March 23, 1929

In re LUIS B. TAGORDA,

Duran & Lim for respondent.

Attorney-General Jaranilla and Provincial Fiscal Jose for the Government.

MALCOLM, J.:

The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela,
admits that previous to the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano,
which, in translation, reads as follows:

LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela

(NOTE. As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as
required by the cadastral office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your
application and final requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a
lawyer, he can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or
against you. Come or write to him in his town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is
willing to help and serve the poor.)

The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home
municipality written in Ilocano, which letter, in translation, reads as follows:

ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928

MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to inform you of the approaching date for our induction into
office as member of the Provincial Board, that is on the 16th of next month. Before my induction into
office I should be very glad to hear your suggestions or recommendations for the good of the
province in general and for your barrio in particular. You can come to my house at any time here in
Echague, to submit to me any kind of suggestion or recommendation as you may desire.

I also inform you that despite my membership in the Board I will have my residence here in
Echague. I will attend the session of the Board of Ilagan, but will come back home on the following
day here in Echague to live and serve with you as a lawyer and notary public. Despite my election as
member of the Provincial Board, I will exercise my legal profession as a lawyer and notary public. In
case you cannot see me at home on any week day, I assure you that you can always find me there
on every Sunday. I also inform you that I will receive any work regarding preparations of documents
of contract of sales and affidavits to be sworn to before me as notary public even on Sundays.

I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that some people are in the belief that
my residence as member of the Board will be in Ilagan and that I would then be disqualified to
exercise my profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case and I would make it
clear that I am free to exercise my profession as formerly and that I will have my residence here in
Echague.

I would request you kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of your
meetings or social gatherings so that they may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you
in my capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality have not as yet contracted
 the services of other lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles, I would be willing
to handle the work in court and would charge only three pesos for every registration.

Yours respectfully,

(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA

Attorney
Notary Public.

The facts being conceded, it is next in order to write down the applicable legal provisions. Section 21 of the
Code of Civil Procedure as originally conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the
instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said codal section was amended by Act No. 2828 by adding at
the end thereof the following: "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."

The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of Professionals Ethics adopted by the
American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the
Code of Ethics provide:

27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must
be the outcome of character and conduct. The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business
cards, being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per
se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal
communications or interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally
unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real
estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering
retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect
advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner
of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and
all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are
intolerable.

28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS. It is unprofessional for a

lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or
trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but it is
indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and
inform thereof in order to the employed to bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with
claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as
clients, or to employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward directly or indirectly,
those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen,
court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed, under the guise of
giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant
or others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon
every member of the bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner
immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may be disbarred.

Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels between individuals was a crime at
the common law, and one of the penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was disbarment.
Statutes intended to reach the same evil have been provided in a number of jurisdictions usually at the
instance of the bar itself, and have been upheld as constitutional. The reason behind statutes of this type is
not difficult to discover. The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain
employment by himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional. (State vs. Rossman [1909],
53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas., 625; People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A., 231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)
It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It
is destructive of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against
the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless litigation
and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. That should be
distinctly understood.

Giving application of the law and the Canons of Ethics to the admitted facts, the respondent stands
convicted of having solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only remaining
duty of the court is to fix upon the action which should here be taken. The provincial fiscal of Isabela, with
whom joined the representative of the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the case, suggests that
the respondent be only reprimanded. We think that our action should go further than this if only to reflect our
attitude toward cases of this character of which unfortunately the respondent's is only one. The commission
of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating,
circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are, first, his intimation that he was unaware of the
impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and, third, his promise not to commit a
similar mistake in the future. A modest period of suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring
attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that this result is reached in view of the considerations which
have influenced the court to the relatively lenient in this particular instance and should, therefore, not be
taken as indicating that future convictions of practice of this kind will not be dealt with by disbarment.

In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the court is that the respondent Luis B.
Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month
from April 1, 1929,

Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., reserves his vote.

_____

Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,

vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.

R E SO L U T I O N

REGALADO, J.:

Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar
to or of the same tenor as that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or
entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those
allowed by law."
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:

Annex A

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.

THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am 6:00 pm 7-
Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.

Annex B

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 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1
Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767

It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champterous, unethical,
demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said
advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at its instance,
but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through
paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that
assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be
allowed supposedly
in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, 2 reportedly decided by the
United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.

Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein, we required the (1)
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine Lawyers'
Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Womens Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers Association of the
Philippines (WLAP), and (6) Federacion International de Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position
papers on the controversy and, thereafter, their memoranda. 3 The said bar associations readily responded
and extended their valuable services and cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation and
gratitude.

The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not the services offered by
respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether
the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.
Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case, we deem it proper and enlightening to
present hereunder excerpts from the respective position papers adopted by the aforementioned bar
associations and the memoranda submitted by them on the issues involved in this bar matter.

1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:

xxx xxx xxx

Notwithstanding the subtle manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the two
terms, i.e., "legal support services" vis-a-vis "legal services", common sense would readily
dictate that the same are essentially without substantial distinction. For who could deny that
document search, evidence gathering, assistance to layman in need of basic institutional
services from government or non-government agencies like birth, marriage, property, or
business registration, obtaining documents like clearance, passports, local or foreign visas,
constitutes practice of law?

xxx xxx xxx

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue with respondent's
foreign citations. Suffice it to state that the IBP has made its position manifest, to wit, that it
strongly opposes the view espoused by respondent (to the effect that today it is alright to
advertise one's legal services).

The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's act of
establishing a "legal clinic" and of concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper
publications.

The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this Honorable Court to
perpetually restrain respondent from undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law
practice as aforedescribed. 4

xxx xxx xxx

A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that respondent
corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it renders legal services.

While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public, the
advertisements in question give the impression that respondent is offering legal services.
The Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so, as earlier mentioned, apparently because
this (is) the effect that the advertisements have on the reading public.

The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, first of all, to the
very name being used by respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is
respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of legal services for legal problems, just like a
medical clinic connotes medical services for medical problems. More importantly, the term
"Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes doctors.

Furthermore, the respondent's name, as published in the advertisements subject of the

present case, appears with (the) scale(s) of justice, which all the more reinforces the
impression that it is being operated by members of the bar and that it offers legal services. In
addition, the advertisements in question appear with a picture and name of a person being
represented as a lawyer from Guam, and this practically removes whatever doubt may still
remain as to the nature of the service or services being offered.
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal support services" as
claimed by it, or whether it offers legal services as any lawyer actively engaged in law
practice does. And it becomes unnecessary to make a distinction between "legal services"
and "legal support services," as the respondent would have it. The advertisements in
question leave no room for doubt in the minds of the reading public that legal services are
being offered by lawyers, whether true or not.

B. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to
law, morals, public order and public policy.

It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the advertisements in question are only
meant to inform the general public of the services being offered by it. Said advertisements,
however, emphasize to Guam divorce, and any law student ought to know that under the
Family Code, there is only one instance when a foreign divorce is recognized, and that is:

Article 26. . . .

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly

celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine Law.

It must not be forgotten, too, that the Family Code (defines) a marriage as follows:

Article 1. Marriage is special contract of permanent union between a man

and woman entered into accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable
social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed
by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may
fix the property relation during the marriage within the limits provided by this
Code.

By simply reading the questioned advertisements, it is obvious that the message being
conveyed is that Filipinos can avoid the legal consequences of a marriage celebrated in
accordance with our law, by simply going to Guam for a divorce. This is not only misleading,
but encourages, or serves to induce, violation of Philippine law. At the very least, this can be
considered "the dark side" of legal practice, where certain defects in Philippine laws are
exploited for the sake of profit. At worst, this is outright malpractice.

Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

In addition, it may also be relevant to point out that advertisements such as that shown in
Annex "A" of the Petition, which contains a cartoon of a motor vehicle with the words "Just
Married" on its bumper and seems to address those planning a "secret marriage," if not
suggesting a "secret marriage," makes light of the "special contract of permanent union," the
inviolable social institution," which is how the Family Code describes marriage, obviously to
emphasize its sanctity and inviolability. Worse, this particular advertisement appears to
encourage marriages celebrated in secrecy, which is suggestive of immoral publication of
applications for a marriage license.

If the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be reviewed, it can readily be concluded that the
above impressions one may gather from the advertisements in question are accurate. The
Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion example alone confirms what the advertisements
suggest. Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being encouraged or committed
(a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with impunity simply because the
jurisdiction of Philippine courts does not extend to the place where the crime is committed.

Even if it be assumed, arguendo, (that) the "legal support services" respondent offers do not
constitute legal services as commonly understood, the advertisements in question give the
impression that respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it offers legal
services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only logical consequence is that, in the eyes of an
ordinary newspaper reader, members of the bar themselves are encouraging or inducing the
performance of acts which are contrary to law, morals, good customs and the public good,
thereby destroying and demeaning the integrity of the Bar.

xxx xxx xxx

It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from causing the publication
of the advertisements in question, or any other advertisements similar thereto. It is also
submitted that respondent should be prohibited from further performing or offering some of
the services it presently offers, or, at the very least, from offering such services to the public
in general.

The IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal research, electronic data
gathering, storage and retrieval, standardized legal forms, investigators for gathering of
evidence, and like services will greatly benefit the legal profession and should not be stifled
but instead encouraged. However, when the conduct of such business by non-members of
the Bar encroaches upon the practice of law, there can be no choice but to prohibit such
business.

Admittedly, many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better performed by
specialists in other fields, such as computer experts, who by reason of their having devoted
time and effort exclusively to such field cannot fulfill the exacting requirements for admission
to the Bar. To prohibit them from "encroaching" upon the legal profession will deny the
profession of the great benefits and advantages of modern technology. Indeed, a lawyer
using a computer will be doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter, even if both are
(equal) in skill.

Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to allow or tolerate the illegal
practice of law in any form, not only for the protection of members of the Bar but also, and
more importantly, for the protection of the public. Technological development in the
profession may be encouraged without tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention of illegal
practice.

There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform all of its services,
but only if such services are made available exclusively to members of the Bench and Bar.
Respondent would then be offering technical assistance, not legal services. Alternatively, the
more difficult task of carefully distinguishing between which service may be offered to the
public in general and which should be made available exclusively to members of the Bar may
be undertaken. This, however, may require further proceedings because of the factual
considerations involved.

It must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent's services ought to be prohibited

outright, such as acts which tend to suggest or induce celebration abroad of marriages which
are bigamous or otherwise illegal and void under Philippine law. While respondent may not
be prohibited from simply disseminating information regarding such matters, it must be
required to include, in the information given, a disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice
law, that certain course of action may be illegal under Philippine law, that it is not authorized
or capable of rendering a legal opinion, that a lawyer should be consulted before deciding on
which course of action to take, and that it cannot recommend any particular lawyer without
subjecting itself to possible sanctions for illegal practice of law.

If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed exclusively at members

of the Bar, with a clear and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or
perform legal services.

The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. But nobody should be
allowed to represent himself as a "paralegal" for profit, without such term being clearly
defined by rule or regulation, and without any adequate and effective means of regulating his
activities. Also, law practice in a corporate form may prove to be advantageous to the legal
profession, but before allowance of such practice may be considered, the corporation's
Article of Incorporation and By-laws must conform to each and every provision of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court. 5

2. Philippine Bar Association:

xxx xxx xxx.

Respondent asserts that it "is not engaged in the practice of law but engaged in giving legal
support services to lawyers and laymen, through experienced paralegals, with the use of
modern computers and electronic machines" (pars. 2 and 3, Comment). This is absurd.
Unquestionably, respondent's acts of holding out itself to the public under the trade name
"The Legal Clinic, Inc.," and soliciting employment for its enumerated services fall within the
realm of a practice which thus yields itself to the regulatory powers of the Supreme Court.
For respondent to say that it is merely engaged in paralegal work is to stretch credulity.
Respondent's own commercial advertisement which announces a certain Atty. Don
Parkinson to be handling the fields of law belies its pretense. From all indications,
respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." is offering and rendering legal services through its
reserve of lawyers. It has been held that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases in court, but includes drawing of deeds, incorporation, rendering opinions, and
advising clients as to their legal right and then take them to an attorney and ask the latter to
look after their case in court See Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed., p. 39).

It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice of law, and such
limitation cannot be evaded by a corporation employing competent lawyers to practice for it.
Obviously, this is the scheme or device by which respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." holds
out itself to the public and solicits employment of its legal services. It is an odious vehicle for
deception, especially so when the public cannot ventilate any grievance
for malpractice against the business conduit. Precisely, the limitation of practice of law to
persons who have been duly admitted as members of the Bar (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Revised
Rules of Court) is to subject the members to the discipline of the Supreme Court. Although
respondent uses its business name, the persons and the lawyers who act for it are subject to
court discipline. The practice of law is not a profession open to all who wish to engage in it
nor can it be assigned to another (See 5 Am. Jur. 270). It is a personal right limited to
persons who have qualified themselves under the law. It follows that not only respondent but
also all the persons who are acting for respondent are the persons engaged in unethical law
practice. 6

3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:

The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the issues stated herein, are wit:

1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;

2. Such practice is unauthorized;

3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but also misleading and patently
immoral; and

4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to supress and punish the Legal Clinic and
its corporate officers for its unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical, misleading and
immoral advertising.

xxx xxx xxx

Respondent posits that is it not engaged in the practice of law. It claims that it merely renders
"legal support services" to answers, litigants and the general public as enunciated in the
Primary Purpose Clause of its Article(s) of Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of Respondent's
Comment). But its advertised services, as enumerated above, clearly and convincingly show
that it is indeed engaged in law practice, albeit outside of court.

As advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services on Persons and Family
Relations Law, particularly regarding foreign divorces, annulment of marriages, secret
marriages, absence and adoption; Immigration Laws, particularly on visa related problems,
immigration problems; the Investments Law of the Philippines and such other related laws.

Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid law, the legal
principles and procedures related thereto, the legal advices based thereon and which
activities call for legal training, knowledge and experience.

Applying the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited Agrava Case, the activities of
respondent fall squarely and are embraced in what lawyers and laymen equally term as "the
practice of law." 7

4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:

In resolving, the issues before this Honorable Court, paramount consideration should be
given to the protection of the general public from the danger of being exploited by unqualified
persons or entities who may be engaged in the practice of law.

At present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year course of study on
top of a four-year bachelor of arts or sciences course and then to take and pass the bar
examinations. Only then, is a lawyer qualified to practice law.

While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdiction as an aid to the administration
of justice, there are in those jurisdictions, courses of study and/or standards which would
qualify these paralegals to deal with the general public as such. While it may now be the
opportune time to establish these courses of study and/or standards, the fact remains that at
present, these do not exist in the Philippines. In the meantime, this Honorable Court may
decide to make measures to protect the general public from being exploited by those who
may be dealing with the general public in the guise of being "paralegals" without being
qualified to do so.

In the same manner, the general public should also be protected from the dangers which
may be brought about by advertising of legal services. While it appears that lawyers are
prohibited under the present Code of Professional Responsibility from advertising, it appears
in the instant case that legal services are being advertised not by lawyers but by an entity
staffed by "paralegals." Clearly, measures should be taken to protect the general public from
 falling prey to those who advertise legal services without being qualified to offer such
services. 8

A perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent, however, seems to give the

impression that information regarding validity of marriages, divorce, annulment of marriage,
immigration, visa extensions, declaration of absence, adoption and foreign investment, which are
in essence, legal matters , will be given to them if they avail of its services. The Respondent's
name The Legal Clinic, Inc. does not help matters. It gives the impression again that
Respondent will or can cure the legal problems brought to them. Assuming that Respondent is,
as claimed, staffed purely by paralegals, it also gives the misleading impression that there are
lawyers involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc., as there are doctors in any medical clinic, when only
"paralegals" are involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc.

Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its President and
majority stockholder, Atty. Nogales, who gave an insight on the structure and main purpose
of Respondent corporation in the aforementioned "Starweek" article." 9

5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:

Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit cases for the
purpose of gain which, as provided for under the above cited law, (are) illegal and against
the Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers in this country.

Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement to solicit cases, but it
is illegal in that in bold letters it announces that the Legal Clinic, Inc., could work out/cause
the celebration of a secret marriage which is not only illegal but immoral in this country.
While it is advertised that one has to go to said agency and pay P560 for a valid marriage it
is certainly fooling the public for valid marriages in the Philippines are solemnized only by
officers authorized to do so under the law. And to employ an agency for said purpose of
contracting marriage is not necessary.

No amount of reasoning that in the USA, Canada and other countries the trend is towards
allowing lawyers to advertise their special skills to enable people to obtain from qualified
xx practitioners legal services for their particular needs can justify the use of advertisements
such as are the subject matter of the petition, for one (cannot) justify an illegal act even by
whatever merit the illegal act may serve. The law has yet to be amended so that such act
could become justifiable.

We submit further that these advertisements that seem to project that secret marriages and
divorce are possible in this country for a fee, when in fact it is not so, are highly
reprehensible.

It would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they could go about having a
secret marriage here, when it cannot nor should ever be attempted, and seek advice on
divorce, where in this country there is none, except under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws
in the Philippines. It is also against good morals and is deceitful because it falsely represents
to the public to be able to do that which by our laws cannot be done (and) by our Code of
Morals should not be done.

In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the Supreme Court held that solicitation for clients
by an attorney by circulars of advertisements, is unprofessional, and offenses of this
character justify permanent elimination from the Bar. 10

6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:

 xxx xxx xxx

1.7 That entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law, such as management
consultancy firms or travel agencies, whether run by lawyers or not, perform the services
rendered by Respondent does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Respondent is not
unlawfully practicing law. In the same vein, however, the fact that the business of respondent
(assuming it can be engaged in independently of the practice of law) involves knowledge of
the law does not necessarily make respondent guilty of unlawful practice of law.

. . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . acting as a consultant can render effective

service unless he is familiar with such statutes and regulations. He must be
careful not to suggest a course of conduct which the law forbids. It seems . . .
.clear that (the consultant's) knowledge of the law, and his use of that
knowledge as a factor in determining what measures he shall recommend,
do not constitute the practice of law . . . . It is not only presumed that all men
know the law, but it is a fact that most men have considerable acquaintance
with broad features of the law . . . . Our knowledge of the law accurate or
inaccurate moulds our conduct not only when we are acting for ourselves,
but when we are serving others. Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen
generally possess rather precise knowledge of the laws touching their
particular business or profession. A good example is the architect, who must
be familiar with zoning, building and fire prevention codes, factory and
tenement house statutes, and who draws plans and specification in harmony
with the law. This is not practicing law.

But suppose the architect, asked by his client to omit a fire tower, replies that
it is required by the statute. Or the industrial relations expert cites, in support
of some measure that he recommends, a decision of the National Labor
Relations Board. Are they practicing law? In my opinion, they are not,
provided no separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information, and
the legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem.

It is largely a matter of degree and of custom.

If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to engage a
lawyer to advise him and the architect in respect to the building code and the
like, then an architect who performed this function would probably be
considered to be trespassing on territory reserved for licensed attorneys.
Likewise, if the industrial relations field had been pre-empted by lawyers, or
custom placed a lawyer always at the elbow of the lay personnel man. But
this is not the case. The most important body of the industrial relations
experts are the officers and business agents of the labor unions and few of
them are lawyers. Among the larger corporate employers, it has been the
practice for some years to delegate special responsibility in employee
matters to a management group chosen for their practical knowledge and
skill in such matter, and without regard to legal thinking or lack of it. More
recently, consultants like the defendants have the same service that the
larger employers get from their own specialized staff.

The handling of industrial relations is growing into a recognized profession for

which appropriate courses are offered by our leading universities. The court
should be very cautious about declaring [that] a widespread, well-established
method of conducting business is unlawful, or that the considerable class of
men who customarily perform a certain function have no right to do so, or
 that the technical education given by our schools cannot be used by the
graduates in their business.

In determining whether a man is practicing law, we should consider his work

for any particular client or customer, as a whole. I can imagine defendant
being engaged primarily to advise as to the law defining his client's
obligations to his employees, to guide his client's obligations to his
employees, to guide his client along the path charted by law. This, of course,
would be the practice of the law. But such is not the fact in the case before
me. Defendant's primarily efforts are along economic and psychological lines.
The law only provides the frame within which he must work, just as the
zoning code limits the kind of building the limits the kind of building the
architect may plan. The incidental legal advice or information defendant may
give, does not transform his activities into the practice of law. Let me add that
if, even as a minor feature of his work, he performed services which are
customarily reserved to members of the bar, he would be practicing law. For
instance, if as part of a welfare program, he drew employees' wills.

Another branch of defendant's work is the representations of the employer in

the adjustment of grievances and in collective bargaining, with or without a
mediator. This is not per se the practice of law. Anyone may use an agent for
negotiations and may select an agent particularly skilled in the subject under
discussion, and the person appointed is free to accept the employment
whether or not he is a member of the bar. Here, however, there may be an
exception where the business turns on a question of law. Most real estate
sales are negotiated by brokers who are not lawyers. But if the value of the
land depends on a disputed right-of-way and the principal role of the
negotiator is to assess the probable outcome of the dispute and persuade the
opposite party to the same opinion, then it may be that only a lawyer can
accept the assignment. Or if a controversy between an employer and his
men grows from differing interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is
quite likely that defendant should not handle it. But I need not reach a definite
conclusion here, since the situation is not presented by the proofs.

Defendant also appears to represent the employer before administrative

agencies of the federal government, especially before trial examiners of the
National Labor Relations Board. An agency of the federal government, acting
by virtue of an authority granted by the Congress, may regulate the
representation of parties before such agency. The State of New Jersey is
without power to interfere with such determination or to forbid representation
before the agency by one whom the agency admits. The rules of the National
Labor Relations Board give to a party the right to appear in person, or by
counsel, or by other representative. Rules and Regulations, September 11th,
1946, S. 203.31. 'Counsel' here means a licensed attorney, and ther
representative' one not a lawyer. In this phase of his work, defendant may
lawfully do whatever the Labor Board allows, even arguing questions purely
legal. (Auerbacher v. Wood, 53 A. 2d 800, cited in Statsky, Introduction to
Paralegalism [1974], at pp. 154-156.).

1.8 From the foregoing, it can be said that a person engaged in a lawful calling (which may
involve knowledge of the law) is not engaged in the practice of law provided that:

(a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem;.

(b) The services performed are not customarily reserved to members of the bar; .
(c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information.

All these must be considered in relation to the work for any particular client as a whole.

1.9. If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer, the Code of Professional
Responsibility succintly states the rule of conduct:

Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently

with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in
another capacity.

1.10. In the present case. the Legal Clinic appears to render wedding services (See Annex
"A" Petition). Services on routine, straightforward marriages, like securing a marriage
license, and making arrangements with a priest or a judge, may not constitute practice of
law. However, if the problem is as complicated as that described in "Rx for Legal Problems"
on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez case, then what may be involved
is actually the practice of law. If a non-lawyer, such as the Legal Clinic, renders such
services then it is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

1.11. The Legal Clinic also appears to give information on divorce, absence, annulment of
marriage and visas (See Annexes "A" and "B" Petition). Purely giving informational materials
may not constitute of law. The business is similar to that of a bookstore where the customer
buys materials on the subject and determines on the subject and determines by himself what
courses of action to take.

It is not entirely improbable, however, that aside from purely giving information, the Legal
Clinic's paralegals may apply the law to the particular problem of the client, and give legal
advice. Such would constitute unauthorized practice of law.

It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which publication of a

legal text which purports to say what the law is amount to legal practice. And
the mere fact that the principles or rules stated in the text may be accepted
by a particular reader as a solution to his problem does not affect this. . . . .
Apparently it is urged that the conjoining of these two, that is, the text and the
forms, with advice as to how the forms should be filled out, constitutes the
unlawful practice of law. But that is the situation with many approved and
accepted texts. Dacey's book is sold to the public at large. There is no
personal contact or relationship with a particular individual. Nor does there
exist that relation of confidence and trust so necessary to the status of
attorney and client. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL PRACTICE
THE REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF A PARTICULAR PERSON IN
A PARTICULAR SITUATION. At most the book assumes to offer general
advice on common problems, and does not purport to give personal advice
on a specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified person.
Similarly the defendant's publication does not purport to give personal advice
on a specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified person in a
particular situation in their publication and sale of the kits, such publication
and sale did not constitutes the unlawful practice of law . . . . There being no
legal impediment under the statute to the sale of the kit, there was no proper
basis for the injunction against defendant maintaining an office for the
purpose of selling to persons seeking a divorce, separation, annulment or
separation agreement any printed material or writings relating to matrimonial
law or the prohibition in the memorandum of modification of the judgment
against defendant having an interest in any publishing house publishing his
manuscript on divorce and against his having any personal contact with any
 prospective purchaser. The record does fully support, however, the finding
that for the change of $75 or $100 for the kit, the defendant gave legal advice
in the course of personal contacts concerning particular problems which
might arise in the preparation and presentation of the purchaser's asserted
matrimonial cause of action or pursuit of other legal remedies and assistance
in the preparation of necessary documents (The injunction therefore sought
to) enjoin conduct constituting the practice of law, particularly with reference
to the giving of advice and counsel by the defendant relating to specific
problems of particular individuals in connection with a divorce, separation,
annulment of separation agreement sought and should be affirmed. (State v.
Winder, 348, NYS 2D 270 [1973], cited in Statsky, supra at p. 101.).

1.12. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strictly non-diagnostic, non-
advisory. "It is not controverted, however, that if the services "involve giving legal advice or
counselling," such would constitute practice of law (Comment, par. 6.2). It is in this light that
FIDA submits that a factual inquiry may be necessary for the judicious disposition of this
case.

xxx xxx xxx

2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the impression (or
perpetuate the wrong notion) that there is a secret marriage. With all the solemnities,
formalities and other requisites of marriages (See Articles 2, et seq., Family Code), no
Philippine marriage can be secret.

2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The second paragraph thereof
(which is not necessarily related to the first paragraph) fails to state the limitation that only
"paralegal services?" or "legal support services", and not legal services, are available." 11

A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law" becomes exigent for the proper
determination of the issues raised by the petition at bar. On this score, we note that the clause "practice of
law" has long been the subject of judicial construction and interpretation. The courts have laid down general
principles and doctrines explaining the meaning and scope of the term, some of which we now take into
account.

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. 12

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. 13

In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages in three principal types of
professional activity: legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations,
preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary
layman, and appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine
rights of life, liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist in proper interpretation and
enforcement of law. 14

When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of
law. 15 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. 16 Giving advice for compensation
xx
regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of
law. 17 One who renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that
extent, practicing law. 18

In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19 after citing the doctrines in several cases, we laid down the test
to determine whether certain acts constitute "practice of law," thus:

Black defines "practice of law" as:

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the
law.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on court.(Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v.
Dworken , 129 Ohio St. 23, 193N. E. 650). A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:

. . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms,

associations or corporations as to their right under the law, or appears in a representative
capacity as an advocate in proceedings, pending or prospective, before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or
authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity, performs any
act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law.
Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising
clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in
court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State ex. rel.
Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S. W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).

This Court, in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177),stated:

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters or estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the
work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).

Practice of law under modern 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. (Moran,
Comments on the Rules o Court, Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, citing In Re Opinion of the
Justices [Mass], 194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc.
[R.I.] 197 A. 139, 144).

The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying the
aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and observations of the
aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of law."

The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered
nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering,
to wit:

Legal support services basically consists of giving ready information by trained paralegals to
laymen and lawyers, which are strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory, through the extensive
use of computers and modern information technology in the gathering, processing, storage,
transmission and reproduction of information and communication, such as computerized
legal research; encoding and reproduction of documents and pleadings prepared by laymen
or lawyers; document search; evidence gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case;
fact finding investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic institutional services
from government or non-government agencies, like birth, marriage, property, or business
registrations; educational or employment records or certifications, obtaining documentation
like clearances, passports, local or foreign visas; giving information about laws of other
countries that they may find useful, like foreign divorce, marriage or adoption laws that they
can avail of preparatory to emigration to the foreign country, and other matters that do not
involve representation of clients in court; designing and installing computer systems,
programs, or software for the efficient management of law offices, corporate legal
departments, courts and other entities engaged in dispensing or administering legal
services. 20

While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and
technical knowhow, such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management
of law offices, or the computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an
exception to the general rule.

What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its
contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing
information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this
Court that all the 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 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." 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
giving legal advice, contract drafting and so forth.

The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January 13, 1991 issue of the
Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippines Star, entitled "Rx for Legal Problems," where an insight
into the structure, main purpose and operations of respondent corporation was given by its own "proprietor,"
Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales:
 This is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The Legal Clinic, with offices on
the seventh floor of the Victoria Building along U. N. Avenue in Manila. No matter what the
client's problem, and even if it is as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic
situation, Atty. Nogales 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 specialist are backed up by a
battery of paralegals, counsellors and attorneys.

Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the trend in the medical field
toward specialization, it caters to clients who cannot afford the services of the big law firms.

The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. "when they come, we start by analyzing the
problem. That's what doctors do also. They ask you how you contracted what's bothering
you, they take your temperature, they observe you for the symptoms and so on. That's how
we operate, too. And once the problem has been categorized, then it's referred to one of our
specialists.

There are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery or follow-up treatment.
These The Legal Clinic disposes of in a matter of minutes. "Things like preparing a simple
deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can be taken care of by our staff or, if this were a hospital
the residents or the interns. We can take care of these matters on a while you wait basis.
Again, kung baga sa hospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's just like a
common cold or diarrhea," explains Atty. Nogales.

Those cases which requires more extensive "treatment" are dealt with accordingly. "If you
had a rich relative who died and named you her sole heir, and you stand to inherit millions of
pesos of property, we would refer you to a specialist in taxation. There would be real estate
taxes and arrears which would need to be put in order, and your relative is even taxed by the
state for the right to transfer her property, and only a specialist in taxation would be properly
trained to deal with the problem. Now, if there were other heirs contesting your rich relatives
will, then you would need a litigator, who knows how to arrange the problem for presentation
in court, and gather evidence to support the case. 21

That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is
important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which
thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused
to be published and are now assailed in this proceeding.

Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P. WILOCI, said reported facts sufficiently
establish that the main purpose of respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for 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. 22

It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private respondent which constitute
practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law. 23

Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education
and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject to
withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to
protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed
to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the court. 24
The same rule is observed in the american jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to draw support for
his thesis. The doctrines there also stress that the practice of law is limited to those who meet the
requirements for, and have been admitted to, the bar, and various statutes or rules specifically so
provide. 25 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. 26 The justification for excluding from the practice of law those not admitted to the bar is found, not in the
protection of the bar from competition, but in the protection of the public from being advised and represented in
legal matters by incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little
control. 27

We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the concept in the United States of
paralegals as an occupation separate from the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. Whatever may
be its merits, respondent cannot but be aware that this should first be a matter for judicial rules or legislative
action, and not of unilateral adoption as it has done.

Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are schools and
universities there which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, while there are none in the
Philippines. 28 As the concept of the "paralegals" or "legal assistant" evolved in the United States, standards and
guidelines also evolved to protect the general public. One of the major standards or guidelines was developed by
the American Bar Association which set up Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs
(1973). Legislation has even been proposed to certify legal assistants. There are also associations of paralegals
in the United States with their own code of professional ethics, such as the National Association of Legal
Assistants, Inc. and the American Paralegal Association. 29

In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited acceptance of what may be considered as
paralegal service. As pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been
allowed limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such allowable services
are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefor. 30

Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial policy that, 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. 31 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. 32

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. 33 He is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services. 34 Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business. 35 Prior to the adoption of the code of
Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort to
indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or
procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged
or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's
position, and all other like self-laudation. 36

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. 37 The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case of
The Director of Religious Affairs. vs. Estanislao R. Bayot 38 an advertisement, similar to those of respondent which
are involved in the present proceeding, 39 was held to constitute improper advertising or solicitation.

The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:

It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent
of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public.
Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill
as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer
degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism
by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles
the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the
temple of Jehovah. "The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer, . . . . is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct."
(Canon 27, Code of Ethics.).

We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that 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. 40

Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the profession enumerate
exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be
undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad categories, namely, those which are expressly allowed and
those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions. 41

The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not
be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his professional
associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of
birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions;
membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and
legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and,
with their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented." 42

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other
purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a
daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published
in a law list the conduct, management or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the
public or the bar, or to lower the dignity or standing of the profession. 43

The 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. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of
changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the
profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under
a designation of special branch of law. 44
Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being
taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for
services rendered, we find and so hold that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any
of the above-mentioned exceptions.

The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45 which is repeatedly invoked and constitutes
the justification relied upon by respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case at bar. Foremost is the fact that
the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against
advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon
request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such
exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the
present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by
such authority in that state." 46 This goes to show that an exception to the general rule, such as that being invoked
by herein respondent, can be made only if and when the canons expressly provide for such an exception.
Otherwise, the prohibition stands, as in the case at bar.

It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar Association after the decision in Bates, on
the attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was found that public opinion
dropped significantly 47 with respect to these characteristics of lawyers:

Trustworthy from 71% to 14%

Professional from 71% to 14%
Honest from 65% to 14%
Dignified from 45% to 14%

Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal and judicial systems, 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. At this point in time, it is of utmost importance in the face of
such negative, even if unfair, criticisms at times, to adopt and maintain that level of professional conduct
which is beyond reproach, and to exert all efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal
profession.

In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, to advertise
his services except in allowable instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of
law. 49 Considering that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor
of The Legal Clinic, Inc. is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely.

While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or illegality of the purpose/s for which the
Legal Clinic, Inc. was created should be passed upon and determined, we are constrained to refrain from
lapsing into an obiter on that aspect since it is clearly not within the adjudicative parameters of the present
proceeding which is merely administrative in nature. It is, of course, imperative that this matter be promptly
determined, albeit in a different proceeding and forum, since, under the present state of our law and
jurisprudence, a corporation cannot be organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country. This
interdiction, just like the rule against unethical advertising, cannot be subverted by employing some so-
called paralegals supposedly rendering the alleged support services.

The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is the concern and province of the
Solicitor General who can institute the corresponding quo warranto action, 50 after due ascertainment of the
factual background and basis for the grant of respondent's corporate charter, in light of the putative misuse
thereof. That spin-off from the instant bar matter is referred to the Solicitor General for such action as may be
necessary under the circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc.,
from issuing or 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" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or
indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as
indicated herein. Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of
the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance herewith.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo
and Quiason, JJ., concur

____
A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

CORONA, J.:

This is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law
Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional
services.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients2 to
transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance3 and expeditious collection on
their claims.4 To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit5 of James Gregorio attesting that
Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize
respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000. Complainant also attached "respondents"
calling card:6

Front

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

LAW OFFFICE

CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES

W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal

Tel: 362-7820
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Fax: (632) 362-
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar 7821
Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926)
2701719

Back

SERVICES OFFERED:

CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE

 TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
1av vphi1

(emphasis supplied)

Hence, this complaint.

Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said
calling card.7

The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.8

Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report and recommendation,9 found that
respondent had encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.0210 and other
canons11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against
soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 13812 of
the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning
that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.

We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent but we modify the recommended
penalty.

The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent into complainants professional
practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed by respondent in furtherance of the
said misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.

Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to, including the manner by which a
lawyers services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:

CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts.

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business;
lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares.13 To allow a lawyer to
advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the publics
estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of
the bar is called.14

Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:

RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers.15 Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.16
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:

RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any mans cause.

This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment)17 as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty.18

Complainant presented substantial evidence19 (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons
coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal
business as well as profited from referrals suits.

Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during the
mandatory hearing.

Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to
transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that respondent could produce a more favorable
result.

Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and
Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. 1avv phi 1

With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not
steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or
reduced fees for his services.20 Again the Court notes that respondent never denied having these seafarers
in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos "referrals." Furthermore, he never denied Labianos
connection to his office.21 Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal
practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.

Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule
16.04:

Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully protected
by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except,
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the
client.

The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the
client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the free exercise of his
judgment may not be adversely affected.22 It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is
handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends money to the
client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the
case or an additional stake in its outcome.23 Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider
his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest
in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients cause.24

As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice25 which calls for the exercise of the
Courts disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions for initiating
contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment.26 Thus, in this jurisdiction, we
adhere to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to
uphold the nobility of the legal profession.

Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the prohibition on lending money to
clients), the sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the wrist. The
proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings.

A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is
a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and
conduct.27 For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable
law lists or use of simple professional cards.

Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

(a) lawyers name;

(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;

(c) address;

(d) telephone number and

(e) special branch of law practiced.28

Labianos calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance." The phrase was clearly used to
entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their
legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage
of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the
bar and deserved no place in the legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove
his culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for
the printing and distribution of Labianos calling cards.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and
Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is
hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately from receipt
of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court
of the Philippines, and be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator to be circulated to all courts.

SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012

MIGUEL G. VILLATUYA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS, Respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

In this Complaint for disbarment filed on 06 December 2004 with the Office or the Bar Confidant,
complainant Manuel G. Villatuya (complainant) charges Atty. Bcde S. 'L1halingcos (resrondent) with
unlawful solicitation of cases, violation of the ('ode or Professional Responsibility for nonpayment of fees to
complainant, and gross immorality for marrying two other women while respondents first marriage was
subsisting.1

In a Resolution2 dated 26 January 2005, the Second Division of this Court required respondent to file a
Comment, which he did on 21 March 2005.3 The Complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the
record.4

On 23 June 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP (Commission) issued a Notice5 setting the
mandatory conference of the administrative case on 05 July 2005. During the conference, complainant
appeared, accompanied by his counsel and respondent. They submitted for resolution three issues to be
resolved by the Commission as follows:

1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to

complainant

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation, and

3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.6

The Commission ordered the parties to submit their respective verified Position Papers. Respondent filed his
verified Position Paper,7 on 15 July 2005 while complainant submitted his on 01 August 2005.8

Complainants Accusations

Complainant averred that on February 2002, he was employed by respondent as a financial consultant to
assist the latter on technical and financial matters in the latters numerous petitions for corporate
rehabilitation filed with different courts. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he
would be entitled to P 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in
addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. He alleged that, from February to December
2002, respondent was able to rake in millions of pesos from the corporate rehabilitation cases they were
working on together. Complainant also claimed that he was entitled to the amount of P 900,000 for the 18
Stay Orders issued by the courts as a result of his work with respondent, and a total of P 4,539,000 from the
fees paid by their clients.9 Complainant appended to his Complaint several annexes supporting the
computation of the fees he believes are due him.

Complainant alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases in violation of Section 27 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegedly respondent set up two financial consultancy firms, Jesi
and Jane Management, Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc., and used them as fronts to advertise his
legal services and solicit cases. Complainant supported his allegations by attaching to his Position Paper the
Articles of Incorporation of Jesi and Jane,10 letter-proposals to clients signed by respondent on various
dates11 and proofs of payment made to the latter by their clients.12

On the third charge of gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of
bigamy for having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting. He submitted a
Certification dated 13 July 2005 issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General-National Statistics Office
(NSO) certifying that Bede S. Tabalingcos, herein respondent, contracted marriage thrice: first, on 15 July
1980 with Pilar M. Lozano, which took place in Dasmarinas, Cavite; the second time on 28 September 1987
with Ma. Rowena Garcia Pion in the City of Manila; and the third on 07 September 1989 with Mary Jane
Elgincolin Paraiso in Ermita, Manila.13

Respondents Defense

In his defense, respondent denied the charges against him. He asserted that complainant was not an
employee of his law firm Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office14 but of Jesi and Jane Management,
Inc., where the former is a major stockholder.15 Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional
and incompetent in performing his job as a financial consultant, resulting in the latters dismissal of many
rehabilitation plans they presented in their court cases.16 Respondent also alleged that there was no verbal
agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional fees paid by his
clients. He proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid.17

As to the charge of unlawful solicitation, respondent denied committing any. He contended that his law firm
had an agreement with Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., whereby the firm would handle the legal aspect of
the corporate rehabilitation case; and that the latter would attend to the financial aspect of the case such as
the preparation of the rehabilitation plans to be presented in court. To support this contention, respondent
attached to his Position Paper a Joint Venture Agreement dated 10 December 2005 entered into by
Tabalingcos and Associates Law Offices and Jesi and Jane Management, Inc.;18 and an Affidavit executed
by Leoncio Balena, Vice-President for Operations of the said company.19

On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit submitted by William Genesis, a
dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since it had been
retracted by the affiant himself.20 Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his
alleged bigamous marriages with two other women.

On 09 January 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts.21 To the said
Motion, he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to in the Certification issued
by the NSO.22The appended Marriage Contracts matched the dates, places and names of the contracting
parties indicated in the earlier submitted NSO Certification of the three marriages entered into by
respondent. The first marriage contract submitted was a marriage that took place between respondent and
Pilar M. Lozano in Dasmarinas, Cavite, on 15 July 1980.23 The second marriage contract was between
respondent and Ma. Rowena G. Pion, and it took place at the Metropolitan Trial Court Compound of Manila
on 28 September 1987.24 The third Marriage Contract referred to a marriage between respondent and Mary
Jane E. Paraiso, and it took place on 7 September 1989 in Ermita, Manila. In the second and third Marriage
Contracts, respondent was described as single under the entry for civil status.

On 16 January 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by complainant,
claiming that the document was not marked during the mandatory conference or submitted during the
hearing of the case.25 Thus, respondent was supposedly deprived of the opportunity to controvert those
documents.26 He disclosed that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Respondent further informed the Commission that he had filed a
Petition to Declare Null and Void the Marriage Contract with Rowena Pion at the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Bian, Laguna, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. B-3270.27 He also filed another Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage Contract with Pilar Lozano at the RTC-Calamba, where it was docketed as
Civil Case No. B-3271.28 In both petitions, he claimed that he had recently discovered that there were
Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Pion
and Pilar Lozano on different occasions. He prayed for their annulment, because they were purportedly null
and void.

On 17 September 2007, in view of its reorganization, the Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on
20 November 2007.29 While complainant manifested to the Commission that he would not attend the
hearing,30respondent manifested his willingness to attend and moved for the suspension of the resolution of
the administrative case against the latter. Respondent cited two Petitions he had filed with the RTC, Laguna,
seeking the nullification of the Marriage Contracts he discovered to be bearing his name.31

On 10 November 2007, complainant submitted to the Commission duplicate original copies of two (2)
Informations filed with the RTC of Manila against respondent, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Atty.
Bede S. Tabalingcos."32 The first criminal case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 07-257125, was for bigamy
for the marriage contracted by respondent with Ma. Rowena Garcia Pion while his marriage with Pilar
Lozano was still valid.33 The other one, docketed as Criminal Case No. 07-257126, charged respondent with
having committed bigamy for contracting marriage with Mary Jane Elgincolin Paraiso while his marriage with
Pilar Lozano was still subsisting.34 Each of the Informations recommended bail in the amount of P24,000 for
his provisional liberty as accused in the criminal cases.35

On 20 November 2007, only respondent attended the clarificatory hearing. In the same proceeding, the
Commission denied his Motion to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of the petitions for
nullification he had filed with the RTCLaguna. Thus, the Commission resolved that the administrative case
against him be submitted for resolution.36

IBPs Report and Recommendation

On 27 February 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and

Recommendation addressing the specific charges against respondent.37 The first charge, for dishonesty for
the nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. The Commission ruled that
the charge should have been filed with the proper courts since it was only empowered to determine
respondents administrative liability. On this matter, complainant failed to prove dishonesty on the part of
respondent.38 On the second charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the
solicitation of client for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended
that he be reprimanded for the violation. It failed, though, to point out exactly the specific provision he
violated.39

As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules
1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. It
found that complainant was able to prove through documentary evidence that respondent committed bigamy
twice by marrying two other women while the latters first marriage was subsisting.40 Due to the gravity of the
acts of respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken off
the roll of attorneys.41

On 15 April 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154, adopted and
approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.42 On 01 August 2008,
respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the recommendation to disbar him was
premature. He contends that the Commission should have suspended the disbarment proceedings pending
the resolution of the separate cases he had filed for the annulment of the marriage contracts bearing his
name as having entered into those contracts with other women. He further contends that the evidence
proffered by complainant to establish that the latter committed bigamy was not substantial to merit the
punishment of disbarment. Thus, respondent moved for the reconsideration of the resolution to disbar him
and likewise moved to archive the administrative proceedings pending the outcome of the Petitions he
separately filed with the RTC of Laguna for the annulment of Marriage Contracts.43
On 26 June 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed their
Resolution dated 15 April 2008 recommending respondents disbarment.44

The Courts Ruling

The Court affirms the recommendations of the IBP.

First Charge:

Dishonesty for nonpayment of share in the fees

While we affirm the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, we do not concur with the
rationale behind it.

The first charge of complainant against respondent for the nonpayment of the formers share in the fees, if
proven to be true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.0245 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services
rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. Based on the allegations, respondent had agreed to
share with complainant the legal fees paid by clients that complainant solicited for the respondent.
Complainant, however, failed to proffer convincing evidence to prove the existence of that agreement.

We ruled in Tan Tek Beng v. David46 that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees
collected from clients secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be
disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering that complainants allegations in this case had not been
proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.

Second Charge:

Unlawful solicitation of clients

Complainant charged respondent with unlawfully soliciting clients and advertising legal services through
various business entities. Complainant submitted documentary evidence to prove that Jesi & Jane
Management Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc. were owned and used as fronts by respondent to
advertise the latters legal services and to solicit clients. In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these
allegations and ruled that respondent had violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point
out the specific provision that was breached.

A review of the records reveals that respondent indeed used the business entities mentioned in the report to
solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation
cases. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.0347 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from
soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though,
when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the
lawyers duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily
lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for
indirect solicitation on the lawyers behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as
the practice of law.48

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane Management, Inc.,
which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle used by respondent as a means
to procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases. Annex "C"49 of the
Complaint is a letterhead of Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which proposed an agreement for the engagement of legal services. The letter clearly
states that, should the prospective client agree to the proposed fees, respondent would render legal services
related to the formers loan obligation with a bank. This circumvention is considered objectionable and
violates the Code, because the letter is signed by respondent as President of Jesi & Jane Management,
Inc., and not as partner or associate of a law firm.

Rule 15.0850 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the former is
acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations related to the practice of
law. The reason is that certain ethical considerations governing the attorney-client relationship may be
operative in one and not in the other.51 In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.

Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice by
respondent, we affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the
Code.

Third Charge:

Bigamy

The third charge that respondent committed bigamy twice is a serious accusation. To substantiate this
allegation, complainant submitted NSO-certified copies of the Marriage Contracts entered into by
respondent with three (3) different women. The latter objected to the introduction of these documents,
claiming that they were submitted after the administrative case had been submitted for resolution, thus
giving him no opportunity to controvert them.52 We are not persuaded by his argument.

We have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the qualification and fitness
of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus,
we explained in Garrido v. Garrido:53

Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial
questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant
do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. We
have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of
law is a component of the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves
service to the public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the practice of
law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into through this Court.

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. For the court to exercise its
1wphi1

disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory
proof.54In this case, complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into
two marriages while the latters first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering into the
second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a negative pregnant. He did
not dispute the authenticity of the NSO documents, but denied that he contracted those two other marriages.
He submitted copies of the two Petitions he had filed separately with the RTC of Laguna one in Bian and
the other in Calamba to declare the second and the third Marriage Contracts null and void.55

We find him guilty of gross immorality under the Code.

We cannot give credence to the defense proffered by respondent. He has not disputed the authenticity or
impugned the genuineness of the NSO-certified copies of the Marriage Contracts presented by complainant
to prove the formers marriages to two other women aside from his wife. For purposes of this disbarment
proceeding, these Marriage Contracts bearing the name of respondent are competent and convincing
evidence proving that he committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the bar.
The documents were certified by the NSO, which is the official repository of civil registry records pertaining
to the birth, marriage and death of a person. Having been issued by a government agency, the NSO
certification is accorded much evidentiary weight and carries with it a presumption of regularity. In this case,
respondent has not presented any competent evidence to rebut those documents.

According to the respondent, after the discovery of the second and the third marriages, he filed civil actions
to annul the Marriage Contracts. We perused the attached Petitions for Annulment and found that his
allegations therein treated the second and the third marriage contracts as ordinary agreements, rather than
as special contracts contemplated under the then Civil Code provisions on marriage. He did not invoke any
grounds in the Civil Code provisions on marriage, prior to its amendment by the Family Code. Respondents
regard for marriage contracts as ordinary agreements indicates either his wanton disregard of the sanctity of
marriage or his gross ignorance of the law on what course of action to take to annul a marriage under the
old Civil Code provisions.

What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage twice while his first
marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro,56 we held thus:

We have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of misconduct which
demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not only as a condition precedent for their
admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued membership therein. No distinction has been made as
to whether the misconduct was committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is
because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and
abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead
others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of
dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice, in which the lawyer plays an
important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree of intellectual and moral competency on
his part so that the courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in him.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar.
He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.57 His acts of
committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58

Thus, we adopt the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and order that his name be stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys.

WHEREFORE, this Court resolves the following charges against Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos as follows:

1. The charge of dishonesty is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

2. Respondent is REPRIMANDED for acts of illegal advertisement and solicitation.

3. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos is DISBARRED for engaging in bigamy, a grossly immoral conduct.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal records of Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos in the Office of
the Bar Confidant, and another copy furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out the name of Bede S. Tabalingcos from the Roll of Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.