Bar Matter No.

1645; Rule 139-B amended (administrative disciplinary cases
against lawyers)
In BAR MATTER N0. 1645 (RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE 139-B), dated October 13, 2015, the Supreme
Court issued new rules governing administrative disciplinary cases against lawyers.
Thereafter, the procedure in Section 12 of this Rule shall apply. No investigation shall be interrupted
or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, unless the Supreme Court motu propio
or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is no compelling
reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent.”

The premises of Bar Matter 1645 are as follows:
1. Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution confers upon the Supreme Court the power to
promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law.
2. The Supreme Court's power relating to the admission to the practice of law inherently includes the
power to discipline and remove from the rolls, lawyers who have transgressed their oath and violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
3. Dismissal of complaints filed against lawyers is a power of the Supreme Court that cannot be
delegated to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
4. The motive of the complainant and his or her action/inaction after the filing of a verified complaint
against a lawyer are not essential to the proceedings.
The new rules under Bar Matter 1645 are as follows:
1. Sections 1, 5, 12, 13, and 15 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court are amended to read as
follows:
(Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter No. 356)
“Section 12. Review and recommendation by the Board of Governors.
a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the
record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report.
b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall recommend to
the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action against the
respondent. The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, clearly
and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based. The resolution shall be issued
within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the
submission of the Investigator's report.
c) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence presented and submitted,
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action within ten (10) days from issuance of the
resolution.

“RULE 139-B Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys
Section 1. How Instituted. - Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys
may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or upon the filing of a verified complaint of any
person before the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complaint shall
state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons
having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantiate said facts.
The IBP shall forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment,
suspension and discipline filed against incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan,
Court of Tax Appeals and judges of lower courts, or against lawyers in the government service,
whether or not they are charged singly or jointly with other respondents, and whether or not such
complaint deals with acts unrelated to the discharge of their official functions. If the complaint is filed
before the IBP, six ( 6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or
the Secretary of any of its chapter who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of
Governors for assignment to an investigator.”
A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
“Section 5. Service or dismissal. - If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall
direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within
fifteen (15) days from the date of service.
If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator
that the complaint is not meritorious, the Investigator will recommend to the Board of Governors the
dismissal of the complaint.
d) Notice of the resolution of the Board shall be given to all parties through their counsel, if any.”
B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT
“Section 13. Investigation of complaints. - In proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court, or in other
proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for
investigation to the Office of the Bar Confidant, or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a
lower court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6
to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the
Supreme Court.
The complaint may also be referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.”
C. COMMON PROVISIONS
“Section 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. - After receipt of respondent's answer or
lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu propio, or upon the recommendation of the
IBP Board of Governors, may suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any of the
causes specified in Rule 138, section 27, during the pendency of the investigation until such
suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.”
The amendments shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in a newspaper of general
circulation. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ordered to revise its rules of procedure in
accordance with the amendments to Rule 139-B.
 Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378 advertisements herein complained of.
FACTS:
Held:
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease
and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and `B' Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the respondent constitute practice of law.
(of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements The definition of “practice of law” is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, as defined:Black
pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.” The advertisements defines "practice of law" as:"The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of
complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: 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
Annex A preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing,
SECRET MARRIAGE? the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
P560.00 for a valid marriage. embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with thelaw."
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA. The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously
Please call: 521-0767, considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it
LEGAL5217232, 5222041 has been offering. While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve
CLINIC, INC.8:30 am-6:00 pm mechanical and technical know-how, such as the installation of computer systems and programs for
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla. 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
Annex B corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function is
GUAM DIVORCE non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing information, for example,
DON PARKINSON about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday that respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and
to Friday during office hours. Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.
stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence.
necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign
course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements
Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave. represent and for which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely
LEGALErmita, Manila nr. US Embassy within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232521-7251522-2041; 521-0767 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
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champertous, legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth. That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to
unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in carry out its services is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of law
the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed by virtueof the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the
and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now
quoted. assailed in this proceeding.

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 caseof John R. Bates and Van O'Steen
vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decidedby the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
Issue:
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
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. (SEE
CANON 2) 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. 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 rightand 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.