Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
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.

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 1

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:

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 2

 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
Ulep v. Legal Clinic 3
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,

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 4

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 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
Ulep v. Legal Clinic 5
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

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 6

 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

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 7

 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 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:

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 8

 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

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 9

 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

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 10

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. 28As 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.).

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 11

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.

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 12

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, Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur

# Footnotes
1 Rollo, 5. A facsimile of the scales of justice is printed together with and on the left side of "The Legal Clinic, Inc." in both
advertisements which were published in a newspaper of general circulation.
2 433 U.S. 350, 53 L Ed 2d 810, 97 S Ct. 2691.
3 Resolution dated January 15, 1991, Rollo, 60; Resolution dated December 10, 1991, Rollo, 328.
4 Position Paper prepared by Atty. Basilio H. Alo, IBP Director for Legal Affairs, 1, 10; Rollo, 209, 218.
5 Memorandum prepared by Atty. Jose A. Grapilon, Chairman, Committee on Bar Discipline, and Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico, 16-18, 27-
29, Rollo 414-416, 425-427.
6 Position Paper prepared by Atty. Rafael D. Abiera, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Lawyers' Rights and Legal Ethics, and Atty. Arturo
M. del Rosario, President, 5-6; Rollo, 241-242.
7 Position Paper prepared by Atty. Lorenzo Sumulong, President, and Atty. Mariano M. Magsalin, Vice-President, 2, 4-5; Rollo, 93, 95-
96.
8 Position Paper prepared by Atty. Victoria C. de los Reyes, 1-2; Rollo, 105-106.
9 Memorandum prepared by Atty. Victoria C. de los Reyes, 10-11; Rollo, 370-371.
10 Position Paper prepared by Atty. Leticia E. Sablan, Officer-in-Charge, WLAP Free Legal Aid Clinic, 1-2; Rollo, 169-170.
11 Position Paper prepared by Atty. Lily C. Limpe, President, and Atty. Barbara Anne C. Migallos, 8-12, 23-24; Rollo, 139-143, 154-
155.
12 Annotation: 111 ALR 23.
13 Howton vs. Morrow, 269 Ky. 1.
14 West Virginia State Bar vs. Earley, 109 S.E. 2d 420, 144 W.Va. 504; Rhode Island Bar Assoc. vs. Automobile Service Assoc. (R.I.)
179 A. 139, 144.
15 People vs. Castleman, 88 Colo. 229.
16 Depew, et al. vs. Witchita Assn. of Credit Men., Inc., 142 Kan. 403.
17 Fitchette vs. Taylor, 94 ALR 356.
18 Mandelaum vs. Gilbert and Barker Mfg. Co., 290 NYS 46218.
19 201 SCRA 210 (1991).
20 Comment of Respondent, 3; Rollo, 15.
21 Rollo, 130-131.
22 Memorandum of U.P. WILOCI, 12-13; Rollo, 372-373.
23 Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
24 Phil. Ass'n. of Free Labor Unions, et al. vs. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., et al., 42 SCRA 302 (1971).
25 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, 863, 864.
26 Mounier vs. Regcinh, 170 So. 567.
27 Lowell Bar Ass'n. vs. Loeb. 52 N.E. 2d 27, 315 Mass. 176; 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client 64, 865.
28 Comment of Respondent, 2; Rollo, 14.
29 Position Paper, U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), 11-12, citing Statsky, Introduction to Paralegalism, 214-224, West
Publishing Co. (1974) and Shayne, The Paralegal Profession, Oceana Publications, 1977, Appendix II and III; Rollo, 116-117.
30 Illustrations:
(a) A law student who has successfully completed his third year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court (Rule 138-A, Rules of Court);
Ulep v. Legal Clinic 13
(b) An official or other person appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the Government of the Philippines in a case
in which the government has an interest (Sec. 33, Rule 138, id.);
(c) An agent or friend who aids a party-litigant in a municipal court for the purpose of conducting the litigation (Sec. 34, Rule 138, id.);
(d) A person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability, who is appointed counsel de oficio to defend the accused
in localities where members of the bar are not available (Sec. 4, Rule 116, id.);
(e) Persons registered or specially recognized to practice in the Philippine Patent Office (now known as the Bureau of Patents,
Trademarks and Technology Transfer) in trademark, service mark and trade name cases (Rule 23, Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases);
(f) A non-lawyer who may appear before the National Labor Relations Commission or any Labor Arbiter only if (1) he represents
himself as a party to the case; (2) he represents an organization or its members, provided that he shall be made to present written proof
that he is properly authorized; or (3) he is duly-accredited members of any legal aid office duly recognized by the Department of Justice
or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in cases referred thereto by the latter (New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations
Commission);
(g) An agent, not an attorney, representing the lot owner or claimant in a case falling under the Cadastral Act (Sec. 9, Act No. 2259);
and
(h) Notaries public for municipalities where completion and passing the studies of law in a reputable university or school of law is
deemed sufficient qualification for appointment (Sec. 233, Administrative Code of 1917). See Rollo, 144-145.
31 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, 866; Johnstown Coal and Coke Co. of New York vs. U.S., 102 Ct. Cl. 285.
32 Florida Bar vs. Brumbaugth, 355 So. 2d 1186.
33 Canon 3, Code of Professional Responsibility.
34 Rule 3.01, id.
35 Rule 3.04, id.
36 Canon 27, Canons of Professional Ethics.
37 People vs. Smith, 93 Am. St. Rep. 206.
38 74 Phil. 579 (1944).
39 The advertisement in said case was as follows: "Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance and the annoyance of delay
or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything
confidential.".
40 Agpalo, Legal Ethics, Fourth Edition (1989), 79-80.
41 Op. cit., 80.
43 * * * Missing * * * .
44 Op. cit., 81, citing A.B.A. Op. 11 (May 11, 1927); A.B.A. Op. 24 (Jan. 24, 1930); A.B.A. Ops. 53 (Dec. 14, 1931), 123 (Dec. 14,
1934), (July 12, 1941), 241 (Feb. 21, 1942), 284 (Aug. 1951); and 286 (Sept. 25, 1952). .
45 Supra, Fn 2.
46 Id., 810, 825.
47 Position Paper of the Philippine Bar Association, 12, citing the American Bar Association Journal, January, 1989, p. 60; Rollo, 248.
48 In re Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929); The Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot, supra, Fn 38.
49 U.S. vs. Ney and Bosque, 8 Phil. 146 (1907); People vs. Luna, 102 Phil. 968 (1958).
50 Secs. 2 and 3, Rule 66, Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 6(1), P.D. No. 902-A and Sec. 121, Corporation Code.

Ulep v. Legal Clinic 14