MAURICIO C. ULEP V. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

FACTS:
This is a petition praying for an order to the respondent to cease and desist from issuing certain
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.
The said advertisement of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to inquire about secret marriage and
divorce in Guam and annulment, and the like. It also says that they are giving free books on Guam Divorce.
Ulep claims that such advertisements are unethical and destructive of the confidence of the community in
the integrity of lawyers. He, being a member of the bar, is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. On the
other hand, the respondent, while admitting of the fact of the publication of the advertisements, claims that it is not
engaged in the practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through paralegals. It also contends that
such advertisements should be allowed based on certain US cases decided.
ISSUE:
W/N the Legal Clinic Inc is engaged in the practice of law.
W/N the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements complained of.
HELD/RATIO:
Yes, it constitutes practice of law. No, the ads should be enjoined.
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 contract by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may
not be pending in a court. 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. The
practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. And applying the criteria, respondent
Legal Clinic Inc. is, as advertised, engaged in the practice of law.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. With
its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and
advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its
advertisements represent and for the which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls
squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law."
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. The only exceptions are when he appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary, simple
professional card.
The advertisements do not fall under these exceptions. 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. Hence, it should be enjoined.

Vitug vs. Rongcal

CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG, complainant, vs.
ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL, respondent.
A.C. No. 6313
September 7, 2006
TINGA, J.:
FACTS:
Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal who was introduced

to her by a common friend. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her in the support case she
was going to file against her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and
respondent started having sexual relationship with each other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave
her sweet inducements such as the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his
services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of Disclaimer
which the latter signed without reading the said affidavit. It was said that Aquino will give complainant
a lump sum provided she would execute an affidavit to the effect that Aquino is not the father of her
daughter.
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed an
administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which
recommended the suspension of Rongcal from the practice of law. The same was approved by the IBP
Board of Governors.
Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory
Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE: WON respondent be disbarred for immorality.
RULING:
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral
character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law
practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
ON SEXUAL RELATION AND ON RESPONDENTS SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE:
By his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code
which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
We find credence in respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of his
subsisting marriage.
We believe that complainants allegations of deceit were not established by clear preponderant
evidence required in disbarment cases. We are left with the most logical conclusion that she freely and
wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral relationship with respondent sans any misrepresentation or
deceit on his part.
ON THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED:
Complainant does not deny being a college graduate or that she knows and understands English. The
Affidavit is written in short and simple sentences that are understandable even to a layman. The
inevitable conclusion is that she signed the Affidavit voluntarily and without any coercion whatsoever
on the part of respondent.
It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement with Aquino after
explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending
cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court.
This court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and imposes on him a FINE of
P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt
with more severely.

SANTOS V. LLAMAS

Facts:
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues filed against respondent
Atty. Francisco R. Llamas.
In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997, complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a
member of the bar, alleged that:
On my oath as an attorney, I wish to bring to your attention and appropriate sanction the matter of Atty.
Francisco R. Llamas who, for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data
(date & place of issuance) in his pleadings
This matter is being brought in the context of Rule 138, Section 1 which qualifies that only a duly admitted
member of the bar "who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law". There is also Rule 139-A, Section
10 which provides that "default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership
in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys."
Issues:
W/N counsel is guilty of misrepresentation? YES
W/N he is exempt from paying his dues? YES
Held:
Rule 139-A provides:
Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of
Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of
the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the
compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the
payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in
such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
Attorneys.
In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues,
and it does not matter that his practice is "limited." While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, 4 grants senior citizens
"exemption from the payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed
the poverty level as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the
exemption does not include payment of membership or association dues.
Second. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the
courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Esmso
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; nor shall he mislead
or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Respondents failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court indeed
merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondents advanced age, his express willingness to pay his
dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, we believe the penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.

Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. B.M. No. 1370 May 9, 2005
FACTS: Petitioners files a motion for exemption for paying his IBP dues from 1977-2005 in the
amount of P12,035.00. He contends that after admission to the Bar he worked at the Phil. Civil
Service then migrated to the US until his retirement. His contention to be exempt is that his
employment with the CSC prohibits him to practice his law profession and he did not practice
the same while in the US. The compulsion that he pays his IBP annual membership is oppressive
since he has an inactive status as a lawyer. His removal from the profession because of nonpayment of the same constitutes to the deprivation of his property rights bereft of due process of
the law.

ISSUE: WON inactive practice of the law profession is an exemption to payment for IBP annual
membership.
RULING: The court held that the imposition of the membership fee is a matter of regulatory
measure by the State, which is a necessary consequence for being a member of the Philippine
Bar. The compulsory requirement to pay the fees subsists for as long as one remains to be a
member regardless whether one is a practicing lawyer or not. Thus, his petition for exemption
from paying his IBP membership fee dues is denied.

Santos Jr. v Llamas A.C. No. 4749 1.20.00

FACTS: This is a complaint against respondent for misrepresentation and non-payment of IBP
membership dues. For years, the respondent does not indicate proper PTR no. in his practice of
the law profession. Now of old age, he contends that he is engaged in the limited practice of his
profession and as a senior citizen, he is exempt from paying taxes and membership dues with
the IBP.
ISSUE: WON the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing to limited
practice of law and for being a senior citizen.
RULING: No. He is not exempt since Rule 139-A requires all IBP members to pay the annual fee
and failure thereof for 6 months merits suspension of the membership and for 1 year becomes a
ground for removal of the members name from the Rolls of Attorney regardless one is a
practicing lawyer or not. His non-renewal of his PTR is a misrepresentation to the public and
the courts that he has paid his dues violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo..

Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. Requesting Exemption from Payment of IBP dues.

In his letter, dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues
in the amount of 12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged
that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil
Service from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in the USA in December 1986
until his retirement in the year 2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the
years that he was working in the Phil. Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one's profession
while in government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working
in the USA.
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time he
was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and
he was working abroad from 1986-2003?

Payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is

exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one's
membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice the
member is engaged in.
Wherefore, petitioner's request for exemption from payment of IBP dues is DENIED.