CANON 9 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

MAURICIO C. ULEP V. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

FACTS:
This is a petition praying for an order to the respondent to cease and desist from issuing certain
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.
The said advertisement of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to inquire about secret marriage and
divorce in Guam and annulment, and the like. It also says that they are giving free books on Guam Divorce.
Ulep claims that such advertisements are unethical and destructive of the confidence of the community in
the integrity of lawyers. He, being a member of the bar, is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. On the
other hand, the respondent, while admitting of the fact of the publication of the advertisements, claims that it is not
engaged in the practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through paralegals. It also contends that
such advertisements should be allowed based on certain US cases decided.
ISSUE:
W/N the Legal Clinic Inc is engaged in the practice of law.
W/N the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements complained of.
HELD/RATIO:
Yes, it constitutes practice of law. No, the ads should be enjoined.
Practice of law means 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.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel, and
the preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may
not be pending in a court. When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the
practice of law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an
attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. Giving advice for compensation
regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. The
practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. And applying the criteria, respondent
Legal Clinic Inc. is, as advertised, engaged in the practice of law.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. With
its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and
advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its
advertisements represent and for the which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls
squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law."
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. The only exceptions are when he appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary, simple
professional card.
The advertisements do not fall under these exceptions. 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. Hence, it should be enjoined.
CAYETANO V. MONSOD
FACTS
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Aquino for the position of COMELEC
Chairman in 1991. This nomination was opposed by petitioner Cayetano on the ground that Monsod does not
possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. Apparently, the
Constitution requires that the COMELEC Chairperson be a member of the Philippine Bar who has been engaged in
the practice of law for at least 10 years. Despite Cayetanos opposition, the Commission on Appointments confirmed
the nomination. Thus, Cayetano filed an instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, basically challenging the
confirmation by the CA of Monsods nomination.
ISSUE
Is Monsod qualified to be COMELEC Chairperson?
HELD

YES.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. Practice of law under modem conditions
consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in
court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and
execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although
these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to become
involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and
affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney
or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far
as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which
involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of
importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed
of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to
clients which rests upon all attorneys.
The SC, in order to arrive at its decision, presented a brief history of Monsods employment. After
passing the bar exam, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. From 1963 to 1970, he worked for the
World Bank Group, where he was assigned as operations officer in Costa Rica. His job involved getting acquainted
with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work of the bank.
In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief executive of an
investment bank and a business conglomerate. By 1986, he rendered his services to various companies as a legal
and economic consultant and he also worked as a Chief Executive Officer. He was also the Secretary-General and
National Chairman of NAMFREL in 1986-1987. His position in NAMFREL required his knowledge in election law.
Also, he sat as a member of the Davide Commission in 1990.
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law". particularly the modern concept
of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, 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.
PADILLA, J., dissenting:
There are several factors determinative of whether a particular activity constitutes "practice of law."
1. Habituality
2. Compensation
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls or legal knowledge, training and
experience is within the term "practice of law.
4. Attorney-client relationship.
CAMBALIZA V. CRISTOBAL-TENORIO
FACTS
Cabliza, a former employee of Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, filed a disbarment complaint on the grounds
of deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.
Deceit: represented herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio Jr, who has a prior existing marriage
Grossly immoral conduct: disseminated libellous affidavits against a Makati City counselor.
Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer, to practice by making him a senior partner in her law
office. This is evidenced by 1) the law office letterhead which included the husband as a senior partner, 2) an id
wherein he signed as an atty, 3) appearance in court as counsel.
HELD
Guilty of malpractice. Violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01
Canon 9: a lawyer shall not assist in unauthorized practice of law
Rule 9.01: a lawyer shall not delated to any unqualified person the performance of a task that may only be
performed by members of the bar in good standing
Even though Cabliza later on withdrew her complaint, IBP still pushed through with the investigation
because such is a disciplinary proceeding. There is no private interest affected such that desistance of the
complainant will terminate the proceedings. The purpose is to protect the bar from those unfit to practice law.

CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
HERNANDEZ V. GO
FACTS

Sometime in 1961, Hernandezs husband abandoned her and her son

Shortly thereafter, creditors of Hernandez s husband demanded payment of his loans

Hernandez, fearful of mortgage foreclosures and aware of a impending claim suit, engaged the legal
services of Atty. Go

Atty. Go advised Hernandez to give him land titles covering three lots in Zamboanga City belonging to her,
so that he may sell them to enable her to pay the creditors

Also, Atty. Go persuaded Hernandez to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary or valuable
consideration

Hernandez owns three more lots in Zamboanga City which were mortgaged to creditors. When the
mortgages fell due, Atty. Go redeemed the lots and persuaded Hernandez to execute deeds of sale in his
favor covering the said lots

Atty. Go became the registered owner of all the lots belonging to Hernandez

In 1974, Hernandez came to know that Atty. Go did not sell her lots as agreed upon, but instead he paid her
creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in his name, depriving her of real property
worth millions

Hernandez filed a complaint with the IBP

IBP: Atty. Go violated Canon 17 and should be suspended for 3 years

ISSUE
W/N Atty. GO SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED
HELD
YES, for violating Canons 16 and 17
Atty. Go violated Canon 16
His acts acquiring for himself Hernandezs lots entrusted to him are acts constituting gross misconduct, a
grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere
error in judgment
Such conduct on the part of Atty. Go not only degrades himself but also the honor of the legal profession
Atty. Go violated Canon 17 which provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Records show that Hernandez reposed high degree of trust and confidence in Atty. Go and when she
engaged his services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell the same
Atty. Go, however, abused this trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but to
himself without giving any monetary consideration to Hernandez, thus depriving Hernandez the real worth of her
properties
Atty. Go is duty bound to render a detailed report to Hernandez on how much he sold the lots and the
amounts paid to her creditors but failed to do so
In previous cases, the Court disbarred and expelled lawyers from the practice of law in similar
circumstances, thus, the penalty recommended by the IBP is too light
Atty. Go was ordered disbarred.
PANELCO V. ATTY. JUAN AYAR MONTEMAYOR
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) charging Atty.
Juan Ayar Montemayor with negligence.
Some of the omissions of Atty Montemayor were:
Atty. Montemayor failed to serve and file the required Appellant's Brief despite the lapse of the two
extensions of time granted, hence the Court of Appeals considered the appeal Abandoned
The records also show that respondent Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor did not even bother to answer the
complaint nor present his defense
Hence, PANELCO I prays that the court impose sanctions on Atty. Montemayors gross negligence as
counsel for complainant which resulted [in] the damage of PANELCO I.
ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in mishandling complainants cases
on appeal, which eventually led to their dismissal, to the prejudice of the complainant.
HELD:
Yes. WHEREFORE, Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor is DISBARRED from the practice of law. As counsel for
complainant, respondent had the duty to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect his client.
When he undertook his clients cause, he made a covenant that he will exert all efforts for its prosecution until its final
conclusion.He should undertake the task with dedication and care.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN
THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let
the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
CANON 17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE
LAW.
ADECER V. AKUT
FACTS:
Originally, there was a Criminal Case in which complainants were charged with committing a crime (Other
deceits) punishable under the Revised Penal Code (Other Deceits). Respondent, Atty. Akut was their legal counsel in
the criminal case. Complainant accuses Atty. Akut for being negligent.
First, despite Atty. Akuts receipt of a copy of the Decision and the consequent running of the fifteen (15)-day
period to file a petition for probation, respondent went out of town without contacting complainants to give them
proper legal advice. Furthermore, Atty. Akuts admission that complainants were [1] under the impression that they
first had to pay off their civil liabilities prior to filing a petition for probation and [2] unaware that they had only fifteen
(15) days from their counsels receipt of a copy of the decision to file their petition, proves that Atty. Akut failed to give
complainants timely legal advise.
Atty. Akut explained that he was out of his office most of the time because, he and his wife were always out
of town looking for faith healers to cure the malignant brain tumor of his wife, who eventually succumbed to the
cancer. Allegedly, after attending the "important" hearings, he immediately went out of town seeking faith healers.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Akut is guilty of negligence.
HELD:
Yes. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Atty. Emmanuel A. Akut is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and competence,
regardless of his impression that one case or hearing is more important than the other. We commiserate with
respondent for the loss of his wife, however, failure of an attorney to file a timely motion for reconsideration or an
appeal renders him liable for negligence.
By agreeing to be his clients counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect
the clients interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary