Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx
for Legal Problems” in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales
FACTS: In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio
Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward
specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of
big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The
Legal Clinic because of the latter’s advertisements which contain the
following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am – 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce
through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office
hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa
Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in
the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can
take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if
it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion
situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors,
are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic,
Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed
up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of
the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The
State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely
making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of
law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be
allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed
mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal
problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most
of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals,
but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice
of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be
performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of
the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal
profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise
his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising
his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to
promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
 circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are
allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be
earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient
service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing
itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-
product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and
reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to
magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal
by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as
allowed forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his
specialization
Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod
FACTS: In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of
the Commission on Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was opposed
by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he
failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the
chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice
law for at least ten years.
Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:
1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.
2. Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one year.
3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in
economics and held various positions in various foreign corporations.
4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for
various local corporations until 1986.
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the
COMELEC. What constitutes practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement
— that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to
court appearances. The members of the bench and bar and the
informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed
societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law
offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do
both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases
they find themselves spending more time doing what is loosely
described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course
of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a
number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal
skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested
parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized
practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their
specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless
the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who
specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the
work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of
traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document
drafting, and negotiation.
 In Re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26
FACTS:
Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was
denied of taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys
due to his conviction of “reckless imprudence resulting in homicide”
from a hazing incident. Later in his sentence, he was granted
probation by the court. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying
that he be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Rolls of
Attorneys. As a proof of the required good moral character he now
possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15) certifications among
others from: two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6)
members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the others
who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in honor of
their hazing victim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyer’s
Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice law.
HELD:
YES. Petition granted.
RATIO:
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that
he possessed the required good moral character as required before
taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the
Supreme Court considered the premises that he is not inherently in
bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was
finally reminded that the Lawyer’s Oath is not merely a ceremony or
formality before the practice of law, and that the community assistance
he had started is expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate
members of the society.
In The Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue
Use of the Firm Name “Ozaeta,Romulo, De Leon…”
etc.
FACTS:
The surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta filed a petition praying
that they be allowed to continue using, in the name of their firm, the
names of their partner who passed away. One of the petitioners’
arguments stated that no local custom prohibits the continued use of
a deceased partner’s name in a professional firm’s name in so far as
Greater Manila Area is concerned. No custom exists which recognizes
that the name of a law firm necessarily identifies the individual
members of the firm. They also stated that the continued use of a
deceased partner’s name in the firm name of law partnerships
has been consistently allowed by U.S. Courts and is an accepted pra
ctice in the legal profession of most countries in the world.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the law firm “Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta &
Reyes” is allowed to sustain the name of their deceased partner, Atty.
Herminio Ozaeta, in the name of their firm.
HELD:
NO. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the A
merican Bar Association stated the following:“ The continued use of
the name of a deceased or former partner when permissible by local
custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or
deception is practiced through this
use.” No local custom permits or allows the continued use of a decea
sed or former partner’sname in the firm names of law partnerships.
Firm names, under Philippine custom, identify the more active or reprehensible however, the Supreme Court is willing to give him a
senior partners in a firm. Firm names in the Philippines change and chance considering that Cuevas has received various certifications
evolve when partners die, leave or a new one is added. It is regarding his good behavior while on probation.
questionable to add the new name of a partner and sustain the name
The Supreme Court also stressed that the lawyer’s oath is not a mere
of the deceased one since they have never been, technically, partners
formality recited for a few minutes in the glare of flashing cameras and
in the first place. When it comes to the arguments of
before the presence of select witnesses. As a lawyer, Cuevas shall be
the petitioners stating that U.S. Courts grant the continued use of the
expected to abide by the oath strictly and to conduct himself beyond
deceased partner’sname, this is so because in the U.S., it is a
reproach at all times. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to
sanctioned custom as stated in the case of Mendelsohn v. Equitable
render legal and other services to the more unfortunate members of
Life Assurance Society (33 N.Y.S 2d 733). This does not apply in the
society.
Philippines. The petition filed herein is denied and petitioner is advised
to drop the name “OZAETA” from the firm name.

In Re: Arthur Cuevas, Jr.

FACTS: In 1991, a neophyte died during the initiation rites of Lex
Talionis Fraternitas in the San Beda College of Law. Arthur Cuevas Jr
was one of the persons charged (with murder) for the death of the
neophyte. He pleaded guilty and was later convicted to the lesser
crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. Thereafter,
Cuevas was granted probation and he continued taking up law. In
1995, he was discharged from probation. In 1996, the Supreme Court
allowed Cuevas to take the bar on the condition that in case he will
pass, his oath taking will have to be approved by the Supreme Court
first. Cuevas did pass the 1996 bar exams and in 1997, he filed a
petition before the Supreme Court asking the latter to allow him to take
the Lawyer’s Oath.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cuevas may be allowed to take the Lawyer’s

Oath.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court is duty bound to prevent the entry of
undeserving aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have been
admitted but have become a disgrace to the profession. Cuevas’
participation in the senseless killing of the neophyte is highly