Case Summary (A.C. No. 2131)
Petitioner
Adriano E. Dacanay instituted the complaint seeking to enjoin the respondents from practicing law in the Philippines under the firm name Baker & McKenzie. He contested the respondents’ use of the Baker & McKenzie letterhead and firm name in communications concerning Philippine matters.
Respondents
The respondents are Philippine-licensed lawyers who practice domestically under the firm name Guerrero & Torres and who are also members or associates of the foreign partnership Baker & McKenzie. One respondent, Vicente A. Torres, used a Baker & McKenzie letterhead in correspondence directed to a third party in relation to shares of a Philippine corporation.
Key Dates
- November 16, 1979: Letter sent by respondent Vicente A. Torres on Baker & McKenzie letterhead requesting release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H. E. Gabriel (a client).
- December 7, 1979: Dacanay’s reply denying liability and requesting clarification whether Baker & McKenzie represented Gabriel and why the foreign firm’s letterhead was used.
- 1980: Dacanay filed the verified complaint after receiving no substantive reply.
- (Decision date appears in source material; the legal analysis applies under the constitution in force at the time of decision.)
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
The decision was grounded on Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits alien law firms from practicing law in the Philippines. Because the decision predates the 1987 Constitution, the applicable constitutional framework is that which was in force at the time of decision (the constitution operative at the time the Court rendered its judgment). The opinion also cites ethical commentary (Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics) to support the conclusion that the respondents’ conduct was unethical.
Facts Material to the Dispute
Respondent Vicente A. Torres, using a Baker & McKenzie letterhead that listed the names of ten lawyers, requested the release of shares of a Philippine corporation to a named client. Dacanay, responding in his capacity as an interested lawyer, denied any liability and sought confirmation whether Gabriel’s counsel was Baker & McKenzie and, if not, the purpose of using that foreign firm’s letterhead. No satisfactory reply was received, prompting Dacanay’s verified complaint seeking injunctive relief.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether Philippine-licensed lawyers who are members or associates of a foreign professional partnership may practice law in the Philippines using the foreign partnership’s firm name and letterhead, thereby representing themselves as Baker & McKenzie, a foreign law firm not authorized to practice in the Philippines.
Court’s Analysis and Rationale
The Court accepted the uncontested factual premise that Baker & McKenzie is an alien professional partnership organized and headquartered in the United States with international affiliates. Under Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an alien law firm is not authorized to practice law in the Philippines. The respondents’ use of the Baker & McKenzie name and letterhead constituted a representation that they were acting under the badge of an internationally organized foreign law firm—thereby implying that legal services were being rendered under that foreign entity’s name. The Solicitor General’s memorandum, as summarized by the Court, characterized that representation a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 2131)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 221 Phil. 62, En Banc.
- A.C. No. 2131.
- Decision rendered May 10, 1985.
- The Court acted En Banc in issuing the decision.
Parties
- Complainant: Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay.
- Respondents: Baker & McKenzie and ten individual lawyers: 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. Kwan; and Jose A. Curammeng, Jr.
- Baker & McKenzie identified throughout as an alien (foreign) law firm organized in Chicago, Illinois.
Factual Background
- Adriano E. Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1954.
- In 1980, Dacanay filed a verified complaint seeking to enjoin the respondents from practicing law under the name "Baker & McKenzie."
- On November 16, 1979, respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the Baker & McKenzie letterhead that contained the names of the ten lawyers, wrote to Rosie Clurman requesting the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H. E. Gabriel, identified as a client.
- On December 7, 1979, Attorney Dacanay replied, denying any liability of Rosie Clurman to Gabriel and requesting information whether Baker & McKenzie was Gabriel’s counsel and, if not, the purpose for using the letterhead of another law office.
- Dacanay did not receive a reply to his December 7, 1979 letter and subsequently filed the verified complaint in 1980.
Admissions and Respondents’ Status
- Respondents admitted, in their memorandum, that Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois.
- Respondents admitted that Baker & McKenzie has members and associates in 30 cities around the world.
- Respondents, while being members of the Philippine Bar and practicing under the firm name Guerrero & Torres, were members or associates of Baker & McKenzie.
Legal Issue Presented
- Whether Baker & McKenzie, as an alien law firm, may lawfully practice law in the Philippines or whether the respondents may lawfully use the firm name "Baker & McKenzie" in practicing law in the Philippines.
Applicable Law and Authorities Cited
- The Court relied on the proposition that an alien law firm cannot practice law in the Philippines, citing Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
- The Solic