons *ho are unsure of their e!a ri!hts and re edies to see) e!aassistance on y fro persons icensed to practice a* in the state. 3!

$nent the issue on the va idity of the Auestioned advertise ents, the Code of

Professiona Responsi(i ity provides that a a*yer in a)in! )no*n his e!aservices sha use on y true, honest, fair, di!nified and o(Hective infor ation or state ent of facts. 33 4e is not supposed to use or per it the use of any fa se,fraudu ent, is eadin!, deceptive, undi!nified, se f7 audatory or unfair state entor c ai re!ardin! his Aua ifications or e!a services. 3" Nor sha he pay or !iveso ethin! of va ue to representatives of the ass edia in anticipation of, or inreturn for, pu( icity to attract e!a (usiness. 35 Prior to the adoption of the code of Professiona Responsi(i ity, the Canons of Professiona Ethics had a so *arnedthat a*yers shou d not resort to indirect advertise ents for professionae p oy ent, such as furnishin! or inspirin! ne*spaper co ents, or procurin!his photo!raph to (e pu( ished in connection *ith causes in *hich the a*yer has

(een or is en!a!ed or concernin! the anner of their conduct, the a!nitude of the interest invo ved, the i portance of the a*yer s position, and a other i)ese f7 audation.3#

The standards of the e!a profession conde n the a*yer s advertise ent of hista ents. $ a*yer cannot, *ithout vio atin! the ethics of his profession. advertisehis ta ents or s)i as in a anner si i ar to a erchant advertisin! his !oods. 37The prescription a!ainst advertisin! of e!a services or so icitation of e!a(usiness rests on the funda enta postu ate that the that the practice of a* is aprofession. Thus, in the case of The $irector of Religio"s Affairs. vs. 0stanislaoR. Ba ot 3$ an advertise ent, si i ar to those of respondent *hich are invo ved in

the present proceedin!,39

*as he d to constitute i proper advertisin! or so icitation.

The pertinent part of the decision therein reads+

It is undenia( e that the advertise ent in Auestion *as a f a!rant vio ation (y therespondent of the ethics of his profession, it (ein! a (ra en so icitation of (usiness fro the pu( ic. Section 5/ of Ru e 658 e#press y provides a on! other thin!s that "the practice of so icitin! cases at a* for the purpose of !ain, either persona y or thru paid a!ents or (ro)ers, constitutes a practice." It is hi!h yunethica for an attorney to advertise his ta ents or s)i as a erchant advertiseshis *ares. La* is a profession and not a trade. The a*yer de!rades hi se f andhis profession *ho stoops to and adopts the practices of ercanti is (yadvertisin! his services or offerin! the to the pu( ic. $s a e (er of the (ar, hedefi es the te p e of Hustice *ith ercenary activities as the oney7chan!ers of o d defi ed the te p e of Fehovah. "The ost *orthy and effective advertise entpossi( e, even for a youn! a*yer, . . . . is the esta( ish ent of a *e 7 eritedreputation for professiona capacity and fide ity to trust. This cannot (e forced (ut

ust (e the outco e of character and conduct." &Canon 58, Code of Ethics.'.

Ge repeat, the canon of the profession te us that the (est advertisin! possi( efor a a*yer is a *e 7 erited reputation for professiona capacity and fide ity to


20/22

trust, *hich ust (e earned as the outco e of character and conduct. -ood andefficient service to a c ient as *e as to the co unity has a *ay of pu( ici in!itse f and catchin! pu( ic attention. That pu( icity is a nor a (y7product of effective service *hich is ri!ht and proper. $ !ood and reputa( e a*yer needs noartificia sti u us to !enerate it and to a!nify his success. 4e easi y sees the

difference (et*een a nor a (y7product of a( e service and the un*ho eso eresu t of propa!anda. "%

Of course, not a types of advertisin! or so icitation are prohi(ited. The canons of the profession enu erate e#ceptions to the ru e a!ainst advertisin! or so icitationand define the e#tent to *hich they ay (e underta)en. The e#ceptions are of t*o (road cate!ories, na e y, those *hich are e#press y a o*ed and those*hich are necessari y i p ied fro the restrictions. "1

The first of such e#ceptions is the pu( ication in reputa( e a* ists, in a anner consistent *ith the standards of conduct i posed (y the canons, of (rief

(io!raphica and infor ative data. "Such data ust not (e is eadin! and ayinc ude on y a state ent of the a*yer s na e and the na es of his professionaassociates addresses, te ephone nu (ers, ca( e addresses (ranches of a*practiced date and p ace of (irth and ad ission to the (ar schoo s attended *ithdates of !raduation, de!rees and other educationa distinction pu( ic or Auasi7pu( ic offices posts of honor e!a authorships e!a teachin! positions

e (ership and offices in (ar associations and co ittees thereof, in e!a andscientific societies and e!a fraternities the fact of istin!s in other reputa( e a*

ists the na es and addresses of references and, *ith their *ritten consent, thena es of c ients re!u ar y represented." "!

The a* ist ust (e a reputa( e a* ist pu( ished pri ari y for that purpose itcannot (e a ere supp e enta feature of a paper, a!a ine, trade Hourna or periodica *hich is pu( ished principa y for other purposes. =or that reason, a

a*yer ay not proper y pu( ish his (rief (io!raphica and infor ative data in adai y paper, a!a ine, trade Hourna or society pro!ra . Nor ay a a*yer per ithis na e to (e pu( ished in a a* ist the conduct, ana!e ent or contents of *hich are ca cu ated or i)e y to deceive or inHure the pu( ic or the (ar, or to o*er the di!nity or standin! of the profession. "3

The use of an ordinary si p e professiona card is a so per itted. The card aycontain on y a state ent of his na e, the na e of the a* fir *hich he isconnected *ith, address, te ephone nu (er and specia (ranch of a* practiced.The pu( ication of a si p e announce ent of the openin! of a a* fir or of chan!es in the partnership, associates, fir na e or office address, (ein! for theconvenience of the profession, is not o(Hectiona( e. 4e ay i)e*ise have hisna e isted in a te ephone directory (ut not under a desi!nation of specia(ranch of a*. ""


21/22

3eri y, ta)in! into consideration the nature and contents of the advertise ents for *hich respondent is (ein! ta)en to tas), *hich even inc udes a Auotation of thefees char!ed (y said respondent corporation for services rendered, *e find andso ho d that the sa e definite y do not and conc usive y cannot fa under any of the a(ove7 entioned e#ceptions.

The ru in! in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona , "5 *hich isrepeated y invo)ed and constitutes the Hustification re ied upon (y respondent, iso(vious y not app ica( e to the case at (ar. =ore ost is the fact that thediscip inary ru e invo ved in said case e#p icit y a o*s a a*yer, as an e#ceptionto the prohi(ition a!ainst advertise ents (y a*yers, to pu( ish a state ent of

e!a fees for an initia consu tation or the avai a(i ity upon reAuest of a *rittenschedu e of fees or an esti ate of the fee to (e char!ed for the specific services.No such e#ception is provided for, e#press y or i p ied y, *hether in our for er Canons of Professiona Ethics or the present Code of ProfessionaResponsi(i ity. %esides, even the discip inary ru e in the Bates case contains a

proviso that the e#ceptions stated therein are "not app ica( e in any state un essand unti it is i p e ented (y such authority in that state." "# This !oes to sho*that an e#ception to the !enera ru e, such as that (ein! invo)ed (y hereinrespondent, can (e ade on y if and *hen the canons e#press y provide for suchan e#ception. Other*ise, the prohi(ition stands, as in the case at (ar.

It (ears ention that in a survey conducted (y the $ erican %ar $ssociationafter the decision in %ates, on the attitude of the pu( ic a(out a*yers after vie*in! te evision co ercia s, it *as found that pu( ic opinion droppedsi!nificant y "7 *ith respect to these characteristics of a*yers+

Trust*orthy fro 86 to 6:Professiona fro 86 to 6:4onest fro 0/ to 6:2i!nified fro :/ to 6:

Second y, it is our fir (e ief that *ith the present situation of our e!a and Hudicia syste s, to a o* the pu( ication of advertise ents of the )ind used (yrespondent *ou d on y serve to a!!ravate *hat is a ready a deterioratin! pu( icopinion of the e!a profession *hose inte!rity has consistent y (een under attac)

ate y (y edia and the co unity in !enera . $t this point in ti e, it is of ut osti portance in the face of such ne!ative, even if unfair, criticis s at ti es, toadopt and aintain that eve of professiona conduct *hich is (eyond reproach,

and to e#ert a efforts to re!ain the hi!h estee for er y accorded to the e!aprofession.

In su , it is undou(ted y a is(ehavior on the part of the a*yer, su(Hect todiscip inary action, to advertise his services e#cept in a o*a( e instances "$ or toaid a ay an in the unauthori ed practice of a*. "9 Considerin! that $tty. Ro!e ioP. No!a es, *ho is the pri e incorporator, aHor stoc)ho der and proprietor of The Le!a C inic, Inc. is a e (er of the Phi ippine %ar, he is here(y


22/22

repri anded, *ith a *arnin! that a repetition of the sa e or si i ar acts *hichare invo ved in this proceedin! *i (e dea t *ith ore severe y.

Ghi e *e dee it necessary that the Auestion as to the e!a ity or i e!a ity of thepurpose@s for *hich the Le!a C inic, Inc. *as created shou d (e passed upon

and deter ined, *e are constrained to refrain fro apsin! into an o(iter on thataspect since it is c ear y not *ithin the adHudicative para eters of the presentproceedin! *hich is ere y ad inistrative in nature. It is, of course, i perativethat this atter (e pro pt y deter ined, a (eit in a different proceedin! andforu , since, under the present state of our a* and Hurisprudence, a corporationcannot (e or!ani ed for or en!a!e in the practice of a* in this country. Thisinterdiction, Hust i)e the ru e a!ainst unethica advertisin!, cannot (e su(verted(y e p oyin! so e so7ca ed para e!a s supposed y renderin! the a e!edsupport services.

The re edy for the apparent (reach of this prohi(ition (y respondent is the

concern and province of the So icitor -enera *ho can institute thecorrespondin! 3"o arranto action, 5% after due ascertain ent of the factua(ac)!round and (asis for the !rant of respondent s corporate charter, in i!ht of the putative isuse thereof. That spin7off fro the instant (ar atter is referred tothe So icitor -enera for such action as ay (e necessary under thecircu stances.

$CCOR2IN-LM, the Court Reso ved to RESTR$IN and ENFOIN hereinrespondent, The Le!a C inic, Inc., fro issuin! or causin! the pu( ication or disse ination of any advertise ent in any for *hich is of the sa e or si i ar tenor and purpose as $nne#es "$" and "%" of this petition, and fro conductin!,

direct y or indirect y, any activity, operation or transaction proscri(ed (y a* or theCode of Professiona Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this reso ution (efurnished the Inte!rated %ar of the Phi ippines, the Office of the %ar Confidantand the Office of the So icitor -enera for appropriate action in accordancehere*ith.

arvasa, *.J., *r"z, +eliciano, Padilla, Bidin, 1ri5o-A3"ino, $avide, Jr., Ro#ero,ocon, Bellosillo, 4elo and 6"iason, JJ., conc"r

Documents

CASE OF ULEP - LEGAL ETHICS