ULEP digwst

7/27/2019 ULEP digwst

1/62

ULEPIn 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed byAtty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, accordingto Nogales was to move towardspecialization and to cater to clients whocannot afford the services of big law

firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed acomplaint against The Legal Clinicbecause of the latters advertisementswhich contain the following:

SECRET MARRIAGE?

P560.00 for a valid marriage.

Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.ANNULMENT. VISA.


2/62


3/62

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage.Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.Quota/Non-quota Res. & SpecialRetirees Visa. Declaration of Absence.Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.

Adoption. Investment in the Phil.US/Foreign Visa for FilipinaSpouse/Children.

Call Marivic.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila

nr. US Embassy


4/62

Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinicpublished an article entitled Rx forLegal Problems in Star Week of

Philippine Star wherein Nogales statedthat they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clientsproblem no matter how complicated it iseven if it is as complicated as the SharonCuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. Hesaid that he and his staff of lawyers,who, like doc tors, are specialists invarious fields, can take care of it. The

Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists intaxation and criminal law, medico-legalproblems, labor, litigation and family


5/62

law. These specialists are backed up by abattery of paralegals, counselors andattorneys.

As for its advertisement, Nogales said itshould be allowed in view of the

jurisprudence in the US which nowallows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, theadvertisement is merely making knownto the public the services that The LegalClinic offers.

ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic isengaged in the practice of law; whether

such is allowed; whether or not itsadvertisement may be allowed.


6/62

HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged inthe practice of law however, suchpractice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic iscomposed mainly of paralegals. Theservices it offered include various legalproblems wherein a client may avail of

legal services from simpledocumentation to complex litigation andcorporate undertakings. Most of theseservices are undoubtedly beyond thedomain of paralegals, but rather, areexclusive functions of lawyers engagedin the practice of law. Under Philippine

jurisdiction however, the services beingoffered by Legal Clinic which constitute

practice of law cannot be performed byparalegals. Only a person duly admittedas a member of the bar and who is in


7/62

good and regular standing, is entitled topractice law.

Anent the issue on the validity of thequestioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that

a lawyer in making known his legalservices shall use only true, honest, fair,dignified and objective information orstatement of facts. The standards of thelegal profession condemn the lawyersadvertisement of his talents. A lawyercannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents orskills as in a manner similar to a

merchant advertising his goods. Further,the advertisements of Legal Clinic seemto promote divorce, secret marriage,


8/62

bigamous marriage, and othercircumventions of law which theirexperts can facilitate. Such is highlyreprehensible.

The Supreme Court also noted which

forms of advertisement are allowed. Thebest advertising possible for a lawyer is awell-merited reputation for professionalcapacity and fidelity to trust, which mustbe earned as the outcome of characterand conduct. Good and efficient serviceto a client as well as to the communityhas a way of publicizing itself andcatching public attention. That publicity

is a normal by-product of effectiveservice which is right and proper. A goodand reputable lawyer needs no artificial


9/62

stimulus to generate it and to magnifyhis success. He easily sees the differencebetween a normal by-product of ableservice and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court alsoenumerated the following as allowed

forms of advertisement:

Advertisement in a reputable law listUse of ordinary simple professional cardListing in a phone directory but withoutdesignation as to his specialization


10/62

In re LUIS B. TAGORDA ,

Duran & Lim for respondent.Attorney-General Jaranilla and ProvincialFiscal Jose for the Government.

-->MALCOLM, J.:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, apractising attorney and a member of theprovincial board of Isabela, admits thatprevious to the last general elections he

made use of a card written in Spanishand Ilocano, which, in translation, readsas follows:


11/62

LUIS B. TAGORDAAttorneyNotary PublicCANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBERProvince of Isabelachanrobles virtual law

library

(NOTE. - As notary public, he canexecute for you a deed of sale for thepurchase of land as required by thecadastral office; can renew lostdocuments of your animals; can makeyour application and final requisites foryour homestead; and can execute any

kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can helpyou collect your loans although longoverdue, as well as any complaint for or


12/62


13/62

of next month. Before my induction intooffice I should be very glad to hear yoursuggestions or recommendations for thegood of the province in general and foryour barrio in particular. You can cometo my house at any time here in

Echague, to submit to me any kind of suggestion or recommendation as youmaydesire.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

I also inform you that despite mymembership in the Board I will have myresidence here in Echague. I will attend

the session of the Board of Ilagan, butwill come back home on the followingday here in Echague to live and serve


14/62

with you as a lawyer and notary public.Despite my election as member of theProvincial Board, I will exercise my legalprofession as a lawyer and notary public.In case you cannot see me at home onany week day, I assure you that you can

always find me there on every Sunday. Ialso inform you that I will receive anywork regarding preparations of documents of contract of sales andaffidavits to be sworn to before me asnotary public even onSundays.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

I would like you all to be informed of thismatter for the reason that some peopleare in the belief that my residence as


15/62

member of the Board will be in Ilaganand that I would then be disqualified toexercise my profession as lawyer and asnotary public. Such is not the case and Iwould make it clear that I am free toexercise my profession as formerly and

that I will have my residence here inEchague.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

I would request you kind favor totransmit this information to your barriopeople in any of your meetings or socialgatherings so that they may be informedof my desire to live and to serve with

you in my capacity as lawyer and notarypublic. If the people in your locality havenot as yet contracted the services of


16/62

other lawyers in connection with theregistration of their land titles, I wouldbe willing to handle the work in courtand would charge only three pesos foreveryregistration.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryc

hanrobles virtual law library

Yours respectfully,

(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDAAttorneyNotary Public.

The facts being conceded, it is next in

order to write down the applicable legalprovisions. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as originally conceived


17/62

related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the instigation of thePhilippine Bar Association, said codalsection was amended by Act No. 2828 byadding at the end thereof the following:"The practice of soliciting cases at law

for the purpose of gain, either personallyor through paid agents or brokers,constitutes malpractice."chanroblesvirtual law library

The statute as amended conforms inprinciple to the Canons of ProfessionalsEthics adopted by the American BarAssociation in 1908 and by the Philippine

Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and28 of the Code of Ethics provide:


18/62


19/62

unprofessional to procure business byindirection through touters of any kind,whether allied real estate firms or trustcompanies advertising to secure thedrawing of deeds or wills or offeringretainers in exchange for executorships

or trusteeships to be influenced by thelawyer. Indirect advertisement forbusiness by furnishing or inspiringnewspaper comments concerning themanner of their conduct, the magnitudeof the interest involved, the importanceof the lawyer's position, and all otherlike self-laudation, defy the traditionsand lower the tone of our high calling,

and areintolerable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library


20/62

28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLYOR THROUGH AGENTS. - It isunprofessional for a lawyer to volunteeradvice to bring a lawsuit, except in rarecases where ties of blood, relationship or

trust make it his duty to do so. Stirringup strife and litigation is not onlyunprofessional, but it is indictable atcommon law. It is disreputable to huntup defects in titles or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to theemployed to bring suit, or to breedlitigation by seeking out those withclaims for personal injuries or those

having any other grounds of action inorder to secure them as clients, or toemploy agents or runners for like


21/62

purposes, or to pay or reward directly orindirectly, those who bring or influencethe bringing of such cases to his office,or to remunerate policemen, court orprison officials, physicians, hospitalattaches or others who may succeed,

under the guise of giving disinterestedfriendly advice, in influencing thecriminal, the sick and the injured, theignorant or others, to seek hisprofessional services. A duty to thepublic and to the profession devolvesupon every member of the bar havingknowledge of such practices upon thepart of any practitioner immediately to

inform thereof to the end that theoffender may be disbarred.


22/62

Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrelsbetween individuals was a crime at thecommon law, and one of the penaltiesfor this offense when committed by anattorney was disbarment. Statutes

intended to reach the same evil havebeen provided in a number of jurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar itself, and have been upheld asconstitutional. The reason behindstatutes of this type is not difficult todiscover. The law is a profession and nota business. The lawyer may not seek orobtain employment by himself or

through others for to do so would beunprofessional. (State vs. Rossman[1909], 53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas., 625;


23/62

People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A.,231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)chanrobles virtuallaw library

It becomes our duty to condemn in nouncertain terms the ugly practice of

solicitation of cases by lawyers. It isdestructive of the honor of a greatprofession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against theconfidence of the community in theintegrity of the members of the bar. Itresults in needless litigation and inincenting to strife otherwise peacefullyinclined

citizens.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library


24/62

The solicitation of employment by anattorney is a ground for disbarment orsuspension. That should be distinctlyunderstood.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Giving application of the law and theCanons of Ethics to the admitted facts,the respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases in defiance of thelaw and those canons. Accordingly, theonly remaining duty of the court is to fixupon the action which should here betaken. The provincial fiscal of Isabela,with whom joined the representative of

the Attorney-General in the oralpresentation of the case, suggests thatthe respondent be only reprimanded.


25/62

We think that our action should gofurther than this if only to reflect ourattitude toward cases of this characterof which unfortunately the respondent'sis only one. The commission of offensesof this nature would amply justify

permanent elimination from the bar. Butas mitigating, circumstances working infavor of the respondent there are, first,his intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, hisyouth and inexperience at the bar, and,third, his promise not to commit asimilar mistake in the future. A modestperiod of suspension would seem to fit

the case of the erring attorney. But itshould be distinctly understood that thisresult is reached in view of the


26/62

considerations which have influencedthe court to the relatively lenient in thisparticular instance and should,therefore, not be taken as indicating thatfuture convictions of practice of this kindwill not be dealt with by

disbarment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In view of all the circumstances of thiscase, the judgment of the court is thatthe respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and ishereby suspended from the practice asan attorney-at-law for the period of onemonth from April 1, 1929,

Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real,JJ., concur.


27/62


28/62

TIMOTEO V. CRUZ, Petitioner, vs.FRANCISCO G. H. SALVA, Respondent.

MONTEMAYOR, J.: chanrobles virtuallaw library

This is a petition for certiorari andprohibition with preliminary injunctionfiled by Timoteo V. Cruz againstFrancisco G. H. Salva, in his capacity asCity Fiscal of Pasay City, to restrain himfrom continuing with the preliminaryinvestigation he was conducting inSeptember, 1957 in connection with thekilling of Manuel Monroy which took

place on June 15, 1953 in Pasay City. Tobetter understand the present case andits implications, the following facts


29/62

gathered from the pleadings and thememoranda filed by the parties, may bestated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Following the killing of Manuel Monroy

in 1953 a number of persons wereaccused as involved and implicated insaid crime. After a long trial, the Court of First Instance of Pasay City found OscarCastelo, Jose de Jesus, HipolitoBonifacio, Bienvenido Mendoza, FrancisBerdugo and others guilty of the crimeof murder and sentenced them to death.They all appealed the sentence although

without said appeal, in view of theimposition of the extreme penalty, thecase would have to be reviewed


30/62

automatically by this Court. OscarCastelo sought a new trial which wasgranted and upon retrial, he was againfound guilty and his former conviction of sentence was affirmed and reiterated bythe same trial

court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It seems that pending appeal, the latePresident Magsaysay ordered areinvestigation of the case. The purposeof said reinvestigation does not appearin the record. Anyway, intelligenceagents of the Philippine Constabulary

and investigators of Malaca angconducted the investigation for the Chief Executive, questioned a number of


31/62

people and obtained what would appearto be confession, pointing to persons,other than those convicted andsentenced by the trial court, as the realkillers of ManuelMonroy.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

chanrobles virtual law library

Counsel for Oscar Castelo and his co-defendants wrote to respondent FiscalSalva to conduct a reinvestigation of thecase presumably on the basis of theaffidavits and confessions obtained bythose who had investigated the case atthe instance of Malaca ang. Fiscal Salva

conferred with the Solicitor General asto what steps he should take. Aconference was held with the Secretary


32/62

of Justice who decided to have theresults of the investigation by thePhilippine Constabulary andMalaca ang investigators madeavailable to counsel for theappellants.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary


Taking advantage of this opportunity,counsel for the appellants filed a motionfor new trial with this Tribunalsupporting the same with the so-calledaffidavits and confessions of some of those persons investigated, such as theconfessions of Sergio Eduardo y de

Guzman, Oscar Caymo, Pablo Canlas,and written statements of severalothers. By resolution of this Tribunal,


33/62

action on said motion for new trial wasdeferred until the case was studied anddetermined on the merits. In themeantime, the Chief, PhilippineConstabulary, head sent to the Office of Fiscal Salva copies of the same affidavits

and confessions and written statements,of which the motion for new trial wasbased, and respondent Salva proceededto conduct a reinvestigation designatingfor said purposes a committee of threecomposed of himself as chairman andAssistant City Attorneys Herminio A.Avenda io and Ernesto A.Bernabe.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary



34/62

In connection with said preliminaryinvestigation being conducted by thecommittee, petitioner Timoteo Cruz wassubpoenaed by respondent to appear athis office on September 21, 1957, totestify "upon oath before me in a certain

criminal investigation to be conducted atthe time and place by this office againstyou and Sergio Eduardo, et al., formurder." On September 19, 1957,petitioner Timoteo Cruz wrote torespondent Salva asking for the transferof the preliminary investigation fromSeptember 21, due to the fact that thiscounsel, Atty. Crispin Baizas, would

attend a hearing on that same day inNaga City. Acting upon said request forpostponement, Fiscal Salva set the


35/62

preliminary investigation on September24. On that day, Atty. Baizas appearedfor petitioner Cruz, questioned the

jurisdiction of the committee,particularly respondent Salva, to conductthe preliminary investigation in view of

the fact that the same case involving thekilling of Manuel Monroy was pendingappeal in this Court, and on the sameday filed the present petition forcertiorari and prohibition. This Tribunalgave due course to the petition forcertiorari and prohibition and upon thefiling of a cash bond of P200.00 issued awrit of preliminary injunction thereby

stopping the preliminary investigationbeing conducted by respondent


36/62

Salva.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The connection, if any, that petitionerCruz had with the preliminaryinvestigation being conducted by

respondent Salva and his committee wasthat affidavits and confessions sent toSalva by the Chief, PhilippineConstabulary, and which were beinginvestigated, implicated petitioner Cruz,even picturing him as the instigator andmastermind in the killing of ManuelMonroy.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The position taken by petitioner Cruz inthis case is that inasmuch as the


37/62

principal case of People vs. OscarCastelo, et al., G.R. No. L-10794, ispending appeal and considerationbefore us, no court, much less aprosecuting attorney like respondentSalva, had any right or authority to

conduct a preliminary investigation orreinvestigation of the case for thatwould be obstructing the administrationof justice and interferring with theconsideration on appeal of the maincase wherein appellants had been foundguilty and convicted and sentenced;neither had respondent authority to citehim to appear and testify at said

investigation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library


38/62

Respondent Salva, however, contendsthat if he subpoenaed petitioner Cruz atall, it was because of the latter's oral andpersonal request to allow him to appearat the investigation with his witnessesfor his own protection, possibly, to

controvert and rebut any evidencetherein presented against him. Salvaclaims that were it not for this requestand if, on the contrary, Timoteo Cruzhad expressed any objection to beingcited to appear in the investigation he(Salva) would never have subpoenaedhim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Although petitioner Cruz now stoutlydenies having made such request that he


39/62

be allowed to appear at theinvestigation, we are inclined to agreewith Fiscal Salva that such a request hadbeen made. Inasmuch as he, TimoteoCruz, was deeply implicated in the killingof Manuel Monroy by the affidavits and

confessions of several persons who werebeing investigated by Salva and hiscommittee, it was but natural thatpetitioner should have been interested,even desirous of being present at thatinvestigation so that he could face andcross examine said witnesses andaffiants when they testified inconnection with their affidavits or

confessions, either repudiating,modifying or ratifying the same.Moreover, in the communication,


40/62

addressed to respondent Salva askingthat the investigation, scheduled forSeptember 21, 1957, be postponedbecause his attorney would be unable toattend, Timoteo Cruz expressed noopposition to the subpoena, not even a

hint that he was objecting to his beingcited to appear at theinvestigation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As to the right of respondent Salva toconduct the preliminary investigationwhich he and his committee beganordinarily, when a criminal case in which

a fiscal intervened though nominally, foraccording to respondent, twogovernment attorneys had been


41/62


42/62

established a justification for hisreinvestigation because according tohim, in the original criminal case againstCastelo, et al., one of the defendantsnamed Salvador Realista y de Guzmanwas not included for the reason that he

was arrested and was placed within the jurisdiction of the trial court only afterthe trial against the other accused hadcommenced, even after the prosecutionhad rested its case and the defense hadbegun to present its evidence. Naturally,Realista remained to stand trial. The trialcourt, according to respondent, at theinstance of Realista, had scheduled the

hearing at an early date, that is inAugust, 1957. Respondent claims thatbefore he would go to trial in the


43/62

prosecution of Realista he had to charthis course and plan of action, whether topresent the same evidence, oral anddocumentary, presented in the originalcase and trial, or, in view of the newevidence consisting of the affidavits and

confessions sent to him by the PhilippineConstabulary, he should first assess anddetermine the value of said evidence byconducting an investigation and thatshould he be convinced that the personscriminally responsible for the killing of Manuel Monroy were other than thosealready tried and convicted, like OscarCastelo and his co-accused and co-

appellants, including Salvador Realista,then he might act accordingly and evenrecommend the dismissal of the case


44/62


45/62

offenses, it is unquestionable that theymay, in appropriate cases, in order to do

justice and avoid injustice, reinvestigatecases in which they have already filedthe corresponding informations. In thelanguage of Justice Sutherland of the

Supreme Court of the United States, theprosecuting officer "is the representativenot of an ordinary party to acontroversy, but of a sovereignty whoseobligation to govern impartially is ascompelling as its obligation to govern atall; and whose interest, therefore, in acriminal prosecution is not that it shallwin a case, but that justice shall be done.

As such, he is in a peculiar and verydefinite sense the servant of the law, thetwofold aim of which is that guilt shall


46/62

not escape nor innocent suffer. He mayprosecute with earnestness and vigor -indeed, he should do so. But, while hemay strike had blows, he is not at libertyto strike foul ones. It is as much his dutyto refrain from improper methods

calculated to produce a wrongfulconviction as it is to use every legitimatemeans to bring about a just one. (69United States law Review, June, 1935,No. 6, p. 309, cited in the case of Suarezvs. Platon, 69 Phil., 556)

With respect to the right of respondentSalva to cite petitioner to appear and

testify before him at the scheduledpreliminary investigation, under the law,petitioner had a right to be present at


47/62

that investigation since as was alreadystated, he was more or less deeplyinvolved and implicated in the killing of Monroy according to the affiants whoseconfessions, affidavits and testimoniesrespondent Salva was considering or was

to consider at said preliminaryinvestigation. But he need not bepresent at said investigation because hispresence there implies, and was more of a right rather than a duty or legalobligation. Consequently, even if, asclaimed by respondent Salva, petitionerexpressed the desire to be given anopportunity to be present at the said

investigation, if he latter changed hismind and renounced his right, and evenstrenuously objected to being made to


48/62

appear at said investigation, he couldnot be compelled to doso.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Now we come to the manner in which

said investigation was conducted by therespondent. If, as contended by him, thepurpose of said investigation was only toacquaint himself with and evaluate theevidence involved in the affidavits andconfessions of Sergio Eduardo, CosmeCamo and others by questioning them,then he, respondent, could well haveconducted the investigation in his office,

quietly, unobtrusively and without muchfanfare, much less publicity.


49/62

However, according to the petitionerand not denied by the respondent, theinvestigation was conducted not inrespondent's office but in the sessionhall of the Municipal Court of Pasay Cityevidently, to accommodate the big

crowd that wanted to witness theproceeding, including members of thepress. A number of microphones wereinstalled. Reporters were everywhereand photographers were busy takingpictures. In other words, apparently withthe permission of, if not theencouragement by the respondent,news photographers and newsmen had

a filed day. Not only this, but in thecourse of the investigation, as shown bythe transcript of the stenographic notes


50/62

taken during said investigation, on twooccasions, the first, after Oscar Caymohad concluded his testimony respondentSalva, addressing the newspapermensaid, "Gentlemen of the press, if youwant to ask questions I am willing to let

you do so and the question asked will bereproduced as my own"; and the second,after Jose Maratella y de Guzman hadfinished testifying and respondent Salva,addressing the newsmen, again said,"Gentlemen of the press is free to askquestions as ours." Why respondent waswilling to abdicate and renounce hisright and prerogative to make and

address the questions to the witnessesunder investigation, in favor of themembers of the press, is difficult for us


51/62

to understand, unless he, respondent,wanted to curry favor with the press andpublicize his investigation as much aspossible. Fortunately, the gentlemen of the press to whom he accorded suchunusual privilege and favor appeared to

have wisely and prudently declined theoffer and did not ask questions, thisaccording to the transcript now beforeus.But, the newspapers certainly played upand gave wide publicity to what tookplace during the investigation, and thisinvolved headlines and extensiverecitals, narrations of and comments on

the testimonies given by the witnessesas well as vivid descriptions of theincidents that took place during the


52/62


53/62

beyond the bounds of prudence,discretion and good taste. It is badenough to have such undue publicitywhen a criminal case is beinginvestigated by the authorities, evenwhen it being tried in court; but when

said publicity and sensationalism isallowed, even encouraged, when thecase is on appeal and is pendingconsideration by this Tribunal, the wholething becomes inexcusable, evenabhorrent, and this Court, in the interestof justice, is constrained and called uponto put an end to it and a deterrentagainst its repetition by meting an

appropriate disciplinary measure, even apenalty to the one liable.


54/62

Some of the members of the Court whoappeared to feel more strongly than theothers favored the imposition of a moreor less severe penal sanction. Aftermature deliberation, we have finallyagreed that a public censure would, for

the present, be sufficient.

In conclusion, we find and hold thatrespondent Salva was warranted inholding the preliminary investigationinvolved in this case, insofar as SalvadorRealista is concerned, for which reasonthe writ of preliminary injunction issuedstopping said preliminary investigation,

is dissolved; that in view of petitioner'sobjection to appear and testify at thesaid investigation, respondent may not


55/62

compel him to attend said investigation,for which reason, the subpoena issuedby respondent against petitioner ishereby set aside. In view of theforegoing, the petition for certiorari andprohibition is granted in part and denied

in part. Considering the conclusionarrived at by us, respondent Francisco G.H. Salva is hereby publicly reprehendedand censured for the uncalled for andwide publicity and sensationalism thathe had given to and allowed inconnection with his investigation, whichwe consider and find to be contempt of court; and, furthermore, he is warned

that a repetition of the same wouldmeet with a more severe disciplinaryaction and penalty. No costs.


56/62

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, BautistaAngelo, Labrador, Concepcion andBarrera, JJ., concur.


57/62

ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainantvs.

BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G.COLLAS JR., LUIS MA. GUERRERO,VICENTE A. TORRES, RAFAEL E.EVANGELISTA, JR., ROMEO L. SALONGA,

JOSE R. SANDEJAS, LUCAS M. NUNAG, J.CLARO TESORO, NATIVIDAD B. KWANand JOSE A. CURAMMENG, JR.,respondents .

Adriano E. Dacanay for and his ownbehalf.

Madrid, Cacho, Angeles, Dominguez &

Pecson Law Office for respondents.


58/62


59/62

International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, aclient.

Attorney Dacanay, in his reply datedDecember 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that

he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if not,what is your purpose in using theletterhead of another law office." Nothaving received any reply, he filed theinstant complaint.

We hold that Baker & McKenzie, beingan alien law firm, cannot practice law in

the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondentsin their memorandum, Baker &


60/62

McKenzie is a professional partnershiporganized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinoiswith members and associates in 30 citiesaround the world. Respondents, asidefrom being members of the Philippinebar, practising under the firm name of

Guerrero & Torres, are members orassociates of Baker & Mckenzie.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General,respondents' use of the firm name Baker& McKenzie constitutes a representationthat being associated with the firm theycould "render legal services of thehighest quality to multinational business

enterprises and others engaged inforeign trade and investment" (p. 3,respondents' memo). This is unethical


61/62

because Baker & McKenzie is notauthorized to practise law here. (SeeRuben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed.,p. 115.)

WHEREFORE, the respondents are

enjoined from practising law under thefirm name Baker & McKenzie.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting CJ., Makasiar, AbadSantos, Melencio-Herrera, Escolin,Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente,Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.

Plana, J., took no part.


62/62

Fernando, C.J., and Concepcion, Jr., J.,are on leave.

ULEP digwst

Documents

Transcript of ULEP digwst