Are non-Filipino lawyers engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines?

Alien, mostly American immigration lawyers and law firms advertise their legal services
on the Internet, in major Philippine newspapers, and local television programs, to
Filipinos who want to immigrate abroad, pointing out the locations and telephone
numbers of the offices they openly maintain in Manila. One even discloses that the firm
charges $200.00 for initial consultation, and that it accepts major credit cards.
Are these alien lawyers engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines?
It can be argued that they are not actually engaged in the practice of law in the country
because whatever legal advice they dispense and legal representation they provide do
not involve the application or interpretation of Philippine laws or rules, and they do not
represent their clients before Philippine courts or quasi-judicial bodies. One even ends
his internet columns with the pre-emptive disclaimer that:
This is for informational purposes only, and reflects the firms opinions and views on
general issues. Each case is different and results may depend on the facts of a
particular case. All immigration services are provided by an active member of the State
Bar of California and/or by a person under the supervision of an active member of the
State Bar. No prediction, warranty or guarantee can be made about the results of any
case. Should you need or want legal advice, you should consult with and retain counsel
of your own choice.
But this argument is inconsistent with the modern concept of the practice of law
defined in Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210, 214 [1991]:
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of
the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill.
And in Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic Inc., 223 SCRA 378, 400 [1993], the Supreme Court
said:
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal
information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such information is nonadvisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent and real. In providing information,
for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the
credulity of this Court that all that respondent corporation will simply do is look for
the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a
bookstore. 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
https://obitir.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/are-non-filipino-lawyers-engaged-in-thepractice-of-law-in-the-philippines/

advertisements represent and for which services it will consequently charge and
be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of practice
of law. Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent
corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight
of authority holds, is not limited merely to court appearances but extends to legal
research, giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth.
Given the foregoing, the foreign lawyers and law firms are clearly engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines. Are they authorized to do so? Consider that Art. XII,
Sec. 14 of the Constitution provides in part that the practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. With
respect to the legal profession, only the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate
rules concerning the admission thereto (Philippine Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5 [5]).
The practice of law is not a natural, absolute, or constitutional right to be
granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a high personal privilege
limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications,
duly ascertained and certified. (In Re: Al C. Argosino, 246 SCRA 14, 17 [1995])
in the absence of constitutional or statutory authority, a person who
has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the proper
administration of justice cannot be hindered by the unwarranted intrusion of an
unauthorized and unskilled person into the practice of law. That policy should
continue to be one of encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal rights
and remedies to seek legal assistance only from persons licensed to practice law
in the state. (Ulep, supra, p. 405)
Pursuant to its constitutional authority, the Supreme Court promulgated the Rules of
Court, Rule 138 of which pertains to attorneys and admission to the bar. The basic
requirement for admission to the Philippine Bar is Philippine citizenship (Rule 138, Sec.
2).
In Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie, 136 SCRA 349, 350-351 [1985], the Supreme Court
said:
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the
Philippines. As admitted by respondents in their memorandum, Baker &
McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with
members and associates in 30 cities around the world. x x x
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents use of the firm
name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with
the firm they could render legal services of the highest quality to multinational
business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment. This
is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here.
(Citations omitted.)
https://obitir.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/are-non-filipino-lawyers-engaged-in-thepractice-of-law-in-the-philippines/

The prohibition is subject to a single exception: American citizens who became duly
licensed members of the Philippine Bar before July 4, 1946 can continue practicing law
in the Philippines (Rule 138, Sec. 3). But in view of the relative youth of the alien
immigration law specialists, it is safe to say they are not among those American lawyers
who have been practicing law in the Philippines before said time.
Arts. VIII or XII of the Constitution, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the December 18,
1946 Supreme Court Resolution, Ulep, and Dacanay have not been amended,
repealed, or modified. It is therefore evident that the practice of law in the Philippines is
reserved solely for Filipinos, and only Filipinos can be admitted to the Philippine Bar.
Thus it follows that the alien lawyers and law firms are not authorized to engage in the
practice of law in the country.
Now some may say that the alien lawyers do not even need to be authorized to practice
law in the Philippines or to become members of the Philippine Bar because they are
very qualified, even more so than local lawyers, to provide the legal services they
advertise. In fact, the International Bar Association has adopted a resolution calling for
the Regulation of Foreign Lawyers as practitioners of foreign law for the limited
purpose of permitting them to practice the law of their home jurisdiction in the host
jurisdiction without examination or full admission to the host bar. Moreover, the
Philippines ratified the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, part of which refers
is General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Schedule which pertains to crossborder practice of professions
However, the GATS is not self-executing, as Congress must pass a law to enable
foreign professionals to practice in the country (Excerpts from the Address delivered by
Justice Dante O. Tinga at the Commencement Exercises of the Ateneo de Manila
School of Law on April 27, 2008
[http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2008/05/050827.php]). Or at the very
least, the Supreme Court should revise the Rules of Court to allow foreign lawyers to
engage in limited practice (http://www.edangara.com/content/opening-philippine-legalprofession).
No such law or rule exists at present. Thus while the alien lawyers may be qualified to
provide legal services on their field of specialization, they are presently disqualified from
doing so in the country.
(This post is a revision of the authors article that was published in the December 31,
2006 issue of The Lawyers Review)

https://obitir.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/are-non-filipino-lawyers-engaged-in-thepractice-of-law-in-the-philippines/