Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993 MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs. THE LE AL CLINIC, INC., respondent. R E SO L !"ON

RE ALA!O, J.: Petitioner pra#s this Court $to order the respondent to cease and desist fro% issuin& advertise%ents si%ilar to or of the sa%e tenor as that of anne'es $A$ and $B$ (of said petition) and to perpetuall# prohibit persons or entities fro% %a*in& advertise%ents pertainin& to the e'ercise of the la+ profession other than those allo+ed b# la+.$ !he advertise%ents co%plained of b# herein petitioner are as follo+s, Annex A
SECRE! MARR"A-E. P/01.11 for a valid %arria&e. "nfo on 2"3ORCE. ABSENCE. ANN LMEN!. 3"SA.

!4E Please call, /5671808 LE-AL /568595, /5551:6 CL"N"C, "NC. ;,91 a%< 0,11 p% 87=lr. 3ictoria Bld&., N Ave., Mla. Annex B - AM 2"3ORCE. 2ON PAR>"NSON an Attorne# in -ua%, is &ivin& =REE BOO>S on -ua% 2ivorce throu&h !he Le&al Clinic be&innin& Monda# to =rida# durin& office hours. -ua% divorce. Annul%ent of Marria&e. "%%i&ration Proble%s, 3isa E't. ?uota@Non7 Auota Res. B Special RetireeCs 3isa. 2eclaration of Absence. Re%arria&e to =ilipina =iancees. Adoption. "nvest%ent in the Phil. S@=orei&n 3isa for =ilipina Spouse@Children. Call Marivic.

!4E 8= 3ictoria Bld&. :5D N Ave., LE-AL Er%ita, Manila nr. "NC. 1 !el. /5678595E /56785/6E /55751:6E /5671808

S E%bass# CL"N"C,

"t is the sub%ission of petitioner that the advertise%ents above reproduced are cha%pterous, unethical, de%eanin& of the la+ profession, and destructive of the confidence of the co%%unit# in the inte&rit# of the %e%bers of the bar and that, as a %e%ber of the le&al profession, he is asha%ed and offended b# the said advertise%ents, hence the reliefs sou&ht in his petition as hereinbefore Auoted. "n its ans+er to the petition, respondent ad%its the fact of publication of said advertise%ent at its instance, but clai%s that it is not en&a&ed in the practice of la+ but in the renderin& of $le&al support services$ throu&h parale&als +ith the use of %odern co%puters and electronic %achines. Respondent further ar&ues that assu%in& that the services advertised are le&al services, the act of advertisin& these services should be allo+ed supposedl# in the li&ht of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona , " reportedl# decided b# the nited States Supre%e Court on Fune 8, 6D88. Considerin& the critical i%plications on the le&al profession of the issues raised herein, +e reAuired the (6) "nte&rated Bar of the Philippines ("BP), (5) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (9) Philippine La+#ersC Association (PLA), (:) .P. Go%ens La+#ersC Circle (G"LOC"), (/) Go%en La+#ers Association of the Philippines (GLAP), and (0) =ederacion "nternational de Abo&adas (="2A) to sub%it their respective position papers on the controvers# and, thereafter, their %e%oranda. 3 !he said bar associations readil# responded and e'tended their valuable services and cooperation of +hich this Court ta*es note +ith appreciation and &ratitude. !he %ain issues posed for resolution before the Court are +hether or not the services offered b# respondent, !he Le&al Clinic, "nc., as advertised b# it constitutes practice of la+ and, in either case, +hether the sa%e can properl# be the subHect of the advertise%ents herein co%plained of. Before proceedin& +ith an in7depth anal#sis of the %erits of this case, +e dee% it proper and enli&htenin& to present hereunder e'cerpts fro% the respective position papers adopted b# the afore%entioned bar associations and the %e%oranda sub%itted b# the% on the issues involved in this bar %atter. 6. Integrated Bar of the Philippines, ''' ''' ''' Not+ithstandin& the subtle %anner b# +hich respondent endeavored to distin&uish the t+o ter%s, i.e., $le&al support services$ vis-a-vis $le&al services$, co%%on sense +ould readil# dictate that the sa%e are essentiall# +ithout substantial distinction. =or +ho could den# that docu%ent search, evidence &atherin&, assistance to la#%an in need of basic institutional services fro% &overn%ent or non7&overn%ent a&encies li*e birth, %arria&e, propert#, or business re&istration, obtainin& docu%ents li*e clearance, passports, local or forei&n visas, constitutes practice of la+. ''' ''' ''' !he "nte&rated Bar of the Philippines ("BP) does not +ish to %a*e issue +ith respondentCs forei&n citations. Suffice it to state that the "BP has %ade its position %anifest, to +it, that it stron&l# opposes the vie+ espoused b# respondent (to the effect that toda# it is alri&ht to advertise oneCs le&al services).

!he "BP accordin&l# declares in no uncertain ter%s its opposition to respondentCs act of establishin& a $le&al clinic$ and of conco%itantl# advertisin& the sa%e throu&h ne+spaper publications.
!he "BP +ould therefore invo*e the ad%inistrative supervision of this 4onorable Court to perpetuall# restrain respondent fro% underta*in& hi&hl# unethical activities in the field of la+ practice as aforedescribed. #

''' ''' ''' A. !he use of the na%e $!he Le&al Clinic, "nc.$ &ives the i%pression that respondent corporation is bein& operated b# la+#ers and that it renders le&al services. Ghile the respondent repeatedl# denies that it offers le&al services to the public, the advertise%ents in Auestion &ive the i%pression that respondent is offerin& le&al services. !he Petition in fact si%pl# assu%es this to be so, as earlier %entioned, apparentl# because this (is) the effect that the advertise%ents have on the readin& public. !he i%pression created b# the advertise%ents in Auestion can be traced, first of all, to the ver# na%e bein& used b# respondent < $!he Le&al Clinic, "nc.$ Such a na%e, it is respectfull# sub%itted connotes the renderin& of le&al services for le&al proble%s, Hust li*e a %edical clinic connotes %edical services for %edical proble%s. More i%portantl#, the ter% $Le&al Clinic$ connotes la+#ers, as the ter% %edical clinic connotes doctors. =urther%ore, the respondentCs na%e, as published in the advertise%ents subHect of the present case, appears +ith (the) scale(s) of Hustice, +hich all the %ore reinforces the i%pression that it is bein& operated b# %e%bers of the bar and that it offers le&al services. "n addition, the advertise%ents in Auestion appear +ith a picture and na%e of a person bein& represented as a la+#er fro% -ua%, and this practicall# re%oves +hatever doubt %a# still re%ain as to the nature of the service or services bein& offered. "t thus beco%es irrelevant +hether respondent is %erel# offerin& $le&al support services$ as clai%ed b# it, or +hether it offers le&al services as an# la+#er activel# en&a&ed in la+ practice does. And it beco%es unnecessar# to %a*e a distinction bet+een $le&al services$ and $le&al support services,$ as the respondent +ould have it. !he advertise%ents in Auestion leave no roo% for doubt in the %inds of the readin& public that le&al services are bein& offered b# la+#ers, +hether true or not. B. !he advertise%ents in Auestion are %eant to induce the perfor%ance of acts contrar# to la+, %orals, public order and public polic#. "t %a# be conceded that, as the respondent clai%s, the advertise%ents in Auestion are onl# %eant to infor% the &eneral public of the services bein& offered b# it. Said advertise%ents, ho+ever, e%phasiIe to -ua% divorce, and an# la+ student ou&ht to *no+ that under the =a%il# Code, there is onl# one instance +hen a forei&n divorce is reco&niIed, and that is, Article 50. . . .

Ghere a %arria&e bet+een a =ilipino citiIen and a forei&ner is validl# celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validl o!tained a!road ! the alien spo"se capacitating hi# or her to re#arr , the =ilipino spouse shall have capacit# to re%arr# under Philippine La+. "t %ust not be for&otten, too, that the =a%il# Code (defines) a %arria&e as follo+s, Article 6. Marria&e is special contract of per#anent "nion bet+een a %an and +o%an entered into accordance +ith la+ for the establish%ent of conHu&al and fa%il# life. It is the fo"ndation of the fa#il and an inviola!le social instit"tion +hose nature, conseAuences, and incidents are &overned b# la+ and not subHect to stipulation, e'cept that %arria&e settle%ents %a# fi' the propert# relation durin& the %arria&e +ithin the li%its provided b# this Code. B# si%pl# readin& the Auestioned advertise%ents, it is obvious that the %essa&e bein& conve#ed is that =ilipinos can avoid the le&al conseAuences of a %arria&e celebrated in accordance +ith our la+, b# si%pl# &oin& to -ua% for a divorce. !his is not onl# %isleadin&, but encoura&es, or serves to induce, violation of Philippine la+. At the ver# least, this can be considered $the dar* side$ of le&al practice, +here certain defects in Philippine la+s are e'ploited for the sa*e of profit. At +orst, this is outri&ht %alpractice. Rule 6.15. < A la+#er shall not counsel or abet activities ai%ed at defiance of the la+ or at lessenin& confidence in the le&al s#ste%. "n addition, it %a# also be relevant to point out that advertise%ents such as that sho+n in Anne' $A$ of the Petition, +hich contains a cartoon of a %otor vehicle +ith the +ords $Fust Married$ on its bu%per and see%s to address those plannin& a $secret %arria&e,$ if not su&&estin& a $secret %arria&e,$ %a*es li&ht of the $special contract of per%anent union,$ the inviolable social institution,$ +hich is ho+ the =a%il# Code describes %arria&e, obviousl# to e%phasiIe its sanctit# and inviolabilit#. Gorse, this particular advertise%ent appears to encoura&e %arria&es celebrated in secrec#, +hich is su&&estive of i%%oral publication of applications for a %arria&e license. "f the article $R' for Le&al Proble%s$ is to be revie+ed, it can readil# be concluded that the above i%pressions one %a# &ather fro% the advertise%ents in Auestion are accurate. !he Sharon Cuneta7-abb# Concepcion e'a%ple alone confir%s +hat the advertise%ents su&&est. 4ere it can be seen that cri%inal acts are bein& encoura&ed or co%%itted (a bi&a%ous %arria&e in 4on& >on& or Las 3e&as) +ith i%punit# si%pl# because the Hurisdiction of Philippine courts does not e'tend to the place +here the cri%e is co%%itted. Even if it be assu%ed, arg"endo, (that) the $le&al support services$ respondent offers do not constitute le&al services as co%%onl# understood, the advertise%ents in Auestion &ive the i%pression that respondent corporation is bein& operated b# la+#ers and that it offers le&al services, as earlier discussed. !hus, the onl# lo&ical conseAuence is that, in the e#es of an ordinar# ne+spaper reader, %e%bers of the bar the%selves are encoura&in& or inducin& the perfor%ance of acts +hich are

contrar# to la+, %orals, &ood custo%s and the public &ood, thereb# destro#in& and de%eanin& the inte&rit# of the Bar. ''' ''' ''' "t is respectfull# sub%itted that respondent should be enHoined fro% causin& the publication of the advertise%ents in Auestion, or an# other advertise%ents si%ilar thereto. "t is also sub%itted that respondent should be prohibited fro% further perfor%in& or offerin& so%e of the services it presentl# offers, or, at the ver# least, fro% offerin& such services to the public in &eneral. !he "BP is a+are of the fact that providin& co%puteriIed le&al research, electronic data &atherin&, stora&e and retrieval, standardiIed le&al for%s, investi&ators for &atherin& of evidence, and li*e services +ill &reatl# benefit the le&al profession and should not be stifled but instead encoura&ed. 4o+ever, +hen the conduct of such business b# non7%e%bers of the Bar encroaches upon the practice of la+, there can be no choice but to prohibit such business. Ad%ittedl#, %an# of the services involved in the case at bar can be better perfor%ed b# specialists in other fields, such as co%puter e'perts, +ho b# reason of their havin& devoted ti%e and effort e'clusivel# to such field cannot fulfill the e'actin& reAuire%ents for ad%ission to the Bar. !o prohibit the% fro% $encroachin&$ upon the le&al profession +ill den# the profession of the &reat benefits and advanta&es of %odern technolo&#. "ndeed, a la+#er usin& a co%puter +ill be doin& better than a la+#er usin& a t#pe+riter, even if both are (eAual) in s*ill. Both the Bench and the Bar, ho+ever, should be careful not to allo+ or tolerate the ille&al practice of la+ in an# for%, not onl# for the protection of %e%bers of the Bar but also, and %ore i%portantl#, for the protection of the public. !echnolo&ical develop%ent in the profession %a# be encoura&ed +ithout toleratin&, but instead ensurin& prevention of ille&al practice. !here %i&ht be nothin& obHectionable if respondent is allo+ed to perfor% all of its services, but onl# if such services are %ade available e'clusivel# to %e%bers of the Bench and Bar. Respondent +ould then be offerin& technical assistance, not le&al services. Alternativel#, the %ore difficult tas* of carefull# distin&uishin& bet+een +hich service %a# be offered to the public in &eneral and +hich should be %ade available e'clusivel# to %e%bers of the Bar %a# be underta*en. !his, ho+ever, %a# reAuire further proceedin&s because of the factual considerations involved. "t %ust be e%phasiIed, ho+ever, that so%e of respondentCs services ou&ht to be prohibited outri&ht, such as acts +hich tend to su&&est or induce celebration abroad of %arria&es +hich are bi&a%ous or other+ise ille&al and void under Philippine la+. Ghile respondent %a# not be prohibited fro% si%pl# disse%inatin& infor%ation re&ardin& such %atters, it %ust be reAuired to include, in the infor%ation &iven, a disclai%er that it is not authoriIed to practice la+, that certain course of action %a# be ille&al under Philippine la+, that it is not authoriIed or capable of renderin& a le&al opinion, that a la+#er should be consulted before decidin& on +hich course of action to ta*e, and that it cannot reco%%end an# particular la+#er +ithout subHectin& itself to possible sanctions for ille&al practice of la+.

"f respondent is allo+ed to advertise, advertisin& should be directed e'clusivel# at %e%bers of the Bar, +ith a clear and un%ista*able disclai%er that it is not authoriIed to practice la+ or perfor% le&al services.
!he benefits of bein& assisted b# parale&als cannot be i&nored. But nobod# should be allo+ed to represent hi%self as a $parale&al$ for profit, +ithout such ter% bein& clearl# defined b# rule or re&ulation, and +ithout an# adeAuate and effective %eans of re&ulatin& his activities. Also, la+ practice in a corporate for% %a# prove to be advanta&eous to the le&al profession, but before allo+ance of such practice %a# be considered, the corporationCs Article of "ncorporation and B#7la+s %ust confor% to each and ever# provision of the Code of Professional Responsibilit# and the Rules of Court. 5

5. Philippine Bar Association, ''' ''' '''. Respondent asserts that it $is not en&a&ed in the practice of la+ but en&a&ed in &ivin& le&al support services to la+#ers and la#%en, throu&h e'perienced parale&als, +ith the use of %odern co%puters and electronic %achines$ (pars. 5 and 9, Co%%ent). !his is absurd. nAuestionabl#, respondentCs acts of holdin& out itself to the public under the trade na%e $!he Le&al Clinic, "nc.,$ and solicitin& e%plo#%ent for its enu%erated services fall +ithin the real% of a practice +hich thus #ields itself to the re&ulator# po+ers of the Supre%e Court. =or respondent to sa# that it is %erel# en&a&ed in parale&al +or* is to stretch credulit#. RespondentCs o+n co%%ercial advertise%ent +hich announces a certain Att . $on Par%inson to be handlin& the fields of la+ belies its pretense. =ro% all indications, respondent $!he Le&al Clinic, "nc.$ is offerin& and renderin& legal services throu&h its reserve of la+#ers. "t has been held that the practice of la+ is not li%ited to the conduct of cases in court, but includes 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 Martin, Le&al and Fudicial Ethics, 6D;: ed., p. 9D).
"t is apt to recall that onl# nat"ral persons can en&a&e in the practice of la+, and such li%itation cannot be evaded b# a corporation e%plo#in& co%petent la+#ers to practice for it. Obviousl#, this is the sche%e or device b# +hich respondent $!he Le&al Clinic, "nc.$ holds out itself to the public and solicits e%plo#%ent of its le&al services. "t is an odio"s vehicle for deception, especiall# so +hen the public cannot ventilate an# &rievance for #alpractice a&ainst the business conduit. Precisel#, the li%itation of practice of la+ to persons +ho have been dul# ad%itted as %e%bers of the Bar (Sec. 6, Rule 69;, Revised Rules of Court) is to subHect the %e%bers to the discipline of the Supre%e Court. Althou&h respondent uses its !"siness na#e, the persons and the la+#ers +ho act for it are subHect to court discipline. !he practice of la+ is not a profession open to all +ho +ish to en&a&e in it nor can it be assi&ned to another (See / A%. Fur. 581). "t is a personal right li%ited to persons +ho have Aualified the%selves under the la+. "t follo+s that not onl# respondent but also all the persons +ho are actin& for respondent are the persons en&a&ed in unethical la+ practice. $

9. Philippine &a' ers' Association, !he Philippine La+#ersC AssociationCs position, in ans+er to the issues stated herein, are +it,

6. !he Le&al Clinic is en&a&ed in the practice of la+E 5. Such practice is unauthoriIedE 9. !he advertise%ents co%plained of are not onl# unethical, but also %isleadin& and patentl# i%%oralE and :. !he 4onorable Supre%e Court has the po+er to supress and punish the Le&al Clinic and its corporate officers for its unauthoriIed practice of la+ and for its unethical, %isleadin& and i%%oral advertisin&. ''' ''' ''' Respondent posits that is it not en&a&ed in the practice of la+. "t clai%s that it %erel# renders $le&al support services$ to ans+ers, liti&ants and the &eneral public as enunciated in the Pri%ar# Purpose Clause of its Article(s) of "ncorporation. (See pa&es 5 to / of RespondentCs Co%%ent). But its advertised services, as enu%erated above, clearl# and convincin&l# sho+ that it is indeed en&a&ed in la+ practice, albeit outside of court. As advertised, it offers the &eneral public its advisor# services on Persons and =a%il# Relations La+, particularl# re&ardin& forei&n divorces, annul%ent of %arria&es, secret %arria&es, absence and adoptionE "%%i&ration La+s, particularl# on visa related proble%s, i%%i&ration proble%sE the "nvest%ents La+ of the Philippines and such other related la+s. "ts advertised services un%ista*abl# reAuire the application of the aforesaid la+, the le&al principles and procedures related thereto, the le&al advices based thereon and +hich activities call for le&al trainin&, *no+led&e and e'perience.
Appl#in& the test laid do+n b# the Court in the aforecited A&rava Case, the activities of respondent fall sAuarel# and are e%braced in +hat la+#ers and la#%en eAuall# ter% as $the practice of la+.$ 7

:. (.P. )o#en &a' ers' *ircle, "n resolvin&, the issues before this 4onorable Court, para%ount consideration should be &iven to the protection of the &eneral public fro% the dan&er of bein& e'ploited b# unAualified persons or entities +ho %a# be en&a&ed in the practice of la+. At present, beco%in& a la+#er reAuires one to ta*e a ri&orous four7#ear course of stud# on top of a four7#ear bachelor of arts or sciences course and then to ta*e and pass the bar e'a%inations. Onl# then, is a la+#er Aualified to practice la+. Ghile the use of a parale&al is sanctioned in %an# Hurisdiction as an aid to the ad%inistration of Hustice, there are in those Hurisdictions, courses of stud# and@or standards +hich +ould Aualif# these parale&als to deal +ith the &eneral public as such. Ghile it %a# no+ be the opportune ti%e to establish these courses of stud# and@or standards, the fact re%ains that at present, these do not e'ist in the Philippines. "n the %eanti%e, this 4onorable Court %a# decide to %a*e %easures to

protect the &eneral public fro% bein& e'ploited b# those +ho %a# be dealin& +ith the &eneral public in the &uise of bein& $parale&als$ +ithout bein& Aualified to do so.
"n the sa%e %anner, the &eneral public should also be protected fro% the dan&ers +hich %a# be brou&ht about b# advertisin& of le&al services. Ghile it appears that la+#ers are prohibited under the present Code of Professional Responsibilit# fro% advertisin&, it appears in the instant case that le&al services are bein& advertised not b# la+#ers but b# an entit# staffed b# $parale&als.$ Clearl#, %easures should be ta*en to protect the &eneral public fro% fallin& pre# to those +ho advertise le&al services +ithout bein& Aualified to offer such services. %

A perusal of the Auestioned advertise%ents of Respondent, ho+ever, see%s to &ive the i%pression that infor%ation re&ardin& validit# of %arria&es, divorce, annul%ent of %arria&e, i%%i&ration, visa e'tensions, declaration of absence, adoption and forei&n invest%ent, +hich are in essence, le&al %atters , +ill be &iven to the% if the# avail of its services. !he RespondentCs na%e < !he Le&al Clinic, "nc. < does not help %atters. "t &ives the i%pression a&ain that Respondent +ill or can cure the le&al proble%s brou&ht to the%. Assu%in& that Respondent is, as clai%ed, staffed purel# b# parale&als, it also &ives the %isleadin& i%pression that there are la+#ers involved in !he Le&al Clinic, "nc., as there are doctors in an# %edical clinic, +hen onl# $parale&als$ are involved in !he Le&al Clinic, "nc.
RespondentCs alle&ations are further belied b# the ver# ad%issions of its President and %aHorit# stoc*holder, Att#. No&ales, +ho &ave an insi&ht on the structure and %ain purpose of Respondent corporation in the afore%entioned $Star+ee*$ article.$ 9

/. )o#en &a' er's Association of the Philippines , Anne'es $A$ and $B$ of the petition are clearl# advertise%ents to solicit cases for the purpose of &ain +hich, as provided for under the above cited la+, (are) ille&al and a&ainst the Code of Professional Responsibilit# of la+#ers in this countr#. Anne' $A$ of the petition is not onl# ille&al in that it is an advertise%ent to solicit cases, but it is ille&al in that in bold letters it announces that the Le&al Clinic, "nc., could +or* out@cause the celebration of a secret %arria&e +hich is not onl# ille&al but i%%oral in this countr#. Ghile it is advertised that one has to &o to said a&enc# and pa# P/01 for a valid %arria&e it is certainl# foolin& the public for valid %arria&es in the Philippines are sole%niIed onl# b# officers authoriIed to do so under the la+. And to e%plo# an a&enc# for said purpose of contractin& %arria&e is not necessar#. No a%ount of reasonin& that in the SA, Canada and other countries the trend is to+ards allo+in& la+#ers to advertise their special s*ills to enable people to obtain fro% Aualified practitioners le&al services for their particular needs can Hustif# the use of advertise%ents such as are the subHect %atter of the petition, for one (cannot) Hustif# an ille&al act even b# +hatever %erit the ille&al act %a# serve. !he la+ has #et to be a%ended so that such act could beco%e Hustifiable. Ge sub%it further that these advertise%ents that see% to proHect that secret %arria&es and divorce are possible in this countr# for a fee, +hen in fact it is not so, are hi&hl# reprehensible.

"t +ould encoura&e people to consult this clinic about ho+ the# could &o about havin& a secret %arria&e here, +hen it cannot nor should ever be atte%pted, and see* advice on divorce, +here in this countr# there is none, e'cept under the Code of Musli% Personal La+s in the Philippines. "t is also a&ainst &ood %orals and is deceitful because it falsel# represents to the public to be able to do that +hich b# our la+s cannot be done (and) b# our Code of Morals should not be done.
"n the case (of) "n re !a&uda, /9 Phil. 98, the Supre%e Court held that solicitation for clients b# an attorne# b# circulars of advertise%ents, is unprofessional, and offenses of this character Hustif# per%anent eli%ination fro% the Bar. 1&

0. +ederacion Internacional de A!ogados , ''' ''' ''' 6.8 !hat entities ad%ittedl# not en&a&ed in the practice of la+, such as %ana&e%ent consultanc# fir%s or travel a&encies, +hether run b# la+#ers or not, perfor% the services rendered b# Respondent does not necessaril# lead to the conclusion that Respondent is not unla+full# practicin& la+. "n the sa%e vein, ho+ever, the fact that the business of respondent (assu%in& it can be en&a&ed in independentl# of the practice of la+) involves *no+led&e of the la+ does not necessaril# %a*e respondent &uilt# of unla+ful practice of la+. . . . . Of necessit#, no one . . . . actin& as a consultant can render effective service unless he is fa%iliar +ith such statutes and re&ulations. 4e %ust be careful not to su&&est a course of conduct +hich the la+ forbids. "t see%s . . . .clear that (the consultantCs) *no+led&e of the la+, and his use of that *no+led&e as a factor in deter%inin& +hat %easures he shall reco%%end, do not constitute the practice of la+ . . . . "t is not onl# presu%ed that all %en *no+ the la+, but it is a fact that %ost %en have considerable acAuaintance +ith broad features of the la+ . . . . Our *no+led&e of the la+ < accurate or inaccurate < %oulds our conduct not onl# +hen +e are actin& for ourselves, but +hen +e are servin& others. Ban*ers, liAuor dealers and la#%en &enerall# possess rather precise *no+led&e of the la+s touchin& their particular business or profession. A &ood e'a%ple is the architect, +ho %ust be fa%iliar +ith Ionin&, buildin& and fire prevention codes, factor# and tene%ent house statutes, and +ho dra+s plans and specification in har%on# +ith the la+. !his is not practicin& la+. But suppose the architect, as*ed b# his client to o%it a fire to+er, replies that it is reAuired b# the statute. Or the industrial relations e'pert cites, in support of so%e %easure that he reco%%ends, a decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Are the# practicin& la+. "n %# opinion, the# are not, provided no separate fee is char&ed for the le&al advice or infor%ation, and the le&al Auestion is subordinate and incidental to a %aHor non7le&al proble%. "t is lar&el# a %atter of de&ree and of custo%.

"f it +ere usual for one intendin& to erect a buildin& on his land to en&a&e a la+#er to advise hi% and the architect in respect to the buildin& code and the li*e, then an architect +ho perfor%ed this function +ould probabl# be considered to be trespassin& on territor# reserved for licensed attorne#s. Li*e+ise, if the industrial relations field had been pre7e%pted b# la+#ers, or custo% placed a la+#er al+a#s at the elbo+ of the la# personnel %an. But this is not the case. !he %ost i%portant bod# of the industrial relations e'perts are the officers and business a&ents of the labor unions and fe+ of the% are la+#ers. A%on& the lar&er corporate e%plo#ers, it has been the practice for so%e #ears to dele&ate special responsibilit# in e%plo#ee %atters to a %ana&e%ent &roup chosen for their practical *no+led&e and s*ill in such %atter, and +ithout re&ard to le&al thin*in& or lac* of it. More recentl#, consultants li*e the defendants have the sa%e service that the lar&er e%plo#ers &et fro% their o+n specialiIed staff. !he handlin& of industrial relations is &ro+in& into a reco&niIed profession for +hich appropriate courses are offered b# our leadin& universities. !he court should be ver# cautious about declarin& JthatK a +idespread, +ell7established %ethod of conductin& business is unla+ful, or that the considerable class of %en +ho custo%aril# perfor% a certain function have no ri&ht to do so, or that the technical education &iven b# our schools cannot be used b# the &raduates in their business. 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 a 'hole. " can i%a&ine defendant bein& en&a&ed pri%aril# to advise as to the la+ definin& his clientCs obli&ations to his e%plo#ees, to &uide his clientCs obli&ations to his e%plo#ees, to &uide his client alon& the path charted b# la+. !his, of course, +ould be the practice of the la+. But such is not the fact in the case before %e. 2efendantCs pri%aril# efforts are alon& econo%ic and ps#cholo&ical lines. !he la+ onl# provides the fra%e +ithin +hich he %ust +or*, Hust as the Ionin& code li%its the *ind of buildin& the li%its the *ind of buildin& the architect %a# plan. -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#!ers of the !ar, he 'o"ld !e practicing la'. =or instance, if as part of a +elfare pro&ra%, he dre+ e%plo#eesC +ills. Another branch of defendantCs +or* is the representations of the e%plo#er in the adHust%ent of &rievances and in collective bar&ainin&, +ith or +ithout a %ediator. !his is not per se the practice of la+. An#one %a# use an a&ent for ne&otiations and %a# select an a&ent particularl# s*illed in the subHect under discussion, and the person appointed is free to accept the e%plo#%ent +hether or not he is a %e%ber of the bar. 4ere, ho+ever, there %a# be an e'ception +here the business turns on a Auestion of la+. Most real estate sales are ne&otiated b# bro*ers +ho are not la+#ers. But if the value of the land depends on a disputed ri&ht7of7+a# and the principal role of the ne&otiator is to assess the probable outco%e of the dispute and

persuade the opposite part# to the sa%e opinion, then it %a# be that onl# a la+#er can accept the assi&n%ent. Or if a controvers# bet+een an e%plo#er and his %en &ro+s fro% differin& interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is Auite li*el# that defendant should not handle it. But " need not reach a definite conclusion here, since the situation is not presented b# the proofs. 2efendant also appears to represent the e%plo#er before ad%inistrative a&encies of the federal &overn%ent, especiall# before trial e'a%iners of the National Labor Relations Board. An a&enc# of the federal &overn%ent, actin& b# virtue of an authorit# &ranted b# the Con&ress, %a# re&ulate the representation of parties before such a&enc#. !he State of Ne+ Ferse# is +ithout po+er to interfere +ith such deter%ination or to forbid representation before the a&enc# b# one +ho% the a&enc# ad%its. !he rules of the National Labor Relations Board &ive to a part# the ri&ht to appear in person, or b# counsel, or b# other representative. Rules and Re&ulations, Septe%ber 66th, 6D:0, S. 519.96. CCounselC here %eans a licensed attorne#, and ther representativeC one not a la+#er. "n this phase of his +or*, defendant %a# la+full# do +hatever the Labor Board allo+s, even ar&uin& Auestions purel# le&al. (Auerbacher v. Good, /9 A. 5d ;11, cited in Stats*#, "ntroduction to Parale&alis% J6D8:K, at pp. 6/:76/0.). 6.; =ro% the fore&oin&, it can be said that a person en&a&ed in a la+ful callin& (+hich %a# involve *no+led&e of the la+) is not en&a&ed in the practice of la+ provided that, (a) !he le&al Auestion is subordinate and incidental to a %aHor non7le&al proble%E. (b) !he services perfor%ed are not custo%aril# reserved to %e%bers of the barE . (c) No separate fee is char&ed for the le&al advice or infor%ation. All these %ust be considered in relation to the +or* for an# particular client as a +hole. 6.D. "f the person involved is both la+#er and non7la+#er, the Code of Professional Responsibilit# succintl# states the rule of conduct, Rule 6/.1; < A la+#er +ho is en&a&ed in another profession or occupation concurrentl# +ith the practice of la+ shall %a*e clear to his client +hether he is actin& as a la+#er or in another capacit#. 6.61. "n the present case. the Le&al Clinic appears to render +eddin& services (See Anne' $A$ Petition). Services on routine, strai&htfor+ard %arria&es, li*e securin& a %arria&e license, and %a*in& arran&e%ents +ith a priest or a Hud&e, %a# not constitute practice of la+. 4o+ever, if the proble% is as co%plicated as that described in $R' for Le&al Proble%s$ on the Sharon Cuneta7-abb# Concepcion7 Richard -o%eI case, then +hat %a# be involved is actuall# the practice of la+. "f a non7la+#er, such as the Le&al Clinic, renders such services then it is en&a&ed in the unauthoriIed practice of la+.

6.66. !he Le&al Clinic also appears to &ive infor%ation on divorce, absence, annul%ent of %arria&e and visas (See Anne'es $A$ and $B$ Petition). Purel# &ivin& infor%ational %aterials %a# not constitute of la+. !he business is si%ilar to that of a boo*store +here the custo%er bu#s %aterials on the subHect and deter%ines on the subHect and deter%ines b# hi%self +hat courses of action to ta*e. "t is not entirel# i%probable, ho+ever, that aside fro% purel# &ivin& infor%ation, the Le&al ClinicCs parale&als %a# appl# the la+ to the particular proble% of the client, and &ive le&al advice. Such +ould constitute unauthoriIed practice of la+. "t cannot be clai%ed that the publication of a le&al te't +hich publication of a le&al te't +hich purports to sa# +hat the la+ is a%ount to le&al practice. And the %ere fact that the principles or rules stated in the te't %a# be accepted b# a particular reader as a solution to his proble% does not affect this. . . . . Apparentl# it is ur&ed that the conHoinin& of these t+o, that is, the te't and the for%s, +ith advice as to ho+ the for%s should be filled out, constitutes the unla+ful practice of la+. But that is the situation +ith %an# approved and accepted te'ts. 2ace#Cs boo* is sold to the public at lar&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.. At %ost the boo* assu%es to offer &eneral advice on co%%on proble%s, and does not purport to &ive personal advice on a specific proble% peculiar to a desi&nated or readil# identified person. Si%ilarl# the defendantCs publication does not purport to &ive personal advice on a specific proble% peculiar to a desi&nated or readil# identified person in a particular situation < in their publication and sale of the *its, such publication and sale did not constitutes the unla+ful practice of la+ . . . . !here bein& no le&al i%pedi%ent under the statute to the sale of the *it, there +as no proper basis for the inHunction a&ainst defendant %aintainin& an office for the purpose of sellin& to persons see*in& a divorce, separation, annul%ent or separation a&ree%ent an# printed %aterial or +ritin&s relatin& to %atri%onial la+ or the prohibition in the %e%orandu% of %odification of the Hud&%ent a&ainst defendant havin& an interest in an# publishin& house publishin& his %anuscript on divorce and a&ainst his havin& an# personal contact +ith an# prospective purchaser. !he record does full# support, ho+ever, the findin& that for the chan&e of L8/ or L611 for the *it, the defendant &ave le&al advice in the course of personal contacts concernin& particular proble%s +hich %i&ht arise in the preparation and presentation of the purchaserCs asserted %atri%onial cause of action or pursuit of other le&al re%edies and assistance in the preparation of necessar# docu%ents (!he inHunction therefore sou&ht to) enHoin conduct constitutin& the practice of la+, particularl# +ith reference to the &ivin& of advice and counsel b# the defendant relatin& to specific proble%s of particular individuals in connection +ith a divorce, separation, annul%ent of separation a&ree%ent sou&ht and should be affir%ed. (State v. Ginder, 9:;, NMS 52 581 J6D89K, cited in Stats*#, s"pra at p. 616.).

6.65. Respondent, of course, states that its services are $strictl# non7dia&nostic, non7 advisor#. $"t is not controverted, ho+ever, that if the services $involve &ivin& le&al advice or counsellin&,$ such +ould constitute practice of la+ (Co%%ent, par. 0.5). "t is in this li&ht that ="2A sub%its that a factual inAuir# %a# be necessar# for the Hudicious disposition of this case. ''' ''' ''' 5.61. Anne' $A$ %a# be ethicall# obHectionable in that it can &ive the i%pression (or perpetuate the +ron& notion) that there is a secret %arria&e. Gith all the sole%nities, for%alities and other reAuisites of %arria&es (See Articles 5, et se3., =a%il# Code), no Philippine %arria&e can be secret.
5.66. Anne' $B$ %a# li*e+ise be ethicall# obHectionable. !he second para&raph thereof (+hich is not necessaril# related to the first para&raph) fails to state the li%itation that onl# $parale&al services.$ or $le&al support services$, and not le&al services, are available.$ 11

A prefator# discussion on the %eanin& of the phrase $practice of la+$ beco%es e'i&ent for the proper deter%ination of the issues raised b# the petition at bar. On this score, +e note that the clause $practice of la+$ has lon& been the subHect of Hudicial construction and interpretation. !he courts have laid do+n &eneral principles and doctrines e'plainin& the %eanin& and scope of the ter%, so%e of +hich +e no+ ta*e into account. Practice of la+ %eans an# activit#, in or out of court, +hich reAuires the application of la+, le&al procedures, *no+led&e, trainin& and e'perience. !o en&a&e in the practice of la+ is to perfor% those acts +hich are characteristic of the profession. -enerall#, to practice la+ is to &ive advice or render an# *ind of service that involves le&al *no+led&e or s*ill. 1" !he practice of la+ is not li%ited to the conduct of cases in court. "t includes le&al advice and counsel, and the preparation of le&al instru%ents and contract b# +hich le&al ri&hts are secured, althou&h such %atter %a# or %a# not be pendin& in a court. 13 "n the practice of his profession, a licensed attorne# at la+ &enerall# en&a&es in three principal t#pes of professional activit#, le&al advice and instructions to clients to infor% the% of their ri&hts and obli&ations, preparation for clients of docu%ents reAuirin& *no+led&e of le&al principles not possessed b# ordinar# la#%an, and appearance for clients before public tribunals +hich possess po+er and authorit# to deter%ine ri&hts of life, libert#, and propert# accordin& to la+, in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforce%ent of la+. 1# Ghen a person participates in the a trial and advertises hi%self as a la+#er, he is in the practice of la+. 15 One +ho confers +ith clients, advises the% as to their le&al ri&hts and then ta*es the business to an attorne# and as*s the latter to loo* after the case in court, is also practicin& la+. 1$ -ivin& advice for co%pensation re&ardin& the le&al status and ri&hts of another and the conduct +ith respect thereto constitutes a practice of la+. 17 One +ho renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pa# for it, is, to that e'tent, practicin& la+. 1% "n the recent case of *a etano vs. 4onsod, 19 after citin& the doctrines in several cases, +e laid do+n the test to deter%ine +hether certain acts constitute $practice of la+,$ thus, Blac* defines $practice of la+$ as,

!he rendition of services reAuirin& the *no+led&e and the application of le&al principles and techniAue to serve the interest of another +ith his consent. "t is not li%ited to appearin& in court, or advisin& and assistin& in the conduct of liti&ation, but e%braces the preparation of pleadin&s, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedin&s, conve#ancin&, the preparation of le&al instru%ents of all *inds, and the &ivin& of all le&al advice to clients. "t e%braces all advice to clients and all actions ta*en for the% in %atters connected +ith the la+. !he practice of la+ is not li%ited to the conduct of cases on court.(Land !itle Abstract and !rust Co. v. 2+or*en , 65D Ohio St. 59, 6D9N. E. 0/1). A person is also considered to be in the practice of la+ +hen he, . . . . for valuable consideration en&a&es in the business of advisin& person, fir%s, associations or corporations as to their ri&ht under the la+, or appears in a representative capacit# as an advocate in proceedin&s, pendin& or prospective, before an# court, co%%issioner, referee, board, bod#, co%%ittee, or co%%ission constituted b# la+ or authoriIed to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacit#, perfor%s an# act or acts for the purpose of obtainin& or defendin& the ri&hts of their clients under the la+. Other+ise stated, one +ho, in a representative capacit#, en&a&es in the business of advisin& clients as to their ri&hts under the la+, or +hile so en&a&ed perfor%s an# act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is en&a&ed in the practice of la+. (State e'. rel. Mc*ittric* v. C.S. 2udle# and Co., 615 S. G. 5d ;D/, 9:1 Mo. ;/5). !his Court, in the case of Philippines &a' ers Association v. Agrava (61/ Phil. 689, 6807688),stated, !he practice of la+ is not li%ited to the conduct of cases or liti&ation in courtE it e%braces the preparation of pleadin&s and other papers incident to actions and special proceedin&s, the %ana&e%ent of such actions and proceedin&s on behalf of clients before Hud&es and courts, and in addition, conve#in&. "n &eneral, all advice to clients, and all action ta*en for the% in %atters connected +ith the la+ incorporation services, assess%ent and conde%nation services conte%platin& an appearance before a Hudicial bod#, the foreclosure of a %ort&a&e, enforce%ent of a creditorCs clai% in ban*ruptc# and insolvenc# proceedin&s, and conductin& proceedin&s in attach%ent, and in %atters or estate and &uardianship have been held to constitute la+ practice, as do the preparation and draftin& of le&al instru%ents, +here the +or* done involves the deter%ination b# the trained le&al %ind of the le&al effect of facts and conditions. (/ A%. Fr. p. 505, 509). Practice of la+ under %odern conditions consists in no s%all part of +or* perfor%ed outside of an# court and havin& no i%%ediate relation to proceedin&s in court. "t e%braces conve#ancin&, the &ivin& of le&al advice on a lar&e variet# of subHects and the preparation and e'ecution of le&al instru%ents coverin& an e'tensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Althou&h these transactions %a# have no direct connection +ith court proceedin&s, the# are al+a#s subHect to beco%e involved in liti&ation. !he# reAuire in %an# aspects a hi&h de&ree of le&al s*ill, a +ide e'perience +ith %en and affairs, and &reat capacit# for adaptation to difficult and co%ple' situations. !hese custo%ar# functions of an attorne# or counselor at la+ bear an inti%ate relation to the ad%inistration of Hustice b# the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the Auestion set forth in the order, can be dra+n bet+een that part of the +or* of the la+#er +hich involves appearance in court and that part +hich involves advice and draftin& of instru%ents in his office. "t is of

i%portance to the +elfare of the public that these %anifold custo%ar# functions be perfor%ed b# persons possessed of adeAuate learnin& and s*ill, of sound %oral character, and actin& at all ti%es under the heav# trust obli&ations to clients +hich rests upon all attorne#s. (Moran, Co%%ents on the Rules o Court, 3ol. 9 J6D89 ed.K, pp. 00/7000, citin& "n Re Opinion of the Fustices JMassK, 6D: N. E. 969, Auoted in Rhode "s. Bar Assoc. v. Auto%obile Service Assoc. JR.".K 6D8 A. 69D, 6::). !he practice of la+, therefore, covers a +ide ran&e of activities in and out of court. Appl#in& the afore%entioned criteria to the case at bar, +e a&ree +ith the perceptive findin&s and observations of the aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute $practice of la+.$ !he contention of respondent that it %erel# offers le&al support services can neither be seriousl# considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied b# respondentCs o+n description of the services it has been offerin&, to +it,
Le&al support services basicall# consists of &ivin& read# infor%ation b# trained parale&als to la#%en and la+#ers, +hich are strictl# non7dia&nostic, non7advisor#, throu&h the e'tensive use of co%puters and %odern infor%ation technolo&# in the &atherin&, processin&, stora&e, trans%ission and reproduction of infor%ation and co%%unication, such as co%puteriIed le&al researchE encodin& and reproduction of docu%ents and pleadin&s prepared b# la#%en or la+#ersE docu%ent searchE evidence &atherin&E locatin& parties or +itnesses to a caseE fact findin& investi&ationsE and assistance to la#%en in need of basic institutional services fro% &overn%ent or non7&overn%ent a&encies, li*e birth, %arria&e, propert#, or business re&istrationsE educational or e%plo#%ent records or certifications, obtainin& docu%entation li*e clearances, passports, local or forei&n visasE &ivin& infor%ation about la+s of other countries that the# %a# find useful, li*e forei&n divorce, %arria&e or adoption la+s that the# can avail of preparator# to e%i&ration to the forei&n countr#, and other %atters that do not involve representation of clients in courtE desi&nin& and installin& co%puter s#ste%s, pro&ra%s, or soft+are for the efficient %ana&e%ent of la+ offices, corporate le&al depart%ents, courts and other entities en&a&ed in dispensin& or ad%inisterin& le&al services. "&

Ghile so%e of the services bein& offered b# respondent corporation %erel# involve %echanical and technical *no+ho+, such as the installation of co%puter s#ste%s and pro&ra%s for the efficient %ana&e%ent of la+ offices, or the co%puteriIation of research aids and %aterials, these +ill not suffice to Hustif# an e'ception to the &eneral rule. Ghat is palpabl# clear is that respondent corporation &ives out le&al infor%ation to la#%en and la+#ers. "ts contention that such function is non7advisor# and non7dia&nostic is %ore apparent than real. "n providin& infor%ation, for e'a%ple, about forei&n la+s on %arria&e, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulit# of this Court that all the respondent corporation +ill si%pl# do is loo* for the la+, furnish a cop# thereof to the client, and stop there as if it +ere %erel# a boo*store. Gith its attorne#s and so called parale&als, it +ill necessaril# have to e'plain to the client the intricacies of the la+ and advise hi% or her on the proper course of action to be ta*en as %a# be provided for b# said la+. !hat is +hat its advertise%ents represent and for the +hich services it +ill conseAuentl# char&e and be paid. !hat activit# falls sAuarel# +ithin the Hurisprudential definition of $practice of la+.$ Such a conclusion +ill not be altered b# the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since la+ practice, as the +ei&ht of authorit# holds, is not li%ited %erel# &ivin& le&al advice, contract draftin& and so forth. !he aforesaid conclusion is further stren&thened b# an article published in the Fanuar# 69, 6DD6 issue of the Star+ee*@!he Sunda# Ma&aIine of the Philippines Star, entitled $R' for Le&al

Proble%s,$ +here an insi&ht into the structure, %ain purpose and operations of respondent corporation +as &iven b# its o+n $proprietor,$ Att#. Ro&elio P. No&ales, !his is the *ind of business that is transacted ever#da# at !he Le&al Clinic, +ith offices on the seventh floor of the 3ictoria Buildin& alon& . N. Avenue in Manila. No %atter +hat the clientCs proble%, and even if it is as co%plicated as the Cuneta7 Concepcion do%estic situation, Att#. No&ales and his staff of la+#ers, +ho, li*e doctors are $specialists$ in various fields can ta*e care of it. !he Le&al Clinic, "nc. has specialists in ta'ation and cri%inal la+, %edico7le&al proble%s, labor, liti&ation, and fa%il# la+. !hese specialist are bac*ed up b# a batter# of parale&als, counsellors and attorne#s. Att#. No&ales set up !he Le&al Clinic in 6D;:. "nspired b# the trend in the %edical field to+ard specialiIation, it caters to clients +ho cannot afford the services of the bi& la+ fir%s. !he Le&al Clinic has re&ular and +al*7in clients. $+hen the# co%e, +e start b# anal#Iin& the proble%. !hatCs +hat doctors do also. !he# as* #ou ho+ #ou contracted +hatCs botherin& #ou, the# ta*e #our te%perature, the# observe #ou for the s#%pto%s and so on. !hatCs ho+ +e operate, too. And once the proble% has been cate&oriIed, then itCs referred to one of our specialists. !here are cases +hich do not, in %edical ter%s, reAuire sur&er# or follo+7up treat%ent. !hese !he Le&al Clinic disposes of in a %atter of %inutes. $!hin&s li*e preparin& a si%ple deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can be ta*en care of b# our staff or, if this +ere a hospital the residents or the interns. Ge can ta*e care of these %atters on a +hile #ou +ait basis. A&ain, *un& ba&a sa hospital, out7patient, hindi *ailan&an& %a7confine. "tCs Hust li*e a co%%on cold or diarrhea,$ e'plains Att#. No&ales.
!hose cases +hich reAuires %ore e'tensive $treat%ent$ are dealt +ith accordin&l#. $"f #ou had a rich relative +ho died and na%ed #ou her sole heir, and #ou stand to inherit %illions of pesos of propert#, +e +ould refer #ou to a specialist in ta'ation. !here +ould be real estate ta'es and arrears +hich +ould need to be put in order, and #our relative is even ta'ed b# the state for the ri&ht to transfer her propert#, and onl# a specialist in ta'ation +ould be properl# trained to deal +ith the proble%. No+, if there +ere other heirs contestin& #our rich relatives +ill, then #ou +ould need a liti&ator, +ho *no+s ho+ to arran&e the proble% for presentation in court, and &ather evidence to support the case. "1

!hat fact that the corporation e%plo#s parale&als to carr# out its services is not controllin&. Ghat is i%portant is that it is en&a&ed in the practice of la+ b# virtue of the nature of the services it renders +hich thereb# brin&s it +ithin the a%bit of the statutor# prohibitions a&ainst the advertise%ents +hich it has caused to be published and are no+ assailed in this proceedin&. =urther, as correctl# and appropriatel# pointed out b# the .P. G"LOC", said reported facts sufficientl# establish that the %ain purpose of respondent is to serve as a one7stop7shop of sorts for various le&al proble%s +herein a client %a# avail of le&al services fro% si%ple docu%entation to co%ple' liti&ation and corporate underta*in&s. Most of these services are undoubtedl# be#ond the do%ain of parale&als, but rather, are e'clusive functions of la+#ers en&a&ed in the practice of la+. "" "t should be noted that in our Hurisdiction the services bein& offered b# private respondent +hich constitute practice of la+ cannot be perfor%ed b# parale&als. Onl# a person dul# ad%itted as a

%e%ber of the bar, or hereafter ad%itted as such in accordance +ith the provisions of the Rules of Court, and +ho is in &ood and re&ular standin&, is entitled to practice la+. "3 Public polic# reAuires that the practice of la+ be li%ited to those individuals found dul# Aualified in education and character. !he per%issive ri&ht conferred on the la+#ers is an individual and li%ited privile&e subHect to +ithdra+al if he fails to %aintain proper standards of %oral and professional conduct. !he purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the bar fro% the inco%petence or dishonest# of those unlicensed to practice la+ and not subHect to the disciplinar# control of the court. "# !he sa%e rule is observed in the a%erican Hurisdiction +herefro% respondent +ould +ish to dra+ support for his thesis. !he doctrines there also stress that the practice of la+ is li%ited to those +ho %eet the reAuire%ents for, and have been ad%itted to, the bar, and various statutes or rules specificall# so provide. "5 !he practice of la+ is not a la+ful business e'cept for %e%bers of the bar +ho have co%plied +ith all the conditions reAuired b# statute and the rules of court. Onl# those persons are allo+ed to practice la+ +ho, b# reason of attain%ents previousl# acAuired throu&h education and stud#, have been reco&niIed b# the courts as possessin& profound *no+led&e of le&al science entitlin& the% to advise, counsel +ith, protect, or defend the ri&hts clai%s, or liabilities of their clients, +ith respect to the construction, interpretation, operation and effect of la+. "$ !he Hustification for e'cludin& fro% the practice of la+ those not ad%itted to the bar is found, not in the protection of the bar fro% co%petition, but in the protection of the public fro% bein& advised and represented in le&al %atters b# inco%petent and unreliable persons over +ho% the Hudicial depart%ent can e'ercise little control. "7 Ge have to necessaril# and definitel# reHect respondentCs position that the concept in the nited States of parale&als as an occupation separate fro% the la+ profession be adopted in this Hurisdiction. Ghatever %a# be its %erits, respondent cannot but be a+are that this should first be a %atter for Hudicial rules or le&islative action, and not of unilateral adoption as it has done. Parale&als in the nited States are trained professionals. As ad%itted b# respondent, there are schools and universities there +hich offer studies and de&rees in parale&al education, +hile there are none in the Philippines."% As the concept of the $parale&als$ or $le&al assistant$ evolved in the nited States, standards and &uidelines also evolved to protect the &eneral public. One of the %aHor standards or &uidelines +as developed b# the A%erican Bar Association +hich set up -uidelines for the Approval of Le&al Assistant Education Pro&ra%s (6D89). Le&islation has even been proposed to certif# le&al assistants. !here are also associations of parale&als in the nited States +ith their o+n code of professional ethics, such as the National Association of Le&al Assistants, "nc. and the A%erican Parale&al Association. "9 "n the Philippines, +e still have a restricted concept and li%ited acceptance of +hat %a# be considered as parale&al service. As pointed out b# ="2A, so%e persons not dul# licensed to practice la+ are or have been allo+ed li%ited representation in behalf of another or to render le&al services, but such allo+able services are li%ited in scope and e'tent b# the la+, rules or re&ulations &rantin& per%ission therefor. 3& Accordin&l#, +e have adopted the A%erican Hudicial polic# that, in the absence of constitutional or statutor# authorit#, a person +ho has not been ad%itted as an attorne# cannot practice la+ for the proper ad%inistration of Hustice cannot be hindered b# the un+arranted intrusion of an unauthoriIed and uns*illed person into the practice of la+. 31 !hat polic# should continue to be one of encoura&in& persons +ho are unsure of their le&al ri&hts and re%edies to see* le&al assistance onl# fro% persons licensed to practice la+ in the state. 3"

Anent the issue on the validit# of the Auestioned advertise%ents, the Code of Professional Responsibilit# provides that a la+#er in %a*in& *no+n his le&al services shall use onl# true, honest, fair, di&nified and obHective infor%ation or state%ent of facts. 33 4e is not supposed to use or per%it the use of an# false, fraudulent, %isleadin&, deceptive, undi&nified, self7laudator# or unfair state%ent or clai% re&ardin& his Aualifications or le&al services. 3# Nor shall he pa# or &ive so%ethin& of value to representatives of the %ass %edia in anticipation of, or in return for, publicit# to attract le&al business. 35 Prior to the adoption of the code of Professional Responsibilit#, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also +arned that la+#ers should not resort to indirect advertise%ents for professional e%plo#%ent, such as furnishin& or inspirin& ne+spaper co%%ents, or procurin& his photo&raph to be published in connection +ith causes in +hich the la+#er has been or is en&a&ed or concernin& the %anner of their conduct, the %a&nitude of the interest involved, the i%portance of the la+#erCs position, and all other li*e self7laudation. 3$ !he standards of the le&al profession conde%n the la+#erCs advertise%ent of his talents. A la+#er cannot, +ithout violatin& the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or s*ill as in a %anner si%ilar to a %erchant advertisin& his &oods. 37 !he prescription a&ainst advertisin& of le&al services or solicitation of le&al business rests on the funda%ental postulate that the that the practice of la+ is a profession. !hus, in the case of !he $irector of Religio"s Affairs. vs. 0stanislao R. Ba ot 3% an advertise%ent, si%ilar to those of respondent +hich are involved in the present proceedin&, 39 +as held to constitute i%proper advertisin& or solicitation. !he pertinent part of the decision therein reads, "t is undeniable that the advertise%ent in Auestion +as a fla&rant violation b# the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it bein& a braIen solicitation of business fro% the public. Section 5/ of Rule 658 e'pressl# provides a%on& other thin&s that $the practice of solicitin& cases at la+ for the purpose of &ain, either personall# or thru paid a&ents or bro*ers, constitutes %alpractice.$ "t is hi&hl# unethical for an attorne# to advertise his talents or s*ill as a %erchant advertises his +ares. La+ is a profession and not a trade. !he la+#er de&rades hi%self and his profession +ho stoops to and adopts the practices of %ercantilis% b# advertisin& his services or offerin& the% to the public. As a %e%ber of the bar, he defiles the te%ple of Hustice +ith %ercenar# activities as the %one#7chan&ers of old defiled the te%ple of Fehovah. $!he %ost +orth# and effective advertise%ent possible, even for a #oun& la+#er, . . . . is the establish%ent of a +ell7%erited reputation for professional capacit# and fidelit# to trust. !his cannot be forced but %ust be the outco%e of character and conduct.$ (Canon 58, Code of Ethics.). Ge repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertisin& possible for a la+#er is a +ell7%erited reputation for professional capacit# and fidelit# to trust, +hich %ust be earned as the outco%e of character and conduct. -ood and efficient service to a client as +ell as to the co%%unit# has a +a# of publiciIin& itself and catchin& public attention. !hat publicit# is a nor%al b#7product of effective service +hich is ri&ht and proper. A &ood and reputable la+#er needs no artificial sti%ulus to &enerate it and to %a&nif# his success. 4e easil# sees the difference bet+een a nor%al b#7 product of able service and the un+holeso%e result of propa&anda. #& Of course, not all t#pes of advertisin& or solicitation are prohibited. !he canons of the profession enu%erate e'ceptions to the rule a&ainst advertisin& or solicitation and define the e'tent to +hich the# %a# be underta*en. !he e'ceptions are of t+o broad cate&ories, na%el#, those +hich are e'pressl# allo+ed and those +hich are necessaril# i%plied fro% the restrictions. #1

!he first of such e'ceptions is the publication in reputable la+ lists, in a %anner consistent +ith the standards of conduct i%posed b# the canons, of brief bio&raphical and infor%ative data. $Such data %ust not be %isleadin& and %a# include onl# a state%ent of the la+#erCs na%e and the na%es of his professional associatesE addresses, telephone nu%bers, cable addressesE branches of la+ practicedE date and place of birth and ad%ission to the barE schools attended +ith dates of &raduation, de&rees and other educational distinctionE public or Auasi7public officesE posts of honorE le&al authorshipsE le&al teachin& positionsE %e%bership and offices in bar associations and co%%ittees thereof, in le&al and scientific societies and le&al fraternitiesE the fact of listin&s in other reputable la+ listsE the na%es and addresses of referencesE and, +ith their +ritten consent, the na%es of clients re&ularl# represented.$ #" !he la+ list %ust be a reputable la+ list published pri%aril# for that purposeE it cannot be a %ere supple%ental feature of a paper, %a&aIine, trade Hournal or periodical +hich is published principall# for other purposes. =or that reason, a la+#er %a# not properl# publish his brief bio&raphical and infor%ative data in a dail# paper, %a&aIine, trade Hournal or societ# pro&ra%. Nor %a# a la+#er per%it his na%e to be published in a la+ list the conduct, %ana&e%ent or contents of +hich are calculated or li*el# to deceive or inHure the public or the bar, or to lo+er the di&nit# or standin& of the profession. #3 !he use of an ordinar# si%ple professional card is also per%itted. !he card %a# contain onl# a state%ent of his na%e, the na%e of the la+ fir% +hich he is connected +ith, address, telephone nu%ber and special branch of la+ practiced. !he publication of a si%ple announce%ent of the openin& of a la+ fir% or of chan&es in the partnership, associates, fir% na%e or office address, bein& for the convenience of the profession, is not obHectionable. 4e %a# li*e+ise have his na%e listed in a telephone director# but not under a desi&nation of special branch of la+. ## 3eril#, ta*in& into consideration the nature and contents of the advertise%ents for +hich respondent is bein& ta*en to tas*, +hich even includes a Auotation of the fees char&ed b# said respondent corporation for services rendered, +e find and so hold that the sa%e definitel# do not and conclusivel# cannot fall under an# of the above7%entioned e'ceptions. !he rulin& in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, #5 +hich is repeatedl# invo*ed and constitutes the Hustification relied upon b# respondent, is obviousl# not applicable to the case at bar. =ore%ost is the fact that the disciplinar# rule involved in said case e'plicitl# allo+s a la+#er, as an e'ception to the prohibition a&ainst advertise%ents b# la+#ers, to publish a state%ent of le&al fees for an initial consultation or the availabilit# upon reAuest of a +ritten schedule of fees or an esti%ate of the fee to be char&ed for the specific services. No such e'ception is provided for, e'pressl# or i%pliedl#, +hether in our for%er Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibilit#. Besides, even the disciplinar# rule in the Bates case contains a proviso that the e'ceptions stated therein are $not applicable in an# state unless and until it is i%ple%ented b# such authorit# in that state.$ #$ !his &oes to sho+ that an e'ception to the &eneral rule, such as that bein& invo*ed b# herein respondent, can be %ade onl# if and +hen the canons e'pressl# provide for such an e'ception. Other+ise, the prohibition stands, as in the case at bar. "t bears %ention that in a surve# conducted b# the A%erican Bar Association after the decision in Bates, on the attitude of the public about la+#ers after vie+in& television co%%ercials, it +as found that public opinion dropped si&nificantl# #7 +ith respect to these characteristics of la+#ers, !rust+orth# fro% 86N to 6:N Professional fro% 86N to 6:N 4onest fro% 0/N to 6:N 2i&nified fro% :/N to 6:N

Secondl#, it is our fir% belief that +ith the present situation of our le&al and Hudicial s#ste%s, to allo+ the publication of advertise%ents of the *ind used b# respondent +ould onl# serve to a&&ravate +hat is alread# a deterioratin& public opinion of the le&al profession +hose inte&rit# has consistentl# been under attac* latel# b# %edia and the co%%unit# in &eneral. At this point in ti%e, it is of ut%ost i%portance in the face of such ne&ative, even if unfair, criticis%s at ti%es, to adopt and %aintain that level of professional conduct +hich is be#ond reproach, and to e'ert all efforts to re&ain the hi&h estee% for%erl# accorded to the le&al profession. "n su%, it is undoubtedl# a %isbehavior on the part of the la+#er, subHect to disciplinar# action, to advertise his services e'cept in allo+able instances #% or to aid a la#%an in the unauthoriIed practice of la+. #9 Considerin& that Att#. Ro&elio P. No&ales, +ho is the pri%e incorporator, %aHor stoc*holder and proprietor of !he Le&al Clinic, "nc. is a %e%ber of the Philippine Bar, he is hereb# repri%anded, +ith a +arnin& that a repetition of the sa%e or si%ilar acts +hich are involved in this proceedin& +ill be dealt +ith %ore severel#. Ghile +e dee% it necessar# that the Auestion as to the le&alit# or ille&alit# of the purpose@s for +hich the Le&al Clinic, "nc. +as created should be passed upon and deter%ined, +e are constrained to refrain fro% lapsin& into an obiter on that aspect since it is clearl# not +ithin the adHudicative para%eters of the present proceedin& +hich is %erel# ad%inistrative in nature. "t is, of course, i%perative that this %atter be pro%ptl# deter%ined, albeit in a different proceedin& and foru%, since, under the present state of our la+ and Hurisprudence, a corporation cannot be or&aniIed for or en&a&e in the practice of la+ in this countr#. !his interdiction, Hust li*e the rule a&ainst unethical advertisin&, cannot be subverted b# e%plo#in& so%e so7called parale&als supposedl# renderin& the alle&ed support services. !he re%ed# for the apparent breach of this prohibition b# respondent is the concern and province of the Solicitor -eneral +ho can institute the correspondin& 3"o 'arranto action, 5& after due ascertain%ent of the factual bac*&round and basis for the &rant of respondentCs corporate charter, in li&ht of the putative %isuse thereof. !hat spin7off fro% the instant bar %atter is referred to the Solicitor -eneral for such action as %a# be necessar# under the circu%stances. ACCOR2"N-LM, the Court Resolved to RES!RA"N and ENFO"N herein respondent, !he Le&al Clinic, "nc., fro% issuin& or causin& the publication or disse%ination of an# advertise%ent in an# for% +hich is of the sa%e or si%ilar tenor and purpose as Anne'es $A$ and $B$ of this petition, and fro% conductin&, directl# or indirectl#, an# activit#, operation or transaction proscribed b# la+ or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this resolution be furnished the "nte&rated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor -eneral for appropriate action in accordance here+ith. .arvasa, *.J., *r"z, +eliciano, Padilla, Bidin, 1ri5o-A3"ino, $avide, Jr., Ro#ero, .ocon, Bellosillo, 4elo and 6"iason, JJ., conc"r

'

(ootnote) 6 Rollo, /. A facsi%ile of the scales of Hustice is printed to&ether +ith and on the left side of $!he Le&al Clinic, "nc.$ in both advertise%ents +hich +ere published in a ne+spaper of &eneral circulation. 5 :99 .S. 9/1, /9 L Ed 5d ;61, D8 S Ct. 50D6.

9 Resolution dated Fanuar# 6/, 6DD6, Rollo, 01E Resolution dated 2ece%ber 61, 6DD6, Rollo, 95;. : Position Paper prepared b# Att#. Basilio 4. Alo, "BP 2irector for Le&al Affairs, 6, 61E Rollo, 51D, 56;. / Me%orandu% prepared b# Att#. Fose A. -rapilon, Chair%an, Co%%ittee on Bar 2iscipline, and Att#. >enn# 4. !antuico, 6076;, 5875D, Rollo :6:7:60, :5/7:58. 0 Position Paper prepared b# Att#. Rafael 2. Abiera, Fr., Chair%an, Co%%ittee on La+#ersC Ri&hts and Le&al Ethics, and Att#. Arturo M. del Rosario, President, /7 0E Rollo, 5:675:5. 8 Position Paper prepared b# Att#. LorenIo Su%ulon&, President, and Att#. Mariano M. Ma&salin, 3ice7President, 5, :7/E Rollo, D9, D/7D0. ; Position Paper prepared b# Att#. 3ictoria C. de los Re#es, 675E Rollo, 61/7610. D Me%orandu% prepared b# Att#. 3ictoria C. de los Re#es, 61766E Rollo, 9817986. 61 Position Paper prepared b# Att#. Leticia E. Sablan, Officer7in7Char&e, GLAP =ree Le&al Aid Clinic, 675E Rollo, 60D7681. 66 Position Paper prepared b# Att#. Lil# C. Li%pe, President, and Att#. Barbara Anne C. Mi&allos, ;765, 5975:E Rollo, 69D76:9, 6/:76//. 65 Annotation, 666 ALR 59. 69 4o+ton vs. Morro+, 50D >#. 6. 6: Gest 3ir&inia State Bar vs. Earle#, 61D S.E. 5d :51, 6:: G.3a. /1:E Rhode "sland Bar Assoc. vs. Auto%obile Service Assoc. (R.".) 68D A. 69D, 6::. 6/ People vs. Castle%an, ;; Colo. 55D. 60 2epe+, et al. vs. Gitchita Assn. of Credit Men., "nc., 6:5 >an. :19. 68 =itchette vs. !a#lor, D: ALR 9/0. 6; Mandelau% vs. -ilbert and Bar*er Mf&. Co., 5D1 NMS :056;. 6D 516 SCRA 561 (6DD6). 51 Co%%ent of Respondent, 9E Rollo, 6/. 56 Rollo, 6917696. 55 Me%orandu% of .P. G"LOC", 65769E Rollo, 9857989.

59 Sec. 6, Rule 69;, Rules of Court.

5: Phil. AssCn. of =ree Labor :5 SCRA 915 (6D86).

nions, et al. vs. Binalba&an7"sabela Su&ar Co., et al.,

5/ 8 C.F.S., Attorne# and Client, ;09, ;0:. 50 Mounier vs. Re&cinh, 681 So. /08. 58 Lo+ell Bar AssCn. vs. Loeb. /5 N.E. 5d 58, 96/ Mass. 680E 8 C.F.S., Attorne# and Client 0:, ;0/. 5; Co%%ent of Respondent, 5E Rollo, 6:. 5D Position Paper, .P. Go%en La+#ersC Circle (G"LOC"), 66765, citin& Stats*#, "ntroduction to Parale&alis%, 56:755:, Gest Publishin& Co. (6D8:) and Sha#ne, !he Parale&al Profession, Oceana Publications, 6D88, Appendi' "" and """E Rollo, 6607668. 91 "llustrations, (a) A la+ student +ho has successfull# co%pleted his third #ear of the re&ular four7 #ear prescribed la+ curriculu% and is enrolled in a reco&niIed la+ schoolCs clinical le&al education pro&ra% approved b# the Supre%e Court (Rule 69;7A, Rules of Court)E (b) An official or other person appointed or desi&nated in accordance +ith la+ to appear for the -overn%ent of the Philippines in a case in +hich the &overn%ent has an interest (Sec. 99, Rule 69;, id.)E (c) An a&ent or friend +ho aids a part#7liti&ant in a %unicipal court for the purpose of conductin& the liti&ation (Sec. 9:, Rule 69;, id.)E (d) A person, resident of the province and of &ood repute for probit# and abilit#, +ho is appointed counsel de oficio to defend the accused in localities +here %e%bers of the bar are not available (Sec. :, Rule 660, id.)E (e) Persons re&istered or speciall# reco&niIed to practice in the Philippine Patent Office (no+ *no+n as the Bureau of Patents, !rade%ar*s and !echnolo&# !ransfer) in trade%ar*, service %ar* and trade na%e cases (Rule 59, Rules of Practice in !rade%ar* Cases)E (f) A non7la+#er +ho %a# appear before the National Labor Relations Co%%ission or an# Labor Arbiter onl# if (6) he represents hi%self as a part# to the caseE (5) he represents an or&aniIation or its %e%bers, provided that he shall be %ade to present +ritten proof that he is properl# authoriIedE or (9) he is dul#7accredited %e%bers of an# le&al aid office dul# reco&niIed b# the 2epart%ent of Fustice or the "nte&rated Bar of the Philippines in cases referred thereto b# the latter (Ne+ Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Co%%ission)E (&) An a&ent, not an attorne#, representin& the lot o+ner or clai%ant in a case fallin& under the Cadastral Act (Sec. D, Act No. 55/D)E and

(h) Notaries public for %unicipalities +here co%pletion and passin& the studies of la+ in a reputable universit# or school of la+ is dee%ed sufficient Aualification for appoint%ent (Sec. 599, Ad%inistrative Code of 6D68). See Rollo, 6::76:/. 96 8 C.F.S., Attorne# and Client, ;00E Fohnsto+n Coal and Co*e Co. of Ne+ Mor* vs. .S., 615 Ct. Cl. 5;/. 95 =lorida Bar vs. Bru%bau&th, 9// So. 5d 66;0. 99 Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibilit#. 9: Rule 9.16, id. 9/ Rule 9.1:, id. 90 Canon 58, Canons of Professional Ethics. 98 People vs. S%ith, D9 A%. St. Rep. 510. 9; 8: Phil. /8D (6D::). 9D !he advertise%ent in said case +as as follo+s, $Marria&e license pro%ptl# secured thru our assistance and the anno#ance of dela# or publicit# avoided if desired, and %arria&e arran&ed to +ishes of parties. Consultation on an# %atter free for the poor. Ever#thin& confidential.$. :1 A&palo, Le&al Ethics, =ourth Edition (6D;D), 8D7;1. :6 Op. cit., ;1. :9 * * * M+))+n, * * * . :: Op. cit., ;6, citin& A.B.A. Op. 66 (Ma# 66, 6D58)E A.B.A. Op. 5: (Fan. 5:, 6D91)E A.B.A. Ops. /9 (2ec. 6:, 6D96), 659 (2ec. 6:, 6D9:), (Ful# 65, 6D:6), 5:6 (=eb. 56, 6D:5), 5;: (Au&. 6D/6)E and 5;0 (Sept. 5/, 6D/5). . :/ S"pra, =n 5. :0 Id., ;61, ;5/. :8 Position Paper of the Philippine Bar Association, 65, citin& the A%erican Bar Association Fournal, Fanuar#, 6D;D, p. 01E Rollo, 5:;. :; "n re !a&orda, /9 Phil. 98 (6D5D)E !he 2irector of Reli&ious Affairs vs. Ba#ot, s"pra, =n 9;. :D .S. vs. Ne# and BosAue, ; Phil. 6:0 (6D18)E People vs. Luna, 615 Phil. D0; (6D/;).

/1 Secs. 5 and 9, Rule 00, Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 0(6), P.2. No. D157A and Sec. 656, Corporation Code.