BAR MATTER No.

553 June 17, 1993

ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

Ponente: Regalado, J.
Topic: Practice of Law; Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Petitioner Mauricio Ulep prayed the court to order Respondent The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease
and desist from issuing the advertisements on “secret marriages” and “Guam divorce” (shown
below) and to perpetually prohibit persons and any other entity from making advertisements
pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed under existing laws.

Advertisements:

Annex A Annex B

SECRET MARRIAGE? GUAM DIVORCE.

P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. DON PARKINSON
ANNULMENT. VISA
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce
THE LEGAL CLINIC through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during
Please call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 office hours.
8:30 am – 6:00 pm
7th flr., Victoria Building, U.N. Ave., Mla. Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems,
Visa Ext. Quote/Non-quote Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Finacees.
Adoption. Investment in Phi. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children.

Call Marivic
THE LEGAL CLINIC
Please call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041
7th flr., Victoria Building, 429 U.N. Ave., Ermita, Manila
nr. US Embassy

Petitioner argues that the advertisements are “champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the comminoty in the integrity of the members
of the bar.” He further states that, as a member of the bar, “he is ashamed and offended by the
said advertisements.”

On the other hand, Respondent admits that they have caused the publication of the said
advertisements. However, they argue that they are merely rendering “legal support services”
through paralegals “with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.” Further, it was
argued by Respondent that, assuming that these were in fact “legal services”, in view of the
U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Bates & Van O’Steen v. State Bar of Arizona, the
advertisementof such services should be allowed.

The Court required the following institutions to the submit their respective position papers,
considering the legal implications of the decisions on the legal profession: (1) Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, (2) Philippine Bar Association, (3) Philippine Lawyers’ Association, (4) U.P.
Women Lawyer’s Circle, (5) Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines, and the (6)
Federacion Internacional de Abogadas.
ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not the services offered by The Legal Clinic Inc., constitutes the practice of law
2. Whether or not the same can be a proper subject of advertisements

HELD + RATIO

1. Yes. The services rendered/offered by the respondent constitutes the practice of law.

The Court defined the practice of law as “any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. Generally, to
practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or
skill.” In this case, the Court emphasized that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases in court. Citing the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, the Court defined
the practice of law “[i]n general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters
connected with the law” and that which involves “the determination of the trained legal mind of
the legal effect of facts and conditions.”

Respondent’s contention: It merely offers legal support services by “giving ready information
by trained paralegals to laymen and lawyers, which are strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory x x
x gathering, processing, storage, transmission and reproduction of information and
communication, such as computerized legal research.”

The Court held that all that respondent would do is to look for the law, provide them to their
clients, and stop there, “as if it were merely a bookstore.” It was necessary for the respondent’s
lawyers and so-called paralegals to explain to their clients the meaning of the law and its
implications, and advise the latter on the proper action to be taken. This is what is represented
by the advertisements, which falls within the definition of the “practice of law.” As stated earlier,
the fact that a person or entity does not represent the client in court is immaterial.

Further, its own proprietor, Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, mentioned in an article “Rx for Legal
Problems” that the purpose and operation of respondent is similar to those in the medical field,
and caters to clients “who cannot afford the services of big law firms.” According to him, the
Legal Clinic performs “treatments” depending on the case, from the simple preparation of a
deed of sale to the litigation in court of estate proceedings.

It was clearly established that the purpose of respondent was to act as a “one-stop shop” for
clients to avail of their different legal services. The Court further stressed that most of the
services offered by respondent are beyond the domain of “parelegals” and that they are within
the exclusive function of lawyers, duly admitted as a member of the bar, in good and regular
standing, engaged in the practice of law. The Court states, “The practice of law is not a lawful
business except for members of the bar who have complied with all the conditions required by
statute and the rules of court. Only those persons are allowed to practice law who, by reason of
attainments previously acquired through education and study, have been recognized by the
courts as possessing profound knowledge of legal science entitling them to advise, counsel
with, protect, or defend the rights claims, or liabilities of their clients, with respect to the
construction, interpretation, operation and effect of law.” Such exlusion serves the ultimate
purpose of “protecting the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by
incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little
control.”
The Court also held that respondent is wrong in adopting the concept of “paralegals” as used in
the United States. Such profession is separate and distinct on its own. Universities and colleges
in the United States offer degrees in paralegal education, which is not present in the Philippnies.
Further, the United States has evolved its public policies to cater to the services of paralegals
and to protect the public. The Philippines continues to adopt the policy of having a restricted and
limited acceptance of “paralegal services.” Allowable services conducted by non-lawyers are
limited in scope and extent by the law granting the same. In the absence of constitutional or
statutory authority, a person who has not been admitted as a lawyer cannot practice law so as
to prevent the miscarriage of justice and hindrance by an unwarranted intrusion of unauthorized
and unskilled persons into the practice of law.

2. No. The advertisements are improper.

The Court held that, under the Code of Professional Responsibility, “a lawyer, in making known
his legal services, shall use only true, hones, fair, dignified, and objective information or
statement of facts.” He must refrain from using any “false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory, or unfair” statements or claims with regard to his qualifications and
his services.

The Court stated, “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
skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods.” Citing the case of Director of
Religious Affairs v. Bayot, the Court emphasized that the practice of law is a profession and not
a trade. It is highly unethical for a lawyer to advertise his talents or skills “as a merchant who
adverstises his wares.” As similarly held in the cited case, the advertisements here in question
constitute improper advertising and solicitation.

The Court further enumerated the “best advertising possible for a lawyer, as follows:

a. A well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which

must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct.
b. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data.
c. Use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may
contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is
connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced.
d. Name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special
branch of law.

The Court finally held that, “to allow the publication of advertisements of the kind used by
respondent would only serve to aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of the
legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack lately by media and the
community in general.”

The Court enjoined and restrained The Legal Clinic, Inc.:

1. From causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of
the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B"; and
2. From conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by
law or the Code of Professional Ethics.