Bar Matter No.

553 June 17, 1993

MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,

FACTS:
The petitioner Maurico C. Ulep, submit a petition to the Court to cease and desist from issuing
advertisements of The Legal Clinic, Inc, such as about secret marriage to valid marriage, giving free
books on Guam Divorce. According to the petitioner that the advertisements 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.
However, the respondents claim 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. He
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, the court 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.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it
constitutes practice of law and demeaning of the law profession?

2. Whether or not the services offered by the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., can be the subject
of the unethical advertisement?
RULINGS:
1. Yes, the advertised services offered by The Legal Clinic, Inc., as enumerated in annexes “A” and
“B”, 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. 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. 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. It also violates the Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.02 which
states that “A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.”
 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.

2. Yes, according to the Court, 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.).
The court reiterate that, 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.

LEGAL BASIS:
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."
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 27
Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member
of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Professional Responsibility
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.