1

ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC IN RE SYCIP

FACTS: Ulep prays the Supreme Court to order the Legal Clinic to cease, issuing advertisement similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes A and B (p381). Legal Clinic admits the facts of publication of said advertisement that claims that it is not engage in the practice of law but in the rendering of legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machine. ISSUE:

W/N the services offered by Legal Clinic as advertised by it constitutes practice of law Whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisement complained of

FACTS: This is a consolidated petition. The first one filed by the surviving partners of atty. Alexander Sycip and the other filed by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ovaepa. They pray that they be allowed to continue using the names of partners who had passed away. Petitioners based their petitions on the following arguments: o Art. 1840 of the Civil Code, o in regulating other professions, the legislature has authorized the adoption of firm names without any restriction as to the use of the name of a deceased partner, o the Canons of Professional Ethics allows the continued use of a deceased partner when permissible by local custom. ISSUE:

HELD:

According to the IBP, notwithstanding the manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the 2 terms, legal support services and legal services, common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without substantial distinction. The use of the name the Legal Clinic gives the impression that the respondent corporation is being managed by lawyers and that it renders legal services. The advertisement in question is meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and public policy. This is in violation of Canon 1 Rule 1.02 that is counseling illegal activities. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court which requires that application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. Applying the case Cayetano vs. Monsod, the court agrees that the activities of the respondent Legal Clinic constitute the practice of law. Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent does not represent clients in court since law practice is not limited merely to court appearances. Regarding the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Profession Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, and objective information or statement of facts. The proscription against advertising of legal services rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. Exceptions: o Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon o Ordinary, simple professional card. The card may contain only the statement of his name, the law firm, address and branch of law practiced. Considering that Atty. Nogales who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of the legal clinic is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded with a warning that the repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely.

W/N law firms may continue to use the names o deceased partners in their firm names

HELD:

NO! Art. 1840 primarily deals with the exception of liability on cases of a dissolved partnership, of the individual property of the deceased partner for debts contracted by the person who continues the business using the partnership name. what the law contemplates is a hold over situation preparatory to formal reorganization. Art. 1840 treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than a professional partnership whose reputation depends on the personal qualifications of its individual members. A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for business. a partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is not a partnership formed for then purpose of carrying on trade or business or of holding property. Thus, assumed or trade name in law practice is improper. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. It must be considered that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased partners name. Therefore, the cited provision on Canons of Professional Ethics is not applicable.

DISSENTING OPINION: Petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the 2 firms that Sycip and Ovaepa are dead or the period when they served as partners sould be stated therein.

2
6 IN RE CUNANAN department, that may be so. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its functions, as in this case.

Facts: This is the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 case. As per the Rules of Court. A bar candidate must have a general average of 75% in all subjects without failing below 50% in any subject. In spite of this, the court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of only: 72% in 1946 69% in 1947 70% in 1948 74% in 1949 In 1950 to 53, the 74% was raised to 75% A few candidates who missed the above marks set by the courts approached Congress. Congress made a bill, which was allowed by the president to become a law without his signature. This is RA 972. Pursuant to the law in question, those who, without a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, have obtained a general average of 69.5 per cent in the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951, 70.5 per cent in 1952, 71.5 per cent in 1953, and those will obtain 72.5 per cent in 1954, and 73.5 per cent in 1955, will be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar, notwithstanding that the rules require a minimum general average of 75 per cent, which has been invariably followed since 1950. A breakdown of the numbers is on page 538. The additional candidates who want to be admitted claim that they suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and of inadequacy of preparation. Issue: W/N RA 972 is valid. HELD RA 972 is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. The public interest demands of the legal profession, adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problems evolved by the times become more difficult. In decreeing that bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject, be admitted in mass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment a judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court during the years affecting the bar candidates concerned Although the SC certainly can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only the SC, and not the legislative nor executive

Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this court, but the authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. Section 13, article VIII of the Constitution provides: "Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish increase or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Courts, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines." The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and the SC equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in the SC. Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter, it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it. The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit, suspend, disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law, or a determinate group of individuals to the practice of law. Its power is limited to repeal, modify or supplement the existing rules on the matter, if according to its judgment the need for a better service of the legal profession requires it. But this power does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to admit, suspend, disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the legal profession. There is no motive stated by the authorities for the qualification in RA 972 because of this, the classification is fatally defective. 1. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952, and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without force and effect. 2. That, for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of article 1 which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law, that is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in conformity with section 10, article VII of the Constitution. Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and (2) all candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5 per cent or more, without having a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, are considered as having passed, whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. After this decision has become

3
final, they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the Chief Justice may set. courts. it isn such misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action In his relations with the court, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Statements made by an attorney in a private conversation or in the course of political campaign, if couched in insulting language as to bring scorn and disrepute to the administration of justice may subject the attorney to disciplinary action. post-litigation utterances or publication made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their juducial actions, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcends the permissible bounds of fair commetns and legitimate criticism constitute grave professional misconduct. there is no comfort in the argument of Atty. Almacen that his utterances were made after the judgments against his client attained finality. he could still be liable for contempt as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal. THe pendency or non-pendency of a case in court is of no consequence. the sole objective of the proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal profession. FACTS: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a Petition to Surrender the Lawyers Certificate of Title to the Supreme Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he call a tribunal peopled by people who are calloused to our pleas for justice. He also expressed strong words as against the judiciary like justice is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb. . The petition rooted from the case he lost due to the absence of time and place in his motion in the trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again dismissed thru a minute resolution. With the disappointments, he thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed that this petition to surrender his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title again as soon as he regained confidence in the justice system. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions for his acts.

FACTS: Atty Almecen is the counsel of Calero in the case of Yaptinchay vs. Calero The trial court, after the hearing rendered judgment against his client he moved for reconsideration (MR) and served copy of the motion to the adverse party but failed to notify the latter of the date and place of the hearing In the CA, the court moved to also disamiss the case for the reason that the MR does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing and is nothing but a useless piece of paper The SC refised to tkae the cse and in a minute resolution denied the appeal It was at this pont that Atty Almacen filed his "PETITION TO SURRENDER LAWYER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE" The pleading filed by Atty Almacen is interspersed from beginning to end with insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and deregoratory remarks agaist the court, as well as its individual members. Atty Almacen described the court as "a tribunal peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas of justice, who ignore without reason thier own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. he also referred to his client as "on who was deeply aggrieved by the court's unjust judgment" and has become " one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." He also referred to the member of the court as "justice as administered by the present members of the SUpreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb." The court asked Atty Almacen to show cause why no disciplinary actions must be taken against him Atty Almacen asked that he be given permission permission to give his answer in an open and public hearing. He reasoned that since the court is the complainant, prosecutor and judge, he preferred that he answer and be heard in an open and public hearing sa that the court could observe its sincerity and candor. The court allowed Atty Almacen to file a written answer and thereafter be heard in an oral argument But his written answer offers no apology but is full of sarcasm and innuendo (SEE PAGE 569-572) ISSUE: W/N Atty Almacen is guilty HELD: YES! and he is indefinitely suspended until further order form the SC Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. The decisions of the courta public property and the press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them, criticize and censure them as they see fit. BUT it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and rpopriety. A wide chasm exist between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and justices thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to

HELD: YES. Indefinite suspension imposed.

RATIO: It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but Atty. Almacen himself because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth and alleged injustices,so as not to condemn the sinners but the sin, it has already caused enough damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular case is sui generis in its nature, a number of foreign and local jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited as benchmarks and references. Between disbarment and suspension, the latter was imposed. Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until further orders, after Atty. Almacen may be able to prove that he is again fit to resume the practice of law.

4
which is reflective of his depraved character, respondent has made himself unworthy to remain in the Roll of Attorneys. Case Digest on Cleto Docena vs. Atty. Dominador Q. Limon (295 SCRA 262) Lawyer Unlawful Conduct Facts: Respondent was petitioners lawyer in a civil case. During that case, he asked the petitioners to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the appealed decision. Petitioners forwarded the money to Limon. Later, the case was decided in their favor. They were unable to recover the money because the clerk of court said no such bond had ever been filed. IBP suspended him for one year. Hence this petition. Held: Disbarred (see Canon 1.01 and 16.01). Respondents allegation that the money was payment of his fees was overcome by other evidence. The lawis not a trade nor craft but a profession. Its basic ideal is to render public service and to secure justice for those who seek its aid. If it has to remain anhonorable profession and attain its basic ideal, lawyers should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives, accord continuingfidelity to them. By extorting money from his client through deceit, Limon has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has indirectly eroded thepeoples confidence in the judicial system. He is disbarred for immoral, deceitful and unlawful conduct.

DOCENA V LIMON Facts: Atty. Limon was the Docena spouses lawyer for their appeal in a Forcible Entry case. He then required the Docena spouses to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of P10,000.00 allegedly to stay the execution of the appealed decision The Docenas obtained a loan of P3,000.00 from the Borongan, Eastern Samar Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines; borrowed P2,140.00 from a private individual; and applied for an agricultural loan of P4,860.00 from the Borongan, Samar Branch of the Philippine National Bank, wherein Limon himself acted as guarantor. When The Docenas went to the CFI to withdraw the bond after the case, they discovered that no such bond was ever posted by Limon. Limon claims that the P10T was just his attorneys fees.

Issue: W/N Limon should be sanctioned. Held: He should be DISBARRED! By extorting money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation, respondent Limon has reduced the law profession to a level so base, so low and dishonorable, and most contemptible. He has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has, indirectly, eroded the peoples' confidence in the judicial system. By his reprehensible conduct,

In re: David 93 Phil 461 Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer for a period of five years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant admits this suspension in `his written report filed on March 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise the profession within the period of suspension, November 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954. On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer but as an agent. (For and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek, subsequently Atty Felix David filed a motion for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc vs Tolentino, defendant filed a brief for an order to demolish homes. In order - says the appeal - to show That I did not Have the intention to disregard the suspension of the Supreme Court, I did not With The Knowledge of Tan Tek Identified Sy Even myself as the attorney for the Appelles But In Good Faith, I signed for and in Behalf of the appellee Without Designating That I am Practicing as attorney-at-law.

HELD: Yes. Neither can he allow his name to appear in such pleading by itself or as part of firm name under the signature of another qualified lawyer because the signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non-qualified senator or congressman, the office of an attorney being originally an agency, and because he will, by such act, be appearing in court or quasijudicial or administrative body in violation of the constitutional restriction. He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly.

ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law.

6
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic 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 latters 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 7 Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila GUAM DIVORCE DON PARKINSON An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys. through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. 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
th

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retirees 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. 7 Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767 It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients 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, medicolegal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are
th

7
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 lawyers advertisement of his talents. 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 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.