This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Since the facts are not disputed, it is clear that Olvida willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in these consolidated cases. There can be no question that one who prepares, signs, and files pleadings in court is engaged in the practice of law.[88] Olvida is not covered by the exception under Article 222(a) of the Labor Code,[89]which only pertains to proceedings before the NLRC and labor arbiters and do not extend to courts of law. Not being a member of the Philippine Bar, Olvida had no authority to act as the Union's counsel in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals and, now, before us. ynder Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, the act of "[a]ssuming to be an attorney... and acting as such without authority" constitutes indirect contempt. Accordingly, we find Olvida guilty of indirect contempt. | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| 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. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Second. The term "practice of law" is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in court proceedings but also includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of a litigation, giving advice to clients or persons needing the same,[18] the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured, and the preparation of papers incident to actions and special proceedings.[19] | |||||