1 |CASE DIGESTS UNDER P.A.L.E.

( 1 - 3 w e e k s y l l a b u s )

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"
Practice of Law
through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic
machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services
Cayetano vs. Monsod (G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991)
advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services
should be allowed supposedly in the light of the caseof John R. Bates
Facts:
and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decidedby the
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon
United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter
received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on
Issue:
April 25, 1991. Petitioner Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination
Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic,
because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification
Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case,
of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements
Atty. Monsod has worked as a lawyer in the law office of his father
herein complained of.
(1960-1963); an operations officer with the World Bank Group (1963-
1970); Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank (1970-1986);
Held:
legal or economic consultant on various companies (1986); Secretary
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the
General of NAMFREL (1986); member of Constitutional Commission
respondent constitute practice of law. The definition of “practice of law”
(1986-1987); National Chairman of NAMFREL (1987); and member of
is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, as defined:Black
the quasi-judicial Davide Commission (1990).
defines "practice of law" as:"The rendition of services requiring the
knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
serve the interest of another with his consent.
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC.On June 18,
1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office
It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the
as Chairman of the COMELEC.Challenging the validity of the
conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the
petition for certiorari and prohibition praying that said confirmation and
giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and
the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the
all actions taken for them in matters connected with thelaw." The
Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services
can neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is
Issue:
belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been
Whether or not the respondent posseses the required qualification of
offering. While some of the services being offered by respondent
having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
corporation merely involve mechanical and technical know-how, such
as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient
Held:
management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids
The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Monsod possessed the required
and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the
qualification. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava:
general rule.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
court. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment
information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function is
and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before
non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In
judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s
providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage,
claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all that
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship
respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy
have been held to constitute law practice.
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
Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the
explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said
experience. “To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
law. That is what its advertisements represent and for which services it
which are characteristics of the profession. In general, a practice of law
will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within
requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court.
the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will
As such, the petition is dismissed.
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
Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic
research, giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth.
Facts:
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent,
services is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in the
The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist from issuing advertisements
practice of law by virtueof the nature of the services it renders which
similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said
thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against
petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making
the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other
assailed in this proceeding. The standards of the legal profession
than those allowed by law.”
condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. (SEE CANON 2) A
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise
The advertisement provided for secret marriages, annulment and info
his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
on divorce with the fees provided in the said advertisements.
goods.
The proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above
legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of
reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law
law is a profession. The canons of the profession tell us that the best
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements,
outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a
hence the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted.
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
2 |CASE DIGESTS UNDER P.A.L.E. ( 1 - 3 w e e k s y l l a b u s )

needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success.

He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able Ruling:
service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. No. The Code of Procedure in Civil Actions provides that in Courts of
Criteria for the practice of law First Instance a party may conduct his litigation personally or by the aid
of a lawyer, and his appearance must be either personal or by the aid
People v. Villanueva of a duly authorized member of the bar. (Sec. 34, Act No. 190.) In the
present case the co-heirs are neither in court personally nor by the a
Facts: duly authorized member of the bar. Therefore they are not in court at
On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, all, and any judgment which we might render in the present case, with
charged Simplicio Villanueva with the crime of Malicious Mischief, reference to the heirs, either pro or con, would in no way be binding
before the Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. Said upon them. (Espiritu vs. Crossfield and Vicente Guasch, No. 5313).
accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but later on replaced by
counsel de parte. The complainant in the same case was represented Tan vs. Sabandal (B.M. 44, Feb 24, 1992)
by City AttorneyAriston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his
appearance as private-prosecutor, after securing the permission of the
Secretary of Justice. The condition of his appearance as such, was
that every time he would appear at the trial of the case, he would be
considered on official leave of absence, and that he would not receive
any payment for his services. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as
private prosecutor was questioned by the counsel for the accused.

Issue:
Whether or not the isolated appearance of Atty. Fule as private
prosecutor constitutes practice of law.

Ruling:
No. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace
Court as ah agent or friend of the offended party. It does not appear
that he was being paid for his services or that his appearance was in a
professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of Sail Pablo he had
no control or intervention whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes
committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna, because the
prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by
the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and not by the City Attorney of San
Pablo. As such, there could be no possible conflict in the duties of
Assistant City Attorney Fule us Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo
and as private prosecutor in this criminal case. Furthermore, the
isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private
practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice
is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other
words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the
prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually
holding one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding
payment for such services. Thus, the appearance as counsel on one
occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the
private practice of law. And, it has never been refuted that City
Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate supervisor,
the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complaint in the case at bar
who is a relative. Decision affirmed.

Lichuaco vs. Alejandrino

Facts:
Faustino Lichuaco commenced an action for recovery of sum of money
against defendants. A judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs.
A detail of the case would show that Faustino Lichauco has brought
this action for himself and in representation of his co-heirs. So far as
the record shows, the co-heirs have no knowledge of the pendency of
the action. Faustino Lichauco shows no authority for representing his
co-heirs except the mere allegation in the title of his complaint. He
speaks of himself as the plaintiff. The attorney signs himself as
attorney for the plaintiff — not for the plaintiffs. Faustino Lichauco
represents himself and his co-heirs, and the attorney-at-law, who signs
the complaint, represents as he alleges "the plaintiff." There is nothing
in the record which shows that the co-heirs are not capable of
representing themselves. There is nothing in the record which shows
that they ever gave their consent to the commencement of the present
action. It may be assumed that they did, but this not sufficient.

In the present case the co-heirs are neither in court personally nor by
the a duly authorized member of the bar.

Issue:
WON the co-heirs are bound by the decision in this case?