January 9, 1973

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.

R E S O L U T I O N

 

PER CURIAM:

On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration 1 submitted its Report dated

November 30, 1972, with the "earnest recommendation" — on the basis of the

said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. 526 2 of the Court, and

"consistently with the views and counsel received from its [the Commission's] Board of

Consultants, as well as the overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench

and Bar" — that "this Honorable Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as

possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule."

The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration of the

Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible and practicable to

existing provincial and other local Bar associations. On August 16, 1962, arguments in

favor of as well as in opposition to the petition were orally expounded before the Court.

Written oppositions were admitted, 3 and all parties were thereafter granted leave to file

written memoranda. 4

Since then, the Court has closely observed and followed significant developments relative

to the matter of the integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction.

In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there had grown a strong nationwide

sentiment in favor of Bar integration, the Court created the Commission on Bar Integration

for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar.

In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled "An Act Providing for the

Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor." The measure was

signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on September 17, 1971 and took effect on the

same day as Rep. Act 6397. This law provides as follows:

SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme

Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar

under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the

legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to

discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out

of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry

out the purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for

the same purpose shall be included in the annual appropriations for the

Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

The Report of the Commission abounds with argument on the constitutionality of Bar

integration and contains all necessary factual data bearing on the advisability

(practicability and necessity) of Bar integration. Also embodied therein are the views,

opinions, sentiments, comments and observations of the rank and file of the Philippine

lawyer population relative to Bar integration, as well as a proposed integration Court Rule

drafted by the Commission and presented to them by that body in a national Bar plebiscite.

There is thus sufficient basis as well as ample material upon which the Court may decide

whether or not to integrate the Philippine Bar at this time.

The following are the pertinent issues:

(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?

(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?

(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?

A resolution of these issues requires, at the outset, a statement of the meaning of Bar

integration. It will suffice, for this purpose, to adopt the concept given by the Commission

on Bar Integration on pages 3 to 5 of its Report, thus:

Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire

lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial

support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua

non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of

Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear

in the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must

include all lawyers.

Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with

power to do so: the State. Bar integration, therefore, signifies the setting up

by Government authority of a national organization of the legal profession

based on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of the court.

Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice

and the Rule of Law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers, and

ensures, through their own organized action and participation, the

promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the principle

of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the

Supreme Court.

The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:

(1) Assist in the administration of justice;

(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity,

learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;

(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members;

(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;

(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform,

pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench

and to the public, and publish information relating thereto;

(6) Encourage and foster legal education;

(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and

adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon; and

(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively.

Integration of the Bar will, among other things, make it possible for the legal

profession to:

(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of Law;

(2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of tyrannical judges and

prosecuting officers;

(3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the disciplining and/or

removal of incompetent and unworthy judges and prosecuting officers;

(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself except within

its own forum, from the assaults that politics and self-interest may level at it,

and assist it to maintain its integrity, impartiality and independence;

(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and prosecuting officers;

(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break up any monopoly of

local practice maintained through influence or position;

(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased lawyers;

(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid offices and set up

lawyer reference services throughout the country so that the poor may not

lack competent legal service;

(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that are difficult to

obtain in many of our provinces;

(10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal education for

practising attorneys in order to elevate the standards of the profession

throughout the country;

(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate minimum fees

schedules;

(12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal research;

(13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal rights and

obligations, on the importance of preventive legal advice, and on the

functions and duties of the Filipino lawyer; and

(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful country-wide

involvement of the lawyer population in the solution of the multifarious

problems that afflict the nation.

Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the

exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules

concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the

practice of law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court's

constitutional authority over the Bar. In providing that "the Supreme Court may adopt

rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar," Republic Act 6397 neither

confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent power, but is a mere legislative

declaration that the integration of the Bar will promote public interest or, more specifically,

will "raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and

enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively."

Resolution of the second issue — whether the unification of the Bar would be constitutional

— hinges on the effects of Bar integration on the lawyer's constitutional rights of freedom

of association and freedom of speech, and on the nature of the dues exacted from him.

The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent discussion made by the Commission

on Bar Integration pages 44 to 49 of its Report:

Constitutionality of Bar Integration

Judicial Pronouncements.

In all cases where the validity of Bar integration measures has been put in

issue, the Courts have upheld their constitutionality.

The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:

— Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.

— The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege,

moreover, clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not

only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and

to the nation; and takes part in one of the most important functions of the

State, the administration of justice, as an officer of the court.

— Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is

far and just that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure

compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.

— These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective

action; but there can be no collective action without an organized body; no

organized body can operate effectively without incurring expenses;

therefore, it is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to the

support of such organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most

efficient means of doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court

that requires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.

1. Freedom of Association.

To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is not violative of his

constitutional freedom to associate (or the corollary right not to associate).

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not

already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar

examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official

national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive

group of which every lawyer is already a member.

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is

free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or

vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The body compulsion to

which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues.

Otherwise stated, membership in the Unified Bar imposes only the duty to

pay dues in reasonable amount. The issue therefore, is a question of

compelled financial support of group activities, not involuntary membership

in any other aspect.

The greater part of Unified Bar activities serves the function of elevating the

educational and ethical standards of the Bar to the end of improving the

quality of the legal service available to the people. The Supreme Court, in

order to further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of

professional services, may require that the cost of improving the profession

in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory

program — the lawyers.

Assuming that Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be a member of the

Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police

power of the State. The legal profession has long been regarded as a proper

subject of legislative regulation and control. Moreover, the inherent power of

the Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate the

Bar.

2. Regulatory Fee.

For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean

that the Court levies a tax.

A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation, while

the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate

the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a

membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to push through

an Integrated Bar program without means to defray the concomitant

expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily includes the power to

impose such an exaction.

The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the Bar is that the

regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The public interest

promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the inconsequential

inconvenience to a member that might result from his required payment of

annual dues.

3. Freedom of Speech.

A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on any subject in

any manner he wishes, even though such views be opposed to positions

taken by the Unified Bar.

For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote measures to which

said member is opposed, would not nullify or adversely affect his freedom of

speech.

Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to practice law upon

membership in the Integrated Bar, it is difficult to understand why it should

become unconstitutional for the Bar to use the member's dues to fulfill the

very purposes for which it was established.

The objection would make every Governmental exaction the material of a

"free speech" issue. Even the income tax would be suspect. The objection

would carry us to lengths that have never been dreamed of. The

conscientious objector, if his liberties were to be thus extended, might refuse

to contribute taxes in furtherance of war or of any other end condemned by

his conscience as irreligious or immoral. The right of private judgment has

never yet been exalted above the powers and the compulsion of the agencies

of Government.

4. Fair to All Lawyers.

Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising because although

the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it will give the

members of the Bar a new system which they hitherto have not had and

through which, by proper work, they will receive benefits they have not

heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their public responsibilities in a more

effective manner than they have been able to do in the past. Because the

requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of regulatory power by the Court,

because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young and old, at the time Bar

integration takes effect, and because it is a new regulation in exchange for

new benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not unfair.

To resolve the third and final issue — whether the Court should ordain the integration of

the Bar at this time — requires a careful overview of the practicability and necessity as well

as the advantages and disadvantages of Bar integration.

In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the United States, Bar

integration has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved discipline among the members

of the Bar; (2) greater influence and ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better and more meaningful

participation of the individual lawyer in the activities of the Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar

facilities and services; (5) elimination of unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance of costly

membership campaigns; (7) establishment of an official status for the Bar; (8) more

cohesive profession; and (9) better and more effective discharge by the Bar of its

obligations and responsibilities to its members, to the courts, and to the public. No less

than these salutary consequences are envisioned and in fact expected from the unification

of the Philippine Bar.

Upon the other hand, it has been variously argued that in the event of integration,

Government authority will dominate the Bar; local Bar associations will be weakened;

cliquism will be the inevitable result; effective lobbying will not be possible; the Bar will

become an impersonal Bar; and politics will intrude into its affairs.

It is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils prophesied by opponents of Bar

integration have failed to materialize in over fifty years of Bar integration experience in

England, Canada and the United States. In all the jurisdictions where the Integrated Bar has

been tried, none of the abuses or evils feared has arisen; on the other hand, it has restored

public confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional consciousness, energized the Bar's

responsibilities to the public, and vastly improved the administration of justice.

How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar integration? The official statistics

compiled by the Commission on Bar integration show that in the national poll recently

conducted by the Commission in the matter of the integration of the Philippine Bar, of a

total of 15,090 lawyers from all over the archipelago who have turned in their individual

responses, 14,555 (or 96.45 per cent) voted in favor of Bar integration, while only 378 (or

2.51 per cent) voted against it, and 157 (or 1.04 per cent) are non-commital. In addition, a

total of eighty (80) local Bar association and lawyers' groups all over the Philippines have

submitted resolutions and other expressions of unqualified endorsement and/or support

for Bar integration, while not a single local Bar association or lawyers' group has expressed

opposed position thereto. Finally, of the 13,802 individual lawyers who cast their plebiscite

ballots on the proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission, 12,855 (or

93.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof, 662 (or 4.80 per cent) vote against it, and 285 (or

2.06 per cent) are non-committal. 5 All these clearly indicate an overwhelming nationwide

demand for Bar integration at this time.

The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments

adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual data

contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that the

integration of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable,"

within the context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has become an

imperative means to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration

of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of

the Constitution, hereby ordains the integration of the Bar of the Philippines in accordance

with the attached COURT RULE, effective on January 16, 1973.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING FOR THE

PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993."

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to uplift the

standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling,

problem-solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession;

to impress on them the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal

and indispensable partner of the Bench in the administration of justice and to develop

social competence.

Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education

system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and

require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education.

Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education in the

Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives:

(1) to prepare students for the practice of law;

(2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the

needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society;

(3) to train persons for leadership;

(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the

improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in

the light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the

Philippines and in other countries.

(b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives:

(1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various

fields and of legal institutions;

(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze,

articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a

holistic approach to legal problems and issues;

(3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and

decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal

problems of the present and the future;

(4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful

employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic

professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for

continuing study and self-improvement;

(5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession;

and

(6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their

profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.

Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of

this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the

Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the

Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former justice of the

Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular members: a representative

of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association

of Law Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a

representative from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of

Education, Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the

Board.

With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman and

regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines and members

of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the practice of

law, as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or recognized law school.

Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular members of the Board

shall be appointed by the President for a term of five (5) years without reappointment from

a list of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with prior authorization from the Supreme

Court, by the Judicial and Bar Council, for every position or vacancy, and no such

appointment shall need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Of those first

appointed, the Chairman and the representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5)

years, the representatives of the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the

representative from the ranks of active law practitioners and the representative of the law

students' sector, for one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy

shall be only for the unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor.

The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary and rank as

the Chairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional

Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be diminished during their term of

office.

Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall

provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a principal office to be

located in Metropolitan Manila.

The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary in the

performanceof its powers and functions.

Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act,

the Board shall havethe following powers and functions:

(a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent

with the provisions of this Act;

(b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and

functions as herein enumerated;

(c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among

others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the

library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of

institutions of higher learning;

(d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;

(e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications

and compensation of faculty members;

(f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the

requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and

such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges

under the different levels of accreditation status;

(g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a

law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or

firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period

that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this

purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation

and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual work of a

new member of the Bar.

(h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board may

provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for

such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and

(i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations

necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act.

Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate a law

school unless accredited by the Board. Accreditation of law schools may be granted only to

educational institutions recognized by the Government.

Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may withdraw or

downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if it fails to maintain the standards set

for its accreditation status.

Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The withdrawal or

downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive after the lapse ofthe semester or

trimester following the receipt by the school of the notice of withdrawal or downgrading

unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or upgrades the standards or corrects the

deficiencies upon which the withdrawal or downgrading of the accreditation status is

based.

Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a special endowment fund, to

be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of the Board, and

administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest the

same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety and liquidity.

The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained from, the amounts

appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixty percent (60%) of

the privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994; and from such donations,

legacies, grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for the

purposes of this Act.

Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education Fund

shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for faculty

development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar programs for

the advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law schools.

The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an amount not

exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be utilized.

The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and regulations for

the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund.

Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and colleges of

law which are presently under the supervision of the Department of Education, Culture and

Sports. Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to the Board. Law schools and

colleges which shall be established following the approval of this Act shall likewise be

covered.

Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is hereby

authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the Contingent Fund

for the initial expenses of the Board.

To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually, under the

budget of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the amount of Ten Million

Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective Fiscal Year 1994.

Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or

the application thereof to any person, circumstance or transaction is held invalid, the

validity of the remaining provisions of this Act and the applicability of such provisions to

other persons, circumstances and transactions shall not be affected thereby.

Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and regulations,

issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby repealed or amended

accordingly.

Section 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the

completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general

circulation.

Approved: 23 December 1993.

[B.M. 850.  October 2, 2001]

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

R E S O L U T I O N

ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR

MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for

members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP, endorsed

by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court

Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby

approves, the following Revised Rules for proper implementation:

Rule 1. PURPOSE

SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. — Continuing legal education is required of members

of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they

keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and

enhance the standards of the practice of law.

Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. — Within two (2) months from the approval

of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted

and shall commence the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

(MCLE) program in accordance with these Rules.

SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. — Members of the IBP not exempt under

Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal

education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:

(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6)

credit units.

(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to

four (4) credit units.

(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute

resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.

(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and

procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.

(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral

advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.

(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international

conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.

(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be

prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.

Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD

SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not

later than three (3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial

compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the

program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day

after the end of the previous compliance period.

SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not exempt from the MCLE

requirement shall be divided into three (3) compliance groups, namely:

(a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro

Manila are assigned to Compliance Group 1.

(b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to

Compliance Group 2.

(c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned to

Compliance Group 3.

Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education activity wherever

it may be available to earn credit unit toward compliance with the MCLE

requirement.

SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after establishment of the

program. — Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the

program shall be assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter

membership on the date of admission or readmission.

The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first

day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all

other members in the same Compliance Group.

(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after

admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply with the

program requirement for the initial compliance.

(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after

admission or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number

of hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number

of months remaining in the compliance period in which the member is admitted

or readmitted. Such member shall be required to complete a number of hours of

education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in

the compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole

number.

Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS

SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are

exempt from the MCLE requirement:

(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and

Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;

(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;

(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and

retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar

Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial

Academy program of continuing judicial education;

(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the

Department of Justice;

(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;

(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government

Corporate Counsel;

(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;

(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman

and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;

(i)  Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;

(j)  Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching

experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;

(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and

Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and

(l)  Governors and Mayors.

SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. — The following Members of the Bar are

likewise exempt:

(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.

(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board

of Governors.

SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement —A member may

file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as physical disability,

illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or

modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in

accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.

SEC. 4. Change of status. — The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the

month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and

shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.

SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. — Applications for exemption from or modification of the

MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.

Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a

Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by

attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is

exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to

the Committee not later than the day after the end of the member’s compliance period.

SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall maintain sufficient

record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record

required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section 3© of Rule 9

should be a sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-

participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of

Rule 5.

Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. — The following shall constitute non-

compliance:

(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;

(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;

(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of

exempt status) within the prescribed period;

(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such

compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice;

(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;

(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to

circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.

SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -Members failing

to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be

given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency

or otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the

following language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:

IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE

REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE

LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE

LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY

THE MCLE COMMITTEE.

Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this

period to attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance.

Credit units earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with

the prior compliance period requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are

earned, in which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current

compliance period requirement.

Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-

compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.

SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply with the

requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall be listed as a

delinquent member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The

investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBP’s Commission

on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.

SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the

active rate against a member during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member.

Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT

SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be

terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement,

including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary

credit units to meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance during the period

the member is on inactive status. These credit units may not be counted toward meeting

the current compliance period requirement. Credit units earned during the period of non-

compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period

requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.

SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative process. — The termination

of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the

MCLE Committee.

Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING

LEGAL EDUCATION

SECTION 1. Composition. — The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5)

members, namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members

respectively nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center

designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools and/or law professors.

The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be

appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such

compensation as may be determined by the Court.

SEC. 2. Duty of committee. — The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such

implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. It

shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees

with the approval of the Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. — Subject to approval by the Supreme Court,

the MCLE Committee shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform the record-

keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary functions.

SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. — The MCLE Committee shall submit to the

Supreme Court for approval, an annual budget [for a subsidy] to establish, operate and

maintain the MCLE Program.

BAR MATTER NO. 1161 [June 08, 2004]    RE: PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE BAR EXAMINATIONS

  

RESOLUTION ON REFORM IN THE BAR EXAMINATIONS

WHEREAS, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the Supreme Court en banc item in its Resolution of 21 March 2000, created a "Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms" to conduct

studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools;

WHEREAS, the Special Study Group, with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted to the Supreme Court its Final Report, dated 18 September 2000, containing its findings and recommendations;

WHEREAS, on 21 August 2001, the Supreme Court en banc referred, for further study, report and recommendation, the Final Report of the Special Study Group to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM) headed by Justice Jose C. Vitug;

WHEREAS, in connection with the discussion on the proposed reforms in the bar examinations, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, then a Member of the CLEBM, submitted a Paper, entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer, proposing structural and administrative reforms, changes in the design and construction of questions, and the methodological reforms concerning the marking and grading of the essay questions in the bar examinations;

WHEREAS, proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine Association of Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the University of the Philippines College of Law, Arellano Law Foundation, the Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar;

WHEREAS, considering her Memorandum to the Chief Justice on "Proposed Technical Assistance Project on Legal Education," dated 27 February 2003, Program Director Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum of the Program Management Office (PMO) was invited to a meeting of the CLEBM;

WHEREAS, under the auspices of the PMO, the CLEBM conducted four (4) regional round-table discussions with the law deans, professors, the students and members of the Integrated Bar of he Philippines for (a) the National Capital Region, at Manila Diamond Hotel on 19 November 2003; (b) Mindanao, at the Grand Regal Hotel Davao City on 23 January 2004; (c) the Visayas, at the Montebello Hotel in Cebu City on January 2004; and (d) Luzon, at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Manila on 6 February 2004.

WHEREAS, in a Special Meeting of the CLEBM at the Pan Pacific Hotel on 23 April 2004, the Committee heard the views of Ms. Erica Moeser, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the National Conference of Board Examiners in the United States of America on a number of proposed bar reforms;

WHEREAS, the CLEBM, after extensive deliberation and consultation, has arrived at certain recommendations for consideration by the Supreme Court and submitted its report , dated 21 May 2004, to the Court en banc;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, sitting en banc, hereby RESOLVES to approve and adopt the following Bar Examination Reforms:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary  

A.  For implementation within one (1) up to two (2) years:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1.  Initial determination by the Chairman of admission to the bar examinations of candidates (on the merits of the each case) to be passed upon by the Court en banc. chanrobles virtual law library     2.  Submission by law deans of a certification that a candidate has no derogatory record in

school and, if any, the details and status thereof. chanrobles virtual law library 3.  Disqualification of a candidate after failing in three (3) examinations, provided, that he may take a fourth and fifth examination if he successful completes a one (1) year refresher course for each examination; provided, further, that upon the effectivity of this Resolution, those who have already failed in five (5) or more bar examinations shall be allowed to take only one (1) more bar examination after completing (1) year refresher course. chanrobles virtual law library 4.  Promulgation of disciplinary measures for those involved in (a) attempts to violate or vitiate the integrity and confidentiality of the bar examination process; (b) improper conduct during the bar examination; and (c) improper conduct of "bar examinations." chanrobles virtual law library 5.  Disqualification of a Bar Examination Chairperson:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

a.  kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity; chanrobles virtual law library b.  having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee, or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an examinee; and  chanrobles virtual law library c.  being a member of the governing board, faculty or administration of a law school.

6.  Desirable qualifications of Examiners:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

a.  membership in good standing in the Philippine Bar; chanrobles virtual law library b.  competence in the assigned subject; chanrobles virtual law library c.  a teacher of the subject or familiarity with the principles of test construction; and chanrobles virtual law library d.  commitment to check test papers personally and promptly pending the creation and organization of the readership panels provided for in item B (6) below.

7.  Disqualifications of Examiners:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

a.  kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; chanrobles virtual law library b.  having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee; or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an examinee; chanrobles virtual law library c.  being a member of the governing board, faculty or administration of a law school;  chanrobles virtual law library d.  teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or review center during the particular semester following the bar examinations; chanrobles virtual law library e.  having any interest or involvement in any law school, bar review center or group; and  chanrobles virtual law library f.  suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction.

8.  Personal preparation, by handwriting or using a typewriter, of fifty (50) main questions, excluding subdivisions, and their submission to the Chairperson in sealed envelope at least forty-five (45) days before the schedule examination on any particular subject; examiners should not use computers in preparing questions;

9.  Apportionment of examination questions among the various topics covered by the subject; chanrobles virtual law library 10.  Burning and shredding of rough drafts and carbon papers used in the preparation of questions or in any other act connected with such preparation; 11.  Publication of names of candidates admitted to take the bar examinations; chanrobles virtual law library 12.  Disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in any subject; chanrobles virtual law library 13.  Fixing at June 30 of the immediately preceding year as the cut-off date for laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar examinations; and chanrobles virtual law library 14.  Consideration of suggested answers to bar examinations questions prepared by the U.P. Law Center and submitted to the Chairperson.

B.  For implementation within two (2) years up to five (5) years:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1.  Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions; 2.  Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as part of the calibration of test papers; 3.  Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and improving the essay examination; 4.  Designation of two (2) examiners per subject depending on the number of examinees; 5.  Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson; 6.  Creation and organization of readership panels for each subject area to address the issue of bias or subjectivity and facilitate the formulation of test questions and the correction of examination booklets; and 7.  Adoption of the calibration method in the correction of essay questions to correct variations in the level of test standards.

C.  For implementation within five (5) years and beyond is the further computerization or automation of the bar examinations to facilitate application, testing, and reporting procedures. D.  Items not covered by this resolution, such as those that pertain to a possible review of the coverage and relative weights of the subjects of the bar examinations, are maintained. E.  For referral to the Legal Education Boards:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1.  Accreditation and supervision of law schools. 2.  Inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in the law curriculum, including an apprenticeship program in the Judiciary, prosecution service, and law offices. 3.  Imposition of sanctions on law schools that fail to meet the standards as may be prescribed by the Legal Education Board. 4.  Mandatory Law School Admission Test.

This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of July 2004, and shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Promulgated this 8th day of June 2004.

B.M. No. 2265

RE: REFORMS IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS

Preliminary Statement

The Court has found merit in the proposed changes in the conduct of the bar examinations

that the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar Examinations and Philippine Association of Law

Schools recommended.

One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the annual bar

examinations that in the past consisted merely of naming the laws that each subject

covered. This description has been regarded as too general and provides no specific

understanding of the entry-level legal knowledge required of beginning law practitioners.

A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar examinations

that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of laws, doctrines, principles, and

precedents, it has been noted that such examinations are unable to hit a significant cross-

section of the subject matter. Further, the huge number of candidates taking the

examinations annually and the limited time available for correcting the answers make fair

correction of purely essay-type examinations difficult to attain. Besides, the use of multiple

choice questions, properly and carefully constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying

professionals all over the world because of its proven reliability and facility of correction.

A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type examinations but dedicating

these to the assessment of the requisite communication skills, creativity, and fine intellect

that bar candidates need for the practice of law.

Approved Changes

The Court has previously approved in principle the above recommended changes. It now

resolves to approve the following rules that shall govern the future conduct of the bar

examinations:

1. The coverage of the bar examinations shall be drawn up by topics and sub-topics

rather than by just stating the covered laws. The test for including a topic or sub-

topic in the coverage of the examinations is whether it covers laws, doctrines,

principles and rulings that a new lawyer needs to know to begin a reasonably

prudent and competent law practice.

The coverage shall be approved by the Chairperson of the Bar Examination in

consultation with the academe, subject to annual review and re-approval by

subsequent Chairpersons.

2. The bar examinations shall measure the candidate’s knowledge of the law and its

applications through multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) that are to be so

constructed as to specifically:

2.1. Measure the candidate’s knowledge of and ability to recall the laws,

doctrines, and principles that every new lawyer needs in his practice;

2.2. Assess the candidate’s understanding of the meaning and significance of

those same laws, doctrines, and principles as they apply to specific

situations; and

2.3. Measure his ability to analyze legal problems, apply the correct law or

principle to such problems, and provide solutions to them.

3. The results of the MCQ examinations shall, if feasible, be corrected electronically.

4. The results of the MCQ examinations in each bar subject shall be given the

following weights:

Political Law — 15%

Labor Law — 10%

Civil Law — 15%

Taxation — 10%

Mercantile Law — 15%

Criminal Law — 10%

Remedial Law — 20%

Legal Ethics/Forms — 5%

5. Part of the bar examinations shall be of the essay-type, dedicated to measuring

the candidate’s skills in writing in English, sorting out the relevant facts in a legal

dispute, identifying the issue or issues involved, organizing his thoughts,

constructing his arguments, and persuading his readers to his point of view. The

essays will not be bar subject specific.

5.1. One such essay examination shall require the candidate to prepare a trial

memorandum or a decision based on a documented legal dispute. (60% of

essays)

5.2 Another essay shall require him to prepare a written opinion sought by a

client concerning a potential legal dispute facing him. (40% of essays)

6. The essays shall not be graded for technically right or wrong aswers, but for the

quality of the candidate’s legal advocacy. The passing standard for correction shall

be work expected of a beginning practitioner, not a seasoned lawyer.

7. The examiners in all eight bar subjects shall, apart from preparing the MCQs for

their respective subjects, be divided into two panels of four members each. One

panel will grade the memorandum or decision essay while the other will grade the

legal opinion essay. Each member shall read and grade the examination answer of a

bar candidate independently of the other members in his panel. The final grade of a

candidate for each essay shall be the average of the grades given by the four

members of the panel for that essay.

8. The results of the a) MCQ and b) essay-type examinations shall be given weights

of 60% and 40%, respectively, in the computation of the candidate’s final grade.

9. For want of historical data needed for computing the passing grade in MCQ kind

of examinations, the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar

Examinations shall, with the assistance of experts in computing MCQ examination

grades, recommend to the Court the appropriate conversion table or standard that it

might adopt for arriving at a reasonable passing grade for MCQs in bar

examinations.

10. In the interest of establishing needed data, the answers of all candidates in the

essay-type examinations in the year 2011 shall be corrected irrespective of the

results of their MCQ examinations, which are sooner known because they are

electronically corrected. In future bar examinations, however, the Bar Chairperson

shall recommend to the Court the disqualification of those whose grades in the MCQ

are so low that it would serve no useful purpose to correct their answers in the

essay-type examinations.

11. Using the data and experience obtained from the 2011 Bar Examinations, future

Chairpersons of Bar Examination are directed to study the feasibility of:

11.1. Holding in the interest of convenience and economy bar examinations

simultaneously in Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao; and

11.2. Allowing those who pass the MCQ examinations but fail the essay-type

examinations to take removal examinations in the immediately following

year.

12. All existing rules, regulations, and instructions that are inconsistent with the

above are repealed.

This Bar Matter shall take effect immediately, and shall be published in two newspapers of

general circulation in the Philippines.

January 18, 2011.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

N O T I C E

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 8,

2011, which reads as follows:

"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for Improving the

Conduct of the Bar Examinations). - The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter dated January

28, 2011 of Justice Roberto A. Abad re: Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court (Annual Examination), incident to the implementation of B.M. No. 2265 (Reforms in

the 2011 Bar Examinations).

The Court further Resolved to APPROVE the Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the

Rules of Court, to wit:

"Section 11. Annual examination. - Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines

shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be

designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be

distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law, and Labor and Social

Legislation (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and

Mercantile Law (afternoon); Third day: Remedial Law, and Legal Ethics and Forums

(morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Trial Memorandum (morning) and

Legal Opinion (afternoon)". (adv107)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

[BAR MATTER No. 712.  March 19, 1997]

RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH

R E S O L U T I O N

PADILLA, J.:

Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court

however deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence

Resulting In Homicide.

The criminal case which resulted in petitioner' s conviction, arose from the death of a

neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991. Petitioner and

seven (7) other accused initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide charges. The eight

(8) accused later withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-arraignment all pleaded guilty to

reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

On the basis of such pleas, the trial court rendered judgment dated 11 February 1993

imposing on each of the accused a sentence of imprisonment of from two (2) years four (4)

months and one (1) day to four (4) years.

On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein petitioner's application for probation.

On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order approving a report dated 6 April 1994

submitted by the Probation Officer recommending petitioner's discharge from probation

On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this Court a petition to be allowed to take the

lawyer's oath based on the order of his discharge from probation.

On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano

issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that

he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character

imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar.

In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15)

certifications/letters executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges,

and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a

scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim,

through joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.

On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to

comment on petitioner's prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.

In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty. Camaligan states that:

a.  He still believes that the infliction of severe physical injuries which led to the death of his

son was deliberate rather than accidental. The offense therefore was not only homicide but

murder since the accused took advantage of the neophyte's helplessness implying abuse of

confidence, taking advantage of superior strength and treachery.

b.  He consented to the accused's plea of guilt to the lesser offense of reckless imprudence

resulting in homicide only out of pity for the mothers of the accused and a pregnant wife of

one of the accused who went to their house on Christmas day 1991 and Maundy Thursday

1992, literally on their knees, crying and begging for forgiveness and compassion. They

also told him that the father of one of the accused had died of a heart attack upon learning

of his son's involvement in the incident.

c.  As a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner and his co-accused for the death of his son.

However, as a loving father who had lost a son whom he had hoped would succeed him in

his law practice, he still feels the pain of an untimely demise and the stigma of the

gruesome manner of his death.

d.  He is not in a position to say whether petitioner is now morally fit for admission to the

bar. He therefore submits the matter to the sound discretion of the Court.

The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual

and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and

efficient administration o f justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to "weed out"

lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of equal

importance, to prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer' s oath, thereby further tarnishing

the public image of lawyers which in recent years has undoubtedly become less than

irreproachable.

The resolution of the issue before us required a weighing and re-weighing of the reasons

for allowing or disallowing petitioner's admission to the practice of law. The senseless

beatings inf1icted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident absence of that moral fitness

required for admission to the bar since they were totally irresponsible, irrelevant and

uncalled for.

In the 13 July 1995 resolution in this case we stated:

"x x x participation in the prolonged and mindless physical behavior, [which] makes

impossible a finding that the participant [herein petitioner] was then possessed of good

moral character."[1]

In the same resolution, however, we stated that the Court is prepared to consider de

novo the question of whether petitioner has purged himself of the obvious deficiency in

moral character referred to above.

Before anything else, the Court understands and shares the sentiment of Atty. Gilbert

Camaligan. The death of one's child is, for a parent, a most traumatic experience. The

suffering becomes even more pronounced and profound in cases where the death is due to

causes other than natural or accidental but due to the reckless imprudence of third parties.

The feeling then becomes a struggle between grief and anger directed at the cause of death.

Atty. Camaligan's statement before the Court manifesting his having forgiven the accused is

no less than praiseworthy and commendable.  It is exceptional for a parent, given the

circumstances in this cases, to find room for forgiveness.

However, Atty. Camaligan admits that he is still not in a position to state if petitioner is now

morally fit to be a lawyer.

After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros

Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal

profession with the following admonition:

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino

is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he

is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of

Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice

of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.

We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for

practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn

promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves

strictly according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the

administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone

concerned.

The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with the assistance he has been

giving to his community. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to render legal and

other services to the more unfortunate members of society.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino is hereby ALLOWED to take the

lawyer's oath on a date to be set by the Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter,

to practice the legal profession.

SO ORDERED.