Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.

Rule 2.03 | June 17, 1993 | Regalado, J Nature of Case: Original Petition in the SC Petitioner: Mauricio
Ulep Respondent: The Legal Clinic, Inc.

SUMMARY:

Petitioner avers that the advertisements reproduced are champertous, 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. Respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements 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.

DOCTRINE:

The services offered by respondent include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal
services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these
services are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Only a person duly admitted as
a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to practice law.

FACTS:

Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays for the Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., 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.

Petitioner avers that the advertisements reproduced are champertous, 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.

Respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements 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, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7,
1977.
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.
While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and
technical know-how, 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.

It is palpably clear 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 that respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a
copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore

It is clear that services offered by respondent fall within the ambit of the practice of law. And only a
person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular stading is entitled to
practice law.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1.WON 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 YES The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law and such practice is not allowed.
Respondent is composed mainly of paralegals; the services it offers include various legal problems
wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and
corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but
rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction
however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed
by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.

RULING:

The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN 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.

NOTE: Rule 2.03

- A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move
toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty.
Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which
contain the following:

SECRET MARRIAGE?

P560.00 for a valid marriage.

Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041

8:30am 6:00pm

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila

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
Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.

Call Marivic.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy

Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of
Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take
care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon
Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are
specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and
criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a
battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which
now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely
making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.

ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed;
whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.

HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The
Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems
wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and
corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but
rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction
however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed
by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.

Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his
talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements
of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions
of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.

The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible
for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be
earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the
community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-
product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial
stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-
product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also
enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:

1. Advertisement in a reputable law list

2. Use of ordinary simple professional card

3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor Lingan against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib andJimmy Baliga
on November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondents, both notaries public,falsified certain
public documents, as follows:1.

A complaint for annulment of title with damages filed by Isaac Villegas against complainantwith the
Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Respondent Calubaquib signed theverification and
certification of non-forum shopping of the complaint as notary public andentered the same as Doc. No.
182; Page No. 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996, whichaccording to the records of the National
Archives, the document entered as Doc. No. 182; Page38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent

Calubaquibs

notarial register was anaffidavit of one Daniel Malayao.2.

A special power of attorney dated September 10, 1996 executed by Isaac Villegas appointingrespondent
Calubaquib as his attorney-in-

fact to enter into a compromise agreement under suchterms and conditions acceptable to him which
was notarized by r

espondent Baliga and enteredas Doc. No. 548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996, which
according torespondent

Baligas

notarial register, Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss
of one Pedro Telan, dated August 26, 1996.3.

A petition for reappointment as notary public for and in Tuguegarao,Cagayan by respondentBaliga, which
was notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his notarial register asDoc. No. 31, Page No.
08, Book No. CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register
Book No. CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered there as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08 was acancellation of
real estate mortgage dated January 11, 1996.Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga both admitted the
incorrectness of the entries and simplyattributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of their
secretary and legal assistants to whom they hadleft the task of entering all his notarial documents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents violated the Notarial Practice Law

RULING:

It is abundantly clear that the notary public is

personally accountable

for all entries inhis notarial register. Section 245 of the Notarial Law provides that every notary public
shall keep aregister to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all

his official acts as notary;and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any
person applying for it and