Posted on February 17, 2009 in Legal Misc
I’m not sure if other professionals are required to render free service to the community. Lawyers, on the other hand, are now required to provide free legal aid service. The Supreme Court recently issued the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service. As provided under Bar Matter No. 2012, all practicing lawyers must render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year. The minimum amount of time is spread within twelve (12) months, which means that a practicing lawyer must render a minimum of five (5) hours of free legal aid services each month.
Not all lawyers are covered. The Rule defines a practicing lawyer –
Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies, including but not limited to the National Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and National Commission for Indigenous Peoples. The term “practicing lawyers” shall exclude:
(i) Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice;
(ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;
(iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and peoples’ organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by the nature of their work already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants and
(iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including those who are employed in the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies.
The Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service, which was published in the PhilStar and Inquirer on 14 February 2009, takes effect on 1 July 2009. A subsequent en banc Resolution, however, deferred the effectivity to 1 January 2010.
For the full text of Bar Matter No. 2012, please click here. (As an aside, you may have noticed that the url of the Supreme Court website was changed, from www.supremecourt.gov.ph to http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/). I see a very interesting and passionate debate on this issue (please use the comment section below). The poll is also found below.
Loading ...
this is a good thing for us handling pro bono cases, at least we have no reasons to complain.
unlike those of us who are, well, practicing for the money’s worth….
hehehe just thinking out loud..
Hi Atty Fred,
This is quite a huge step really for the Supreme Court just to lessen our dockets. Let me count the ways, starting with: Procedure on Small Claims, Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation, “Justice on Wheels”, Mandatory use of Modes of Discovery, MCLE for lawyers and now, the Mandatory Legal Aid Service. Did I miss anything?
Oh well, so…Kumusta na Atty? Graduating na jud tawn ko, finally!
Btw, this site is a blessing, thank you so much!
sha
As posted in your other site, this Rule is not a joke. I’ve rendered hours of free legal consultations as my contribution to society as a lawyer. This Rule mandates you to FILE a case since this will be the basis of your reporting to the clerk of court. Instead of mediating amongst possible litigants to avoid filing cases and further clogging the dockets in courts, there is no way now to avoid the filing of a case because you need the docket number to comply with this Rule to avoid being in ‘not good standing.’ Remember, free legal service as defined in the Rule is not merely free consultation but “appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions.”
I’ve been surfing the net about reactions to this new Rule, but somehow Lawyers have not really grasp the magnitude of this Rule.
So when will our fellow compañeras and compañeros react, when the Rule is in effect, and they realize they won’t be able to meet the required 5hrs/month.
How about you Atty Fred, any comments?
As posted in your other site:
“WHAT! Is the Supreme Court (SC) kidding?
Question: What percentage of bar passers actually venture as law practitioners?
This rule will dwindle further the number of practitioners?
Does the SC want lawyers to be ambulance chasers? Does the SC want to further clog the dockets in court because practicing lawyers need that Docket numbers to comply with this Rule?
As defined, ‘Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions.’
Now how about government lawyers, PAO and prosecutors, who are not exempted from this Rule? It seems that they have been serving indigent litigants, BUT this Rule is over and above of what they do. Does this mean that when they would render free legal service in compliance with this Rule they would have to file a leave of absence without pay, otherwise it wouldn’t be free since they are actually being paid by the government? And in case they would be allowed to serve indigent litigants on government time to comply with this Rule, isn’t this an unconstitutional classification because private lawyers spend their time withour pay just to comply with this Rule?
How about government and private in-house counsels, considered by this Rule as practicing lawyers, who work 8 to 5, Monday to Friday. When will they render this free legal service? Would they have to work on a Saturday or Sunday to render this service, but would further take away time from their families? And when they appear in court in compliance with this Rule, will they, too, file for a leave of absence without pay to comply with the ’so-called’ FREE legal service?
If I am Lawyer who by law are not allowed to appear in court, why should I be penalized by filing an annual P2,000 contribution?
If I work in a Barrio or some far-flung region away from the Courts, should I venture into the City just to comply with this Free Legal Service, but will cost me board and lodging expenses?
Common, what is the SC really up to? Is this FAIR?
Would somebody please explain to me the wisdom of this Rule by addressing the questions stated above?
The IBP National Convention is coming up this March. Lawyers make a stand on this issue!”
The intentions are noble but the rule smacks of unconstitutionality. Besides, like the MCLE, this will force lawyers to comply but only halfheartedly and the indigent clients will be shortchanged on the quality of services provided. As Sir Te aptly said, “You cannot legislate compassion or passion.”
we are now partly PAO lawyers… it’s good for the judiciary
This rule is pathetic. What this country needs the most, are decent court rooms, competent court staff, support technology and facilities. We have already our hands full ( and pockets empty ) because of MCLE, not to mention our regular work load, and pro bono cases and yet here comes this another requirement from the SC.
This new rule will only clogged the courts with cases since all practicing lawyers would be in such haste to comply. If we are really serious to make our justice system better, I believe we should have simplified and unified rules.
Better yet, they should invest more in updating PAO facilities and recruiting more competent PAO lawyers. Most importantly, get rid of corrupt judges, prosecutors and other corrupt lawyers whether public or private. That should nip the rootcause of our corrupt justice system.
We have enough of these gobbledygook rules. Period. Plain and simple.
There are a lot of people in our society, particularly those who come from the lower middle class who hold descent jobs, but could not afford to hire a lawyer when they need one. I am not against providing aid to pauper litigants. But the beneficiaries of this program should include the lower middle class.
The lower middle class are those people who hold jobs yet could not afford to avail of housing programs. It will still be years down the road before they could finally get a low cost housing unit for themselves.
The lower middle class are also those people who cannot afford right away to send a loved one to the hospital as they do not have ready cash on hand. But these people could not avail of services in the charity ward since the hospital social worker would disqualify them as they are not poor.
The lower middle are those who pay taxes. They cannot escape the taxman since taxes are collected and deducted from their meager salaries.
While it is commendable to reach out to the least of our breathren, so to speak, it appears that there are those among us who are left to fend for themselves.
There must be someway for government to reach out to these people and provide the necessary assistance without necessarily including them as among the poor and destitute. Moreover, the requirement for lawyers to provide free legal assistance should also extend to other professions.
Involuntary servitude..plain and simple!!!!
WTH???! I think, the SC should provide for exemptions in this rule…
what will be the function of the pao lawyers? That is the very reason why they were hired by the government, to handle cases for the indigent.
the proponent of this rule should have conducted a public hearing and/or consulted the lawyers in a national convention. it will not be easy for us lawyers to comply as we have so many things on our hand. We must unite to question this rule.
Just read above… there are some lawyers who are exempted, but, maybe they should exclude lawyers like me, who, are just associates of some law firms. We work 8-5 on weekdays. Do we have to chase for our own clients now (not the clients of the law firms where we work), and if yes, should we file a leave of absence in our work just so we can attend a hearing for the indigent clients?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against pro bonos… I’ve done it for several months before finally joining a law firm, but maybe, the SC should polish this rule further.
I will give this rule a maximum life of 3 years. If it is not abolished, I will say good bye to the profession.
I cannot be forced to render service against my will. I cannot just imagine laboring under the pain of punishment for 60 hours a year for the rest of my life. The rule does not only curtail my right to be free from involuntary servitude, the rule will affect my life decisions.
I am not certain if this is politically motivated. The chief justice is actively participating in pro-poor causes. At the same time, there have been a lot of call from the public for him to run for presidency.I do not know…
I am of the opinion that the intention of the SC is noble but not feasible. While it is of public interest to give free legal aid to the poor, the SC, cannot by the power granted by them under the constitution to supervise the members of the bar, violate the basic freedoms granted to every individual under the Bill of Rights. I entered the profession with full knowledge that I am under the supervision of the highest court of this land but never did I surrender my natural right to be free.
I saw with my naked senses how the poor struggle in their lives. But we cannot be overzealous to the extent of giving up our own concerns.
MALAS talaga sa mga abogado itong MaLAS (Mandatory Legal Aid Service)!!!
i am already handling pro bono cases are those cases counted? lol
I think this would increase the integrity and honors of the lawyers… they said lawyers are not wealthy in honor but not in money… for those aspiring lawyers, they won’t only think of their own revenues… but of their real intention in pursuing law… that is to have a good heart?… what?…
anyways… Supreme court, just an insight… why try to increase the percentage of bar-paasers.. after all they’ve work hard in studyi9g too much for 8 years plus 1 year of review…
and yes, before, non-passers were allowed to sign notary public… what if non-passers provide free legal aid?… maybe they had good heart and their integrity will be proven…
yes, its true, every problem ahs a corresponding solutions…