FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. NO. 6672 : September 4, 2009]

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant, v. 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 respondent's services instead, in exchange for a loan
of P50,000. Complainant also attached "respondent's" 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,
Fax:
2nd Flr. Rm. M-01
(632)
6th Ave., cor M.H.
362-
Del Pilar
7821
Grace Park,
Cel.:
Caloocan City
(0926)
2701719

Back

SERVICES OFFERED:

CONSULTATION AND
ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO
ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS,
DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT
CLAIMS
ABROAD.

rbl rl l lbrr

(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 complainant's 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 lawyer's 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 public's 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 man's 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)17as 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 respondent's 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 Labiano's actions, respondent's law practice was benefited.

Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the
strength of Labiano's 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. rbl rl l lbrr
With regard to respondent's violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR,
settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer's
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 Labiano's "referrals."
Furthermore, he never denied Labiano's connection to his
office.21 Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep
into another's 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 client's 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, stenographer's 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 lawyer's 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 client's
cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the
client's 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 client's
cause.24
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes
malpractice25 which calls for the exercise of the Court's 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 lawyer's 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) lawyer's 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

Labiano's 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 Labiano's 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 SUSPENDED from 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.

EN BANC

[B.M. No. 553. June 17, 1993.]

MAURICIO C. ULEP, Petitioner, v. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; PRACTICE OF LAW, MEANING AND EXTENT OF.
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. 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 contracts by
which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a
court. 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. When a person participates in a trial and
advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. 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. Giving advice for
compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with
respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. One who renders an opinion as to the
proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing
law.

2. ID.; ID.; LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES IN CASE AT BAR CONSTITUTE PRACTICE OF

LAW. 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 respondents own description of
the services it has been offering, to wit: . . . 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. 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 adoptation, it
strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent corporation will simply do is
look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely
a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to
explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper
course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its
advertisements represent and for which services it will consequently charge and be
paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law."
Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not
represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not
limited merely to court appearances but extends to legal research, giving legal advice,
contract drafting, and so forth. The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an
article published in the January 13, 1991 issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine
of the Philippine 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: . . .

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PARALEGAL OR LEGAL ASSISTANT; CONCEPT IN THE UNITED STATES.
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. As the concept of the "paralegal" 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.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONCEPT IN THE PHILIPPINES. 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. (Illustrations: . . .)

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL POLICY ON PARALEGAL. We have to

necessarily and definitely reject respondents 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. . . . 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. 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.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRACTICE OF LAW IN CASE AT BAR CANNOT BE PERFORMED
BY PARALEGALS; REASON. 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. . . .

7. ID.; ADVERTISEMENT BY LAWYER; RULE. 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. 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. 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. 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
lawyers position, and all other like self-laudation.

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; CHARACTER AND CONDUCT AS BEST ADVERTISEMENT. We repeat,

the canons 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.

9. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISEMENT OF TALENT OR SKILL. 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. The proscription
against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the
fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. . . .

10. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCEPTIONS. 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 lawyers 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; memberships
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.." . . 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.

11. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT FOR LAW LIST. 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.

12. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. 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.

13. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCEPTION IN BATES, ET AL. v. STATE BAR OF
ARIZONA (433 U.S. 350, 53 L Ed 2d 810, 97 S Ct. 2691) AS TO PUBLICATION OF
LEGAL FEES, NOT APPLICABLE; REASONS. The ruling in the case of Bates, Et. Al. v.
State Bar of Arizona, 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." 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 with respect to these
characteristics of lawyers: . . . 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.

RESOLUTION

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." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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

THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.

LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy

CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232521-7251

522-2041; 521-0767

It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above 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, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted. chanroble s virtual lawlibrary

In its answer to the petition, 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 OSteen
v. 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. Women Lawyers
Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6)
Federation 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. chanroble s virtual lawlibrary

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: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x x x

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, constitute practice of law?

x x x

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue with
respondents 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 ones legal services).

The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondents 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 .

x x x

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 respondents 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 a 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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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

woman entered into in 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.chanroble s.com:cralaw:red

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. chanroble s law library : red

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.

x x x

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 respondents 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. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

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 corporations Articles 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: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x x x
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, respondents 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. Respondents own commercial advertisement
which announces a certain Atty. Don Perkinson 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 rights
and then take them to an attorney and ask the latter to look after their case in court
(See Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1948 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: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The Philippine Lawyers Associations position, in answer to the issues stated herein,
are, to wit:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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 suppress and punish the Legal Clinic
and its corporate officers for its unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical,
misleading and immoral advertising.

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

Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid laws, the
legal principles and procedures related thereto, the legal advises 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: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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 jurisdictions 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 take 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 Respondents 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.

Respondents 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 Lawyers Association of the Philippines: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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 this 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 as act could become justifiable. chanrobles law library

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. chanroble s virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

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 International de Abogadas: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x x x

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 consultants)
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 the 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 specifications 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 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 matters, and without regard to legal
training or lack of it. More recently, consultants like the defendant have tendered to the
smaller employers 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 clients 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. Defendants primary 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 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 defendants work is the representation 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. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"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 `other
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:
virtual 1aw library
chanrob1es

(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 succinctly states the rule of conduct: jgc:chanroble s.com.ph

"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." cralaw virtua1aw library

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 practice of law. The business is similar to that of a
bookstore where the customer buys materials 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 Clinics 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 purports to say what the
law is amounts 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. Daceys 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 defendants
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 the publication and
sale of the kits, such publication and sale did not constitute 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 charge 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 purchasers
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.

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 a 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.chanroble s virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

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 contracts 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, inorder to assist in proper interpretation and
enforcement of law. 14

When a person participates in 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 later 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 v. Monsod, 19 after citing the doctrines in several cases,
we laid down the test to determine whether certain acts constitute "practice of law,"
thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Black defines "practice of law" as: jgc:chanrobles.com .ph

"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." cralaw virtua1aw library

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

". . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising persons, firms,
associations or corporations as to their rights 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)." cralaw virtua1aw library
This Court, in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-
177), stated:jgc:chanrobles.com .ph

"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 creditors claim in bankruptcy
and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters
of 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 of 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.] 179 A. 139, 144)." cralaw virtua1aw library

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." cralaw virtua1aw library

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

"Legal support services basically consist 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 that 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 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.

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 that respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof
to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so
called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the
law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be
provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for which
services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the
jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by
the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law
practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely to court appearances
but extends to legal research, giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth.

The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January

13, 1991 issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippine 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: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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 clients 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
specialists 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. Thats what doctors do also. They ask you how you contracted
whats bothering you, they take your temperature, they observe you for the symptoms,
and so on. Thats how we operate, too. And once the problem has been categorized,
then its referred to one of our specialists." cralaw virtua1aw library

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 ospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang ma-
confine. Its just like a common cold or diarrhea," explains Atty. Nogales.

Those cases which require more extensive "treatment" are dealt with accordingly. "If
you had a rich realtive 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 that 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. chanrobles.com : virtual law library

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 where from 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 respondents 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 "paralegal"
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 lawyers position, and all
other like self-laudation. 36

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. 37 The
proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on
the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case of
The Director of Religious Affairs v. Estanislao R. Bavot 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: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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 canons 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 lawyers 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 time definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-
mentioned exceptions.

The ruling in the case of Bates, Et. Al. v. 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. chanroble s law library : red
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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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. chanroble s lawlibrary : rednad

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
respondents 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.

EN BANC

[A.C. NO. 6622 - July 10, 2012]

MIGUEL G. VILLATUYA, Complainant, v. 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 respondent s first marriage was subsisting. 1 rll

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 rll

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: rbl r l l lbrr

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 rll

chanrobles virtual law library

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 rll
Complainant s 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 latter s
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
rll

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 rll

Respondent s 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 latter s 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 rll

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.19rll

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. 22 The 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,30 respondent 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.31rll

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 v. 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.35rll

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 RTC Laguna. Thus, the
Commission resolved that the administrative case against him be submitted for
resolution.36
rll

IBP s 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 respondent s 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
rll

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 latter s first marriage was subsisting. 40Due 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 rll

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 rll
On 26 June 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration
and affirmed their Resolution dated 15 April 2008 recommending respondent s
disbarment.44 rll

The Court s Ruling

The Court affirms the recommendations of the IBP.

First Charge: rl

Dishonesty for nonpayment of share in the fees

While we affirm the IBP s 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 former s
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 complainant s 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 latter s 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 lawyer s 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 lawyer s behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a
lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.48 rll

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 former s 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 rll

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 disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
established by convincing and satisfactory proof.54 In this case, complainant submitted
NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two marriages while the
latter s 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 rll

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 former s 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. Respondent s 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:rl
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 lawyer s 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 rll

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: rbl r l l lbrr

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.
chanrobles virtual law library

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.

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000.]

 MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Complainant, v. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C.
PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT
JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES LAW
OFFICES, Respondents.

DECISION

VITUG, J.:

Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of Professional Ethics,
specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz:
jgc:chanroble s.com.ph

"A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a
party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent
upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party
not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law." chanroble s virtuallawlibrary:re d

Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C.
Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos.
Complainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer
College ("AMACC"), in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction and for Damages, docketed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that respondents, then counsel for the
defendants, procured and effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge,
compromise agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his clients in the
aforementioned civil case which in effect required them to waive all kinds of claims they
might have had against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil,
criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred that such
an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession
warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan acknowledged that not one of his co-respondents
had taken part in the negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the various
Re-Admission Agreements complained of and were, in fact, no longer connected at the
time with the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. The Re-Admission Agreements,
he claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of Civil Case Q-97-30549 and were
executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case
involving nine students of AMACC who were expelled therefrom upon the
recommendation of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The students, namely, Ian Dexter
Marquez, Almira O. Basalo, Neil Jason R. Salcedo, Melissa F. Domondon, Melyda B. De
Leon, Leila D. Joven, Signorelli A. Santiago, Michael Ejercito, and Cleo B. Villareiz, were
all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE, who apparently had caused to be
published some objectionable features or articles in the paper. The 3-member Student
Disciplinary Tribunal was immediately convened, and after a series of hearings, it found
the students guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student
publication funds. The body recommended the penalty of expulsion against the erring
students.

The denial of the appeal made by the students to Dr. Amable R. Aguiluz V, AMACC
President gave rise to the commencement of Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 on 14th March
1997 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City. While the civil case
was still pending, letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were separately
executed by and/or in behalf of some of the expelled students, to wit: Letter of
Apology, dated 27 May 1997, of Neil Jason Salcedo, assisted by his mother, and Re-
Admission Agreement of 22 June 1997 with the AMACC President; letter of apology,
dated 31 March 1997, of Mrs. Veronica B. De Leon for her daughter Melyda B. De Leon
and Re-Admission Agreement of 09 May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter of
apology, dated 22 May 1997, of Leila Joven, assisted by her mother, and Re-Admission
Agreement of 22 May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter of apology, dated 22
September 1997, of Cleo Villareiz and Re-Admission Agreement of 10 October 1997
with the AMACC President; and letter of apology, dated 20 January 1997, of Michael
Ejercito, assisted by his parents, and Re-Admission Agreement of 23 January 1997 with
the AMACC President. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Following the execution of the letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements, a

Manifestation, dated 06 June 1997, was filed with the trial court where the civil case
was pending by Attorney Regina D. Balmores of the Pangulayan and Associates Law
Offices for defendant AMACC. A copy of the manifestation was furnished complainant.
In his Resolution, dated 14 June 1997, Judge Lopez of the Quezon City Regional Trial
Court thereupon dismissed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.

On 19 June 1999, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
("IBP") passed Resolution No. XIII-99-163, thus: jgc:chanrobles.com .ph

"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex A and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules, with an amendment Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan is suspended from the practice of
law for SIX (6) MONTHS for being remiss in his duty and DISMISSAL of the case against
the other Respondents for they did not take part in the negotiation of the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission
Agreements were formalized, complainant was by then already the retained counsel for
plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this
fact. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent
attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at
the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was
counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of respondent whether by
design or because of oversight is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional
ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.

The allegation that the context of the Re-Admission Agreements centers only on the
administrative aspect of the controversy is belied by the Manifestation 1 which, among
other things, explicitly contained the following stipulation; viz: jgc:chanrobles.com .ph

"1. Among the nine (9) signatories to the complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their
parents/guardian already executed a Re-Admission Agreement with AMACC President,
AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt for violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and agreed among others to terminate all civil,
criminal and administrative proceedings which they may have against the AMACC
arising from their previous dismissal. chanroble s.com : virtual law library

"x x x

"3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case
No. Q-97-30549 will be filed by them." cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court can only thus concur with the IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP
Board of Governors in their findings, nevertheless, the recommended six-month
suspension would appear to be somewhat too harsh a penalty given the circumstances
and the explanation of Respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED

from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective immediately upon
his receipt of this decision. The case against the other respondents is DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence.

Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as an

attorney and as a member of the Bar, and furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

For Binay an v. Addog, see PDF

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 206555, September 17, 2014

ATTY. FORTUNATO PAGDANGANAN, JR., ATTY. ABIGAIL D. SUAREZ, AND

EUGENIO A. VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, v. FLORENTINO P.
SARMIENTO, Respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated October 23,
2012 and the Resolution3 dated March 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
SP No. 118912 which reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated September 30, 2010
and the Resolution5 dated December 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case No. OFW(M) 05-07119-09/NLRC LAC No.
OFW(M) 03-000209-10 which, inter alia, absolved petitioners Atty. Fortunato
Pagdanganan, Jr. (Atty. Pagdanganan), Atty. Abigail D. Suarez (Atty. Suarez), and
Eugenio A. Villanueva (Villanueva) from any liability in connection with the labor
complaint filed by respondent Florentino P. Sarmiento (Sarmiento).

The Facts

On May 8, 2008, Sea Gem Maritime International, Inc. (Sea Gem), on behalf of its
foreign principal, Corinthian Maritime S. A. (Corinthian), hired Sarmiento as Chief Mate
of the vessel M/T Intuition6 for an initial period of seven (7) months. On May 10, 2008,
he boarded the said vessel.7 Upon the expiration of the contract on December 10, 2008,
the same was extended for another two (2) months; thereafter, or on January 3, 2009,
Sarmiento was transferred to the vessel M/T Setubal I8 where he was also assigned as
its Chief Mate.9 cralawla wlibrary

On January 14, 2009, while M/T Setubal I was docked at Nigeria, Sarmiento felt a loss
of strength in his left arm and fingers. Upon examination at the Adeiza Clinic in Lagos,
Nigeria, he was diagnosed to have Mild Cardiovascular Stroke, Disused Atrophy of the
Left Hand, and Hypertension, for which his repatriation was recommended. 10 Hence, on
January 18, 2009, Sarmiento was repatriated to the Philippines and referred to the MRI
Diagnosis Center.11 cralawlawlibrary

Subsequently, or on July 7, 2009,12 Sarmiento filed a complaint against Sea Gem,

Corinthian, Cielo B. Pealosa (Pealosa), Gracia P. Fernandez (Fernandez), Dulce P. Cruz
(D. Cruz), Grace Ann C. Javier (Javier), Allan P. Cruz (A. Cruz), Abigail Torrefil (Torrefil),
Joseph Stevenson B. Alican (Alican), and herein petitioners Atty. Pagdanganan, Atty.
Suarez, and Villanueva before the NLRC for the collection of: (a) his unpaid salaries in
the sum of US$24,821.74; (b) disability benefits; (c) sickness allowance; and (d)
reimbursement of his medical expenses.13 However, only the petitioners and the group
of Pealosa, Fernandez, D. Cruz, Javier, and A. Cruz (Pealosa Group) filed position
papers to controvert Sarmientos claims. 14 cralawla wlibrary

In their defense, petitioners denied any liability to Sarmiento, contending that they
were no longer connected with Sea Gem when the latter filed his complaint. Villanueva
resigned on February 5, 2008, or more than three (3) months before Sarmiento was
hired on May 8, 2008, while on June 16, 2008, Attys. Pagdanganan and Suarez
tendered their resignations as Sea Gems President and Corporate Secretary,
respectively.15 cralawla wlibrary

For their part, the Pealosa Group maintained that they have divested their respective
shares of stock before Sea Gem engaged the services of Sarmiento. With the exception
of Fernandez who resigned on January 9, 2007, the rest of the Pealosa Group severed
their ties with Sea Gem on August 8, 2007. Consequently, they argued that only the
present directors and stockholders should be held liable for Sarmientos money
claims.16
cralawla wlibrary

The LA Ruling
In a Decision17 dated January 19, 2010, the Labor Arbiter (LA) found petitioners, Sea
Gem, Corinthian, the Pealosa Group, Torrefil, and Alican liable for Sarmientos money
claims and directed them to jointly and severally pay him the aggregate sum of
US$32,821.00, representing his unpaid wages and sickness allowance. 18 cralawlawlibrary

In granting Sarmientos unpaid wages, the LA found that he had indisputably proven
that a portion of his salaries remained unpaid. Likewise, the LA found that he was
entitled to sickness allowance, as he was repatriated on medical grounds and
necessarily required medical treatment.19 However, the LA debunked Sarmientos claim
for disability benefits and medical expenses reimbursement, explaining that in the
absence of a competent physicians declaration as to the degree of a seafarers
disability, disability benefits may not be awarded, 20 and that mere allegations of medical
expenses will not suffice to warrant a claim for reimbursement. 21 Finally, the LA held
petitioners, Sea Gem, Corinthian, the Pealosa Group, Torrefil, and Alican liable under
Section 1022 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042,23 opining that corporate directors and
officers cannot be relieved of their liabilities as such for the sole reason that they have
resigned or ceased to become shareholders of Sea Gem. 24 cralawla wlibrary

Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the NLRC, disclaiming liability for Sarmientos claims
and pointing out that the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) itself never
accredited or recognized them as directors of Sea Gem. 25 However, records are bereft of
any showing that the Pealosa Group, Sea Gem, Corinthian, Torrefil, and Alican
appealed the LA Decision, rendering the same final as to them. 26 cralawla wlibrary

The NLRC Proceedings

Pending petitioners appeal, or on June 4, 2010, Atty. Jay T. Borromeo (Atty.

Borromeo) entered27 his appearance as counsel for Sarmiento and simultaneously filed
pleadings on his behalf.

In a Decision28 dated September 30, 2010, the NLRC affirmed the LAs Ruling with
modification absolving petitioners from any liability in connection with Sarmientos
money claims, considering that they were no longer connected with Sea Gem at the
time Sarmientos cause of action arose. It likewise gave credence to the letter of the
POEA stating that petitioners were never recognized as directors of Sea
Gem.29Nonetheless, the NLRC assured Sarmiento that he may still proceed against Sea
Gem, Corinthian, the Pealosa Group, Torrefil, and Alican who did not interpose an
appeal.

Dissatisfied, Sarmiento moved for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in a

Resolution30 dated December, 30, 2010 (December 30, 2010 Resolution). On January
12, 2011, Atty. Borromeo was duly notified of the said December 30, 2010
Resolution, as evidenced by the registry return receipt issued by the Bureau of
Posts.31
cralawlawlibrary

The CA Proceedings

Subsequently, or on April 7, 2011, Sarmiento, personally and on his own behalf, filed
a petition for certiorari32 before the CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the NLRC in modifying the LA Decision by absolving petitioners from liability. In the
said petition, Sarmiento claimed that he was personally notified of the December 30,
2010 Resolution only on February 10, 2011, thus, it was seasonably filed.33 cralawla wlibrary

In their Comment34 dated May 4, 2011, petitioners pointed out that Sarmientos petition
was filed beyond the sixty (60)-day reglementary period within which to file a petition
for certiorari, having been filed eighty-five (85) days from the time Sarmientos counsel
of record, Atty. Borromeo, received the December 30, 2010 Resolution on January 12,
2011.35 As there is dearth of evidence showing that Atty. Borromeo had been relieved
of his duties as counsel at the time, petitioners averred that Sarmientos petition should
be dismissed outright, citing the rule that where a party is represented by counsel,
service upon the latter is binding upon the client. 36 Moreover, records disclose that Atty.
Borromeo has not filed a formal withdrawal of appearance.37 cralawla wlibrary

Thereafter, or on June 1, 2011, Atty. Borromeo filed a Manifestation with Notice of

Withdrawal of Appearance,38 explaining that he had been long discharged of his duties
as counsel of Sarmiento but due to personal problems and other professional
commitments, he forgot to file a formal withdrawal of appearance in this case. Further,
he denied receipt of the December 30, 2010 Resolution and claimed that it was his
neighbor, a certain Roland Allan Lomentigar, who received it on January 12, 2011. 39 cralawlawlibrary

On even date, Sarmiento, again representing himself, submitted a Reply 40 where

he admitted41 that he was not informed by Atty. Borromeo that he received the
December 30, 2010 Resolution on January 12, 2011.

In a Decision42 dated October 23, 2012, the CA did not address the issue raised by
petitioners regarding the timeliness of the filing of Sarmientos CA petition.
Instead, it ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and thereby
ordered the reinstatement of the LA Decision, effectively finding petitioners jointly and
severally liable for Sarmientos money claims.43 In line with the purpose of giving full
protection to labor, the CA reasoned that corporate officers, directors, and/or partners
shall remain solidarily liable for the claims and damages of the overseas contract
worker, as long as they acted as officers during the effectivity of the employment
contract,44 which in Sarmientos case was from May 10, 2008 to February 10,
2009.45 As petitioners were already engaged as directors and officers of Sea Gem at
the time,46 they may not simply avoid liability considering that their resignation
circumvented Section 10 of RA 8042.47 cralawla wlibrary

Petitioners moved for reconsideration48 which was, however, denied in a

Resolution49 dated March 26, 2013. At odds with the CAs ruling, petitioners seek its
reversal through the present petition, maintaining their stance that Sarmientos petition
for certiorari before the CA was filed out of time, hence, the CA did not acquire
jurisdiction over the same and the NLRC Decision could no longer be assailed.

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not the CA erred when it
found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in absolving petitioners from
liability in connection with Sarmientos money claims notwithstanding the fact that
Sarmientos petition challenging the NLRC Decision was filed out of time.
 The Courts Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules), as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-
12-SC, an aggrieved party has sixty (60) days from receipt of the assailed decision,
order or resolution within which to file a petition for certiorari, viz.:
chanRoblesvirtualLa wlibrary

SEC. 4. When and where to file petition. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty
(60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the
petition shall be filed not latter than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of
the denial of the motion.

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, and as correctly pointed out by petitioners, the 60-day
reglementary period for the purpose of filing a petition for certiorari should be reckoned
from January 12, 2011, the date Atty. Borromeo, Sarmientos then counsel of record,
had the notice of the December 30, 2010 Resolution, and not February 10, 2011, the
date when Sarmiento was personally notified thereof. This is in consonance with the
well-settled rule that if a litigant is represented by counsel, notices of all kinds,
including court orders and decisions, must be served on said counsel, and notice to him
is considered notice to his client. As declared in the case of GCP-Manny Transport
Services, Inc. v. Hon. Principe:50
cralawla wlibrary

The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel in an action in court,

notices of all kinds including motions, pleadings and orders must be served on
the counsel. And notice to such counsel is notice to the client. Notice sent to
counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to
inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a
ground for setting aside a judgment, valid and regular on its face. 51 (Emphasis supplied)

To this end, the Court cannot give credence to Sarmientos contention that Atty.
Borromeo had been discharged as counsel even before Sarmiento received the
December 30, 2010 Resolution, considering that Atty. Borromeo never filed a formal
withdrawal of appearance prior thereto, conformably with Section 26, 52 Rule 138 of the
Rules. For his failure to observe the proper legal formalities, Atty. Borromeo remained
as Sarmientos counsel on record. Fundamental is the rule that until a counsels
dismissal or withdrawal is formally made, any court record sent to him binds the client,
despite an internal arrangement between them terminating their professional
relationship,53 as in this case.

Besides, on June 1, 2011, Atty. Borromeo eventually filed a Manifestation with Notice of
Withdrawal of Appearance54 before the CA, thus confirming that he was, in fact,
Sarmientos legal counsel at the time he received the December 30, 2010
Resolution.55 Accordingly, the 60-day period within which to file a petition
for certiorari before the CA should be computed from January 12, 2011, the last day
of which would be on March 13, 2011. As Sarmientos petition was filed only on April
7, 2011, it was belatedly filed by twenty-five (25) days. Effectively, therefore, the CA
did not acquire jurisdiction over Sarmientos petition, hence, the NLRC Ruling could no
longer be assailed.56 cralawlawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 23, 2012 and the
Resolution dated March 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118912 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated September 30, 2010 and the
Resolution dated December 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission in
NLRC NCR Case No. OFW(M) 05-07119-09/NLRC LAC No. OFW(M) 03-000209-10
are REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. cralawred

For Bin