Philippine Legal Profession

5/21/2018 Philippine Legal Profession

1/46

1

Philippine Legal Profession: History

This was one of my papers written during my Ll.M. studies at UST Manila in 1998-2000 as a FEU graduate studiesfellow.

In 1733, or 266 years ago, the University of Santo Tomas, which is older than Harvard University in theUnited States, opened a Faculty of Civil Law and a Faculty of Canon Law. From 1734 to 1800 (66 years), out of3,360 students, it graduated only 40 students in its various law programs, to wit: 29 in Bachelor of Civil Law, 8 inLicentiate in Civil Law, and 3 in Doctor of Law, showing the rigid training in these courses.

In 1898 the Universidad Literia Filipinas was established in Malolos, Bulacan and offered courses in lawand notary public. It later moved to Tarlac.

In 1899 Don Felipe Calderon (author of the 1899 Malolos Constitution) founded the Escuela de Derecho deManila, which in 1924 was renamed the Manila Law School.

In 1910 the College of Law of the University of the Philippines opened with 50 Filipino and Americanstudents. The first dean was Justice Sherman Moreland of the Philippine Supreme Court. He was replaced byGeorge A. Malcolm, who later became a Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court.

Other law schools followed: Philippine Law School, 1915; University of Manila College of Law, 1918; FarEastern University Institute of Law, 1934; Southern College of Law, 1935; Arellano Law College, 1938; andFrancisco Law School, 1940.

Under the First Philippine Commission (1899) and the Second Philippine Commission (1900), laws werepassed requiring the inspection of private schools, e.g. Act No. 74, which created the Department of PublicInstruction; Act No. 459, or the Corporation Law; Act No. 2706; Act No. 3075.

Under the Commonwealth Government, C.A. No. 180 was passed which created the Office of PrivateSchools (later called the Bureau of Private Schools). After World War II,, R.A. No. 74 was passed providingadditional budget for the supervision of private schools.

The latest law on legal education is R.A. No. 7662, also known as the "Legal Education Act of 1993",which, inter alia, created the Board of Legal Education.

Legal Education; history.

In 1911 the only educational requirements to be a lawyer were a high school degree (as pre-law degree)and a 3-year law course. Later the pre-law requirement was raised to two years of college work (associate in artsdegree) in addition to a high school degree.

In 1960, Sec. 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court was amended by the Supreme Court increasing the pre-law requirement to a 4-year bachelor's degree (Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science) and increasing the lawcourse to 4 years (Bachelor of Laws). This resulted in a dramatic decrease in law enrollment in 1960. For instance,at the University of the Philippines, from an enrollment of 196 students in 1959, it dropped to 28 in 1960.

The University of the Philippines started the law aptitude test and interview by a screening committee asrequirements for entry into its College of Law.

In the 1960s to the 1980s the 4-year law course (Ll.B.)n was made up of 122 units which emphasize thebar subjects listed in Sec. 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: civil law, criminal law, remedial law, legal ethics andlegal forms, commercial law, political law, tax law, labor law, public corporation and public officers, andinternational law. The course included non-bar subjects: legal history, legal bibliography, statutory construction,

jurisprudence, trial techniques, thesis and legal research, legal medicine, and practice court.


2/46

2

The sources of Philippine legal education are (a) Spain, which gave it the Roman civil law and the canonlaw, (b) the United States, which gave it the English common law, and (c) Indonesia (thru the Majapahit Empireand the Shri Visaya Empire), which gave it the Islamic law.

In 1988 the University of the Philippines launched a "core-elective curriculum" which allowed law studentsto enroll up to 20 percent of elective subjects. It hope to lead to specialization in legal education.

In 1989 the Department of Education, Culture and Sports adopted a revised model law curriculum for the

4-year Bachelor of Laws degree composed of 51 subjects (124 units) which took effect in 1990. It offered moresubjects on the legal profession, legal ethics, legal counselling, legal research and legal writing.

From 1950 to 1960, 35 new law schools were opened. In 1972, there were 80 law schools in the country.In 1982 the number decreased to 45 law schools, 35 percent of which were located in Metro Manila. In the sameyear, there were 3 state-supported law schools: University of the Philippines College of Law, Mindanao StateUniversity, and Don Mariano Marcos University College of Law.

The law schools accreditation system proposed by the Standing Committee on Legal Education and BarAdministration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is still pending with the Supreme Court for final action.

In 1964 R.A. No. 3870 created the University of the Philippines Law Center to conduct continuing legaleducation programs and legal research and publications.Bar Exams; Performance Rate

Generally, between 20 to 30 percent of bar examinees pass the bar exams. A sample of the passing

percentage is as follows: 1946, 19.39%; 1957, 19.85%; 1962, 19.39%; 1969, 28.00%; 1974, 35.02%; 1979,49.51%; 1984, 22.55%; 1989, 21,26%; and 1991, 17.85%. The number of bar examinees has been increasing:1973, 1,631; 1978, 1,890; 1983, 2,455; 1988, 2,824; and 1991, 3,196. In 1954, there were 14,000 Filipinolawyers; in 1977, 28, 000; and in 1992, 34,922. From 1946 to 1953, the passing percentage of most law schoolswas below the 50% level of the national passing percentage.

The Philippine annual bar exams are administered every September by a committee created by theSupreme Court composed of one justice as chair and 8 lawyers, with a term of office of one year. The barexaminee must be at least 21 years of age, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, of good moralcharacter, has completed the required 4-year law course (Ll.B.) in a law school recognized by the Department ofEducation, Culture and Sports (now by the Commission on Higher Education and the Board of Legal Education).

Private Law Practice

In a 1976 survey among lawyers conducted by the UP Law Center, it was discovered that only 23.4percent were engaged in active private practice and that the rest were either employed in the government (32.2percent) or private sector (38.6 percent). In 1962, 25 percent of lawyers were in active private practice.

Law practice is complicated and it requires specialization. Under the martial law regime alone (1972-June 12,1978), there were 1,473 presidential decrees, 708 letters of instructions, and 62 general orders. As of 1911, underthe regime of the Philippine Commission, there were 2,092 statutes. As of 1970, there were 10,078 statutes(Republic Acts [Ras], Philippine Commission Acts [Acts], Commonwealth Acts [CAs]). The figures excluded localordinances and administrative rules and regulations.

Popularizing the Law

This complex situation gave rise to the need to "popularize the law". In the 1980s the UP Law Centerlaunched a series of "programs in legal literacy, street law, or practical law" in cooperation with women's non-governmental organizations (NGOs), student organizations, and the local barangays (barangay legal educationseminars).

Certain sectors of society began to urge the Filipinization of the law (curriculum, textbooks, laws, courtdecisions). In other countries the popularization of their laws in their own native tongues was a normal rule ofsociety, such as, for instance, in Indonesia where its national language, Bahasa Indonesia, is the official medium ofinstruction in law schools, and where "the enshrinement of customary law (is) part of the legal system".


3/46

3

In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Irene Cortez, who once served as the dean of the UPCollege of Law: "xxx Where law is written and taught in a foreign language, it becomes more esoteric, its conceptsmore difficult to assimilate and retain. If it is difficult for those who undergo the professional training for lawyers, itwould be even more difficult for the ordinary citizen. There are those of us in the Philippines who have begun togive serious thought to using our own language in legal education. xxx."

Legal Education Act of 1993

Under R.A. No. 7662 (Legal Education Act of 1993), the focus of legal education are[1]: advocacy,counselling, problem solving, decision making, ethics and nobility of the legal profession, bench-bar partnership,and social commitment, selection of law students[2], quality of law schools, the law faculty, and the lawcurriculum[3],mandatory legal apprenticeship[4],and continuing legal education.

The Law Teacher

The average law teacher is 51-55 years of age, married, male, with Bachelor of Laws degree as hishighest degree, has bee teaching for less than 10 years, has a load of 10 to 12 hours a week, teaches Civil Law,derives less than 5 percent of his income from law teaching, teaches in a private law school, and has not published.

More than 80 percent of the law faculty are part-time teachers. They are underpaid even in a highlysubsidized state university such as the University of the Philippines. "A person who embraces teaching as a careertakes the vow of poverty".

Despite the financial constraints he faces, he plays a noble and important role in the training of futurelawyers. And he has duties to comply with: "xxx The law teachers to be effective must endeavor for deeperunderstanding of the law, thru research and reflection. Through critical study, they also identify emerging trendsand areas for reform and contribute towards making law an instrument of social development. Law teachers mustprincipally assume the critical and predictive functions in the legal profession xxx."

by

MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.c. 1998

Philippine Legal Profession _ part 2

Continuation of the excerpts from my 2000 Ll.M. thesis.

x x x.

E. Legal Education of the Filipino Lawyer

1. Poor Pre-Law Education Assailed

It appears that there is so much to be desired in the quality of the high school and collegiate pre-law education ofthe Filipino lawyer. An indication of the low quality of pre-law education in the Philippines is the fact that the annualpassing average in Philippine Bar Examinations is roughly 20 percent only (compared to about 70 percent in the

USA). In a recent editorial, the Philippine Daily Inquirercommented on the poor state of high school and collegeeducation in the Philippines as follows:

A...But colleges and universities are hobbled by the uneven and even sub-par quality of graduates of basiceducation. The problem has given rise to understandable calls for the restoration of Grade 7 and short of that, theintroduction of a pre-baccalaureate program either in high school or college that will winnow graduating high schoolstudents and sort them out either for full college program or a vocational-technical course.

In some instances, the failure of the education department to come up with reforms to decisively address theproblem of quality has given rise to calls in higher education to increase the number of educational units required
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn1http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn1http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn1http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn2http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn2http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn2http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn3http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn3http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn4http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn4http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn4http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn4http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn3http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn2http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=84310350280868505#_ftn1


4/46

4

for graduation, effectively adding another year to the regular four-year college program...@. (Editorial - AFatalTruancy@, Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 18, 2002, page A8).

2. History of Philippine Legal Education

Since the introduction by Spain of legal education in the Philippines in 1733, or 266 years ago, when the Universityof Santo Tomas opened its Faculty of Civil Law and a Faculty of Canon Law ,[1] the professional education of theFilipino lawyer has faced many challenges, questions and changes.

Filled with the nationalistic confidence that the Filipinos themselves were prepared to educate their own futurelawyers, the "Indios" of the ilustrado class, aspired to compete with the "Peninsulares" and the clergy from Spain,by establishing in 1898 the Universidad Literia Filipinas in Malolos, Bulacan which offered courses in law and notarypublic.[2]In 1899 Don Felipe Calderon (author of the 1899 Malolos Constitution) founded the Escuela de Derecho deManila, which in 1924 was renamed the Manila Law School.[3]

The Americans who replaced the Spaniards in 1899, imbued with the so-called "divine mission" to enlighten the"uneducated" Filipinos on the concepts of democracy and modern civilization, inspired the ilustrados to join them inthe intellectual enlightenment of the natives. Thus, in 1910 the College of Law of the University of the Philippinesopened with 50 Filipino and American students. The first dean was Justice Sherman Moreland of the PhilippineSupreme Court. He was replaced by George A. Malcolm, who later became a Justice of the Philippine SupremeCourt.[4]

Other law schools followed: Philippine Law School, 1915; University of Manila College of Law, 1918; Far EasternUniversity Institute of Law, 1934; Southern College of Law, 1935; Arellano Law College, 1938; and Francisco LawSchool, 1940.[5]

Under the First Philippine Commission (1899) and the Second Philippine Commission (1900), laws were passedrequiring the inspection of private schools, e.g. Act No. 74, which created the Department of Public Instruction; ActNo. 459, or the Corporation Law; Act No. 2706; Act No. 3075.[6]

Under the Commonwealth Government, C.A. No. 180 was passed which created the Office of Private Schools (later

called the Bureau of Private Schools).[7]After World War II,, R.A. No. 74 was passed providing additional budget forthe supervision of private schools.[8]

Under the present dispensation, the latest law on legal education is R.A. No. 7662, also known as the "LegalEducation Reform Act of 1993", which, inter alia, created the Board of Legal Education (BLE).

3. Legal Education Requirements

In 1911 the only educational requirements to be a lawyer were a high school degree (as pre-law degree) and a 3-year law course. Later the pre-law requirement was raised to two years of college work (associate in arts degree)in addition to a high school degree.[9]

In 1960, Sec. 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court was amended by the Supreme Court increasing the pre-lawrequirement to a 4-year bachelor's degree (Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science) and increasing the law courseto 4 years (Bachelor of Laws). This resulted in a dramatic decrease in law enrollment in 1960. For instance, at theUniversity of the Philippines, from an enrollment of 196 students in 1959, it dropped to 28 in 1960.[10]

The University of the Philippines started the law aptitude test and interview by a screening committee asrequirements for entry into its College of Law.[11]

In the 1960s to the 1980s the 4-year law course (Ll.B.) was made up of 122 units which emphasized the barsubjects listed in Sec. 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: civil law, criminal law, remedial law, legal ethics and legalforms, commercial law, political law, tax law, labor law, public corporation and public officers, and internationallaw.[12] The course included non-bar subjects: legal history, legal bibliography, statutory construction,

jurisprudence, trial techniques, thesis and legal research, legal medicine, and practice court.[13]
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn1http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn1http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn1http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn2http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn2http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn2http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn3http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn3http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn3http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn4http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn4http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn4http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn5http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn5http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn5http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn6http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn6http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn6http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn7http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn7http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn7http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn8http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn8http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn8http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn9http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn9http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn9http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn10http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn10http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn10http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn11http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn11http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn11http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn12http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn12http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn12http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn13http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn13http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn13http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn13http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn12http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn11http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn10http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn9http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn8http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn7http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn6http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn5http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn4http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn3http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn2http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn1


5/46

5

4. Sources of Philippine Legal Education

The sources of Philippine legal education are (a) Spain, which gave it the Roman civil law and the canon law, (b)

the United States, which gave it the English common law, and (c) Indonesia (thru the Majapahit Empire and theShri Visaya Empire), which gave it the Islamic law.[14]

In 1988 the University of the Philippines launched a "core-elective curriculum" which allowed law students to enrollup to 20 percent of elective subjects.[15]It hoped to lead to specialization in legal education.

In 1989 the Department of Education, Culture and Sports adopted a revised model law curriculum for the 4-yearBachelor of Laws degree composed of 51 subjects (124 units) which took effect in 1990.[16]It offered more subjectson the legal profession, legal ethics, legal counseling, legal research and legal writing.[17]

5. Law Schools in the Philippines

From 1950 to 1960, 35 new law schools were opened.[18]In 1972, there were 80 law schools in the country.[19]In1982 the number decreased to 45 law schools, 35 percent of which were located in Metro Manila .[20]In the sameyear, there were 3 state-supported law schools: University of the Philippines College of Law, Mindanao StateUniversity, and Don Mariano Marcos University College of Law.[21]

The law schools accreditation system proposed by the Standing Committee on Legal Education and BarAdministration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is still pending with the Supreme Court for finalaction.[22]

In 1964 R.A. No. 3870 created the University of the Philippines Law Center to conduct continuing legal educationprograms and legal research and publications.[23]

6. Legal Education Reform Act of 1993

Under R.A. No. 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act of 1993), the focus of legal education ar e[24]: advocacy,

counseling, problem solving, decision making, ethics and nobility of the legal profession, bench-bar partnership,and social commitment, selection of law students[25], quality of law schools, the law faculty, and the lawcurriculum[26],mandatory legal apprenticeship[27],and continuing legal education[28].

7. The Crucial Role of the Law Teacher

The average law teacher is 51-55 years of age, married, male, with Bachelor of Laws degree as his highest degree,has been teaching for less than 10 years, has a load of 10 to 12 hours a week, teaches Civil Law, derives less than5 percent of his income from law teaching, teaches in a private law school, and has not published.[29]

More than 80 percent of the law faculty is made up of part-time law teachers. They are underpaid even in a highlysubsidized state university such as the University of the Philippines. "A person who embraces teaching as a careertakes the vow of poverty".[30]

Despite the financial constraints that the law teacher faces, he plays a noble and important role in the training offuture lawyers. And he has fundamental professional and ethical duties to fulfill:

"xxx The law teachers to be effective must endeavor for deeper understanding of the law, thru research andreflection. Through critical study, they also identify emerging trends and areas for reform and contribute towardsmaking law an instrument of social development. Law teachers must principally assume the critical and predictivefunctions in the legal profession xxx."[31]

8. British Legal Education
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn14http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn14http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn14http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn15http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn15http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn15http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn16http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn16http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn16http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn17http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn17http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn17http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn18http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn18http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn18http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn19http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn19http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn19http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn20http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn20http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn20http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn21http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn21http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn21http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn22http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn22http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn22http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn23http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn23http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn23http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn24http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn24http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn24http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn25http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn25http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn25http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn26http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn26http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn27http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn27http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn27http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn28http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn28http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn28http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn29http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn29http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn29http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn30http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn30http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn30http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn31http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn31http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn31http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn31http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn30http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn29http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn28http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn27http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn26http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn25http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn24http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn23http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn22http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn21http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn20http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn19http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn18http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn17http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn16http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn15http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn14


6/46

6

In the case of United Kingdom, according to Prof. Thomas G. Lund, the requisites for admission to the English Barare as follows: (a) "a test of general education (of approximately the same standard as that required for entry intoa university)"; (b) "fulfilled certain conditions of fitness and respectability"; (c) "keep a certain number of terms(generally twelve, which now involves nothing more than dining in hall on a number of days in each term, 4 termsin a year"; (d) "pass a qualifying examination of a largely theoretical nature" ("the examination approximates tothose for a university law degree, and Bar students frequently keep their terms while at the university"); (e) as tocitizenship, a barrister "may be of any nationality" while a solicitor "must be a British subject".[32]

The official association of the solicitors is "The Law Society", organized in 1823 by Royal Charter. Membership inthe society is voluntary. In 1951, out of 22,000 solicitors, only 16,000 were members thereof.[33]The society hasbeen entrusted by the Parliament with many powers, obligations and duties with respect to the legal profession.

The required legal education for a solicitor is as follows: (a) "to serve a period under articles of clerkship (orapprenticeship) with a solicitor engaged in the active practice of law" (the term is normally five years but isreduced to three years for university graduates, whether in law or arts); (b) "to pass a preliminary examination ongeneral knowledge, an intermediate and a final examination in law and an examination in bookkeeping and trustaccounts"; (c) before he can "enter into articles he must obtain the consent of the Law Society and must satisfy theSociety of his character, suitability and fitness to do so".[34]The clerk pays his principal a fee for clerkship, which in1952 was 300 pounds.[35]

The management and control of examinations for solicitors were placed by the Parliament in the hands of the LawSociety which was "empowered to make regulations governing the syllabus, the appointments of examiners, andother kindred matters. These regulations, however, must be approved by the Master of the Rolls, the Lord

Chancellor, and the Lord Chief Justice".[36]

Before taking the final examination, "the articled clerk must have attended a course of legal education at a schoolof law provided or approved by the Law Society". The required course of legal education is of one year's duration,either part-time at the approved law schools or full-time at the Law Society's School of Law.[37]

The license of the solicitor is renewed yearly by the Law Society.[38]

9. Performance in the Bar Exams

Generally, between 20 to 25 percent of bar examinees pass the bar exams annually .[39]A sample of the passing

percentage is as follows: 1946, 19.39%; 1957, 19.85%; 1962, 19.39%; 1969, 28.00%; 1974, 35.02%; 1979,49.51%; 1984, 22.55%; 1989, 21,26%; and 1991, 17.85%.[40]The number of bar examinees has been increasing:1973, 1,631; 1978, 1,890; 1983, 2,455; 1988, 2,824; and 1991, 3,196.[41] In 1954, there were 14,000 Filipinolawyers; in 1977, 28, 000; and in 1992, 34,922.[42] From 1946 to 1953, the passing percentage of most lawschools was below the 50% level of the national passing percentage.[43]

The Philippine annual bar exams are administered every September by a committee created by the Supreme Courtcomposed of one justice as chair and 8 lawyers, with a term of office of one year. The bar examinee must be atleast 21 years of age, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, of good moral character, has completedthe required 4-year law course (Ll.B.) in a law school recognized by the Department of Education, Culture andSports (now by the Commission on Higher Education and the Board of Legal Education) .[44]

It seems that the 1960 rule imposed by the Supreme Court which required a 4-year pre-law AB or BS degree as aprerequisite for enrolling in the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Ll. B.) did not have a dramatic effect in increasing thepassing rate of the annual bar examinations. For many decades up to the present, the average passing rate has

ranged from 20 to 30 percent. (Coquia, Jose R. The Legal Profession. Manila: Rex Book Store, 1993, pp. 3, 81-82,231-232). And it appears that the passing rate of a great majority of law schools in the Philippines is below 50percent of the total number of their respective student-examinees. (id., p. 13).

A Philippine jurist, Ernani Cruz Pano, has commented that Aalthough the bar examination is far from being aprecise and accurate gauge of the effectiveness of legal education, the figures on bar examination results suggestan urgent need for reforms in legal education@. (Ernani Cruz Pano,Judiciary and the Bar, Manila: Rex Book Store,1995, p. 111).
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn32http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn32http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn32http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn33http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn33http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn33http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn34http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn34http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn34http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn35http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn35http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn35http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn36http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn36http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn36http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn37http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn37http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn37http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn38http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn38http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn38http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn39http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn39http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn39http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn40http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn40http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn40http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn41http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn41http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn41http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn42http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn42http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn42http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn43http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn43http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn43http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn44http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn44http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn44http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn44http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn43http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn42http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn41http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn40http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn39http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn38http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn37http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn36http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn35http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn34http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn33http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn32


7/46

7

Of the 42 bar examinations conducted by the Supreme Court from 1946 to 1986, Ait was only in eleven barexaminations that more than one-half of the candidates passed@. In 31 bar examinations, the mortality rate wasAmore than 50 percent@. From 1982 to 1986 the passing rate ranged from 18.8 percent (1986) to 26.69 percent(1985). (id.).

In the 1986 bar examination, 60 law schools sent 2,600 candidates. Sixteen of the law schools failed to have anyof their candidates pass the bar exam. Of the 2,600 candidates, 491 passed the bar exam (18.8 percent nationalpassing rate). Of this number, 41 percent were from Ateneo de Manila University, University of the Philippines, and

San Beda College of Law. The rest of the successful candidates were from 41 other law schools whose passing rateranged from 2.63 percent to 28 percent. (id., p. 112).

Pano recommends a review of the contents and coverage of the bar exams. He proposes the exclusion of taxationlaw and labor law from the exams and the increase of the number of units allotted for these subjects in the lawcurriculum. He recommends the appointment of bar examiners for a longer term, rather than the present ad hocarrangement, to allow for much preparation. He proposes a consideration of the idea of establishing a quotasystem in the law profession, that is, the fixing of a limit on the number of candidates that a law school shouldsend to the bar exams, proportionate to the number of successful examinees graduating from these schools. ( id.,p. 118).

It is noteworthy to quote the comments of Justice Pano on the what the real purpose of the bar exams should be:

AThere are sectors which doubt any connection between the results of bar examinations and the level of formaleducation; they question the effectiveness of bar examinations as an instrument to test professional competenceand success in law practice. But everyone agrees that until a more effective method of law school supervision isdevised, the bar examination provides stimulus to these schools to do their best in legal education. It is for themoment the only means by which the Supreme Court may check on the performance of these law schools.

xxxx.

One may then view the bar examination either as a necessary evil or an inevitable compromise, but it is heredefinitely to stay for a while. It would then be useless to argue that legal education should not be >bar oriented=.The law student must be able to pass the scrutiny of the examiner appointed by the Supreme Court to test theproficiency and capacity of the law student aspiring for admission to the bar.

Legal educators agree that the bar examinations should not merely be conducted for the purpose of testinginformation, memory or experience. The computer would be better lawyers if the gauge of admission would be thecapacity to store information and the possession of a photographic memory. The law student is also without anyexperience to be tested.

Rather, the bar examination should test the candidate=s ability to reason logically, to analyze accurately theproblems presented to him and to exhibit a thorough knowledge of the fundamental principles of law and theirapplication.

xxx.

Is this task being performed by our law schools? Judging on the results of the bar examinations, it would appearthat except for perhaps three or even five law schools, the rest have failed miserably in developing among itsstudents the needed orientation, language capacity, analytical proficiency and the capacity to pass judgmentswhich would enable the students to pass the bar examination and be professionally competent in law practice@.

(Id., pp. 112-114).

The relevant provisions of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court on bar examinations and admission to the Bar arereproduced below:

ASec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. C Every applicant for admission as a member ofthe bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and residentof the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, andthat no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in thePhilippines.


8/46

8

Sec. 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America. C Citizens of the United Statesof America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in thecourts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those factsbefore the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking the following oath of office:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines,

do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support itsConstitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do nofalsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and willconduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well asto the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservationor purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Sec. 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions. C Applicants for admission who, being Filipino citizens,are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appealsor district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show bysatisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice beganbefore July 4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, beadmitted without examination.

Sec. 5.Additional requirements for other applicants. C All applicants for admission other than those referred to inthe two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they haveregularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school oruniversity, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate,accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, andfurther evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following coursesin a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminallaw, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxationand legal ethics.

Sec. 6. Pre-Law. C No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents acertificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursuedand satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission theretothe completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree inarts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic,english, spanish, history and economics.

Sec. 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. C All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the SupremeCourt the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of theexamination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule they shall also file within the same period theaffidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a licenseevidencing the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, andcertificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as totheir age, residence, and citizenship.

Sec. 8. Notice of Applications. C Notice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerk of the SupremeCourt in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the beginning ofthe examination.

Sec. 9. Examination; subjects. C Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be

subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law;Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law (Privateand Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and PracticalExercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).


9/46

9

Sec. 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. C Persons taking the examination shall not

bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for all examinees and acopy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questionspersonally without help from anyone.

Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to

read his answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter inanswering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used.

The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papersor commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers. No oralexamination shall be given.

Sec. 11.Annual examination. C Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually inthe City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on barexaminers. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning) andLabor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day:Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics andPractical Exercises (afternoon).

Sec. 12. Committee of examiners. C Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to beappointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shallact as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar ofthe Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of the members of this committee shall bepublished in each volume of the official reports.

Sec. 13. Disciplinary measures. C No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the committee, and

during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or receive anyassistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from theexamination, and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanentdisqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 14. Passing average. C In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examinationssuccessfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 percent in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the followingrelative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent;Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.

Sec. 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. C Not later than February 15th after theexamination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of suchexamination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there beexamined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report.

Sec. 16. Failing candidates to take review course. C Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for threetimes shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court that theyhave enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a

recognized law school.

The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oaththat the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same conditions as ordinarystudents and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject@. (Rule 138, Rev. Rules of Court).

10. 1989 Survey by the Bureau of Higher Education


10/46

10

In 1988-1989 the Bureau of Higher Education (which was replaced by the Commission on HigherEducation) conducted a survey of law schools in the Philippines to evaluate the quality and state of legaleducation in the country. It was funded by the Asia Foundation. (Bureau of Higher Education, State of LegalEducation in the Philippines, 1989. Manila: Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 111 pp.). The surveyhad influenced the adoption of the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 (R.A. No. 7662).

The respondents included 57 law deans, 360 law faculty members, 3,036 students, and 365 lawgraduates. It concluded that Athe quality of instruction given by the law schools leaves much to be desired.@ It

proposed future analytical study of the law students, the law faculty, the validity and reliability of the barexaminations, and a comparative study of law schools.

In 1989 there were almost 20,000 law students.

There were 40 law schools distributed as follows: Metro Manila, 16; Central Visayas, 8; West Visayas, 4;East Visayas, 4; Bicol, 4; Southern Mindanao, 4. (at p. 3). Almost one-half of all law schools were situated inMetro Manila and Cebu.

The survey found that 70.28 percent of the law faculty members were practicing lawyers; that 51.67percent of the faculty had four to six years of teaching experience; that 50.83 percent had no formal training inteaching methods; that the number one teaching method used was the recitation method, followed by lecturemethod; that 54.72 percent did not give out written course syllabi to students; that 69.17 percent were notrevising/updating their syllabi; that 85 percent of the faculty were males; that 49.72 percent was between 45 to49 years old; that 89.72 percent took their Ll. B. degree in private law schools; and that the pre-law degree of65.28 percent faculty was in the field of social sciences.

The survey studied the admission policies of law schools. It discovered that 29.6 percent of law schoolsbased their admission solely on interviews of the students and that 17.58 percent considered the pre-law gradesof the students.

The survey described the profile of a law student as follows: that 55.77 percent of law students werebetween the ages 25 and 29; that 62.91 percent were male; that 59.29 percent were single; that 44.56 percentfinished a degree in social sciences and 30.73 percent in business; that 86.63 percent took their pre-law inprivate schools; that 62.25 percent were working; that 43.05 percent owned textbooks in all subjects; that 94percent of law students were enrolled in private law schools; that 50 percent of the students were enrolled inMetro Manila; that the national survival rate at law schools was 36 percent and 50.82 percent in Metro Manila;that 40.70 percent of law graduates were from Metro Manila;

The survey established that from 1978 to 1987 the average passing rate in the bar examinations was31.15 percent; that the average passing rate of the University of the Philippines for the period was 77.32percent; that the average passing rate of private law schools for the period was 27.13 percent; and that thecommon reasons given by respondents for failure in the bar examinations were English language deficiency, poorpreparation, inadequate pre-bar review, lack of pre-bar review materials, poor teaching methods, absenteeism offaculty, extensive coverage of the bar exams, and the grading system of the bar exams.

The survey commented on the law schools and the law faculty as follows:

ALawyers are not professionally trained to be teachers and most likely, are not imbued with the mission forteaching. In all probability, they have diverse motivations for joining the ranks of teachers, ranging from thematerialistic to the idealistic. Law deans seem to have supervisory problems with faculty who regard teaching not

as a mission but merely as a additional source of income.

It is a fact that almost all law schools are staffed by part-time faculty, who are either active in practicing the lawprofession or are employed on a full-time basis in private or government agencies. They cannot devote much timeto their responsibilities as teachers, such as syllabi preparation, conferences with students having academicproblems, and other duties which they leave to the administration to handle. Because of their tight schedule, thepart-time faculty excuse themselves from faculty meetings and the usual assignments given to full-time faculty.

In view of the part-time status of most law faculty, as well as their apparent independence from certainadministrative expectations and requirements, law school deans are constrained from undertaking a program offaculty development. Considering the type of law faculty and their heavy schedules in their regular jobs it does not


11/46

11

seem possible to have law faculty participate in faculty development programs, except in short in-service trainingprograms to enhance their teaching competencies.

Due to time constraints, administrators and law faculty do not have enough opportunities for developing idealrelationships between them. Contacts are few and often are confined to general faculty assemblies and biguniversity functions which do not allow for close interaction@. (id., pp. 78-79).

F. Continuing Legal Education

1. Few are Active Practitioners

In a 1976 survey among lawyers conducted by the UP Law Center, it was discovered that only 23.4percent were engaged in active private practice and that the rest were either employed in the government (32.2percent) or private sector (38.6 percent).[45]In 1962, 25 percent of lawyers were in active private practice .[46]Itappears that only one out of every five Filipino lawyers is actively engaged in private law practice and that therest are employed either in the government or in the private sector or an engaged in private business. Most ofthe practitioners are located in the cities and are mostly solo practitioners or belong to small to medium lawfirms.

In a 1982 survey conducted by the UP Law Center, it was established that 55 percent of Filipino lawyerswere employed with the government. Of those in private practice, 78 percent were based in Metro Manila; all in all,89 percent of lawyers were based in major cities throughout the Philippines; and 18 percent of the respondentswas made up of independent (solo) practitioners, 7 percent were employed in law firms, and 7 percent wasemployed in private companies. (Manuel Bonifacio and Merlin M. Magallona, "Survey Of the Legal Profession", inCoquia, supra, pp. 308-353). Sixty-eight (68) percent of the respondent-lawyers felt that their legal training in lawschool was Anot adequate@. Ninety-seven (97) percent recommended continuing legal education (CLE) for all lawpractitioners. But the subject of legal ethics occupied only the fifth rank among the various subjects that therespondents recommended for inclusion in the CLE programs. The top ranks for the CLE subjects the respondentsrecommended pertained to pragmatic, trial-oriented, and business-related subjects. (id.).

2. Law is Complex

Law practice is complex and it requires specialization. Under the martial law regime alone (1972-June 12,1978), there were 1,473 presidential decrees, 708 letters of instructions, and 62 general orders.[47]As of the end of1911, under the regime of the Philippine Commission, there were 2,092 statutes. As of the end of 1970, there were10,078 statutes (Republic Acts [RAs], Philippine Commission Acts [Acts], Commonwealth Acts [CAS]) .[48] Thefigures excluded local ordinances and administrative rules and regulations.[49]

3. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

Bar Matter No. 850, promulgated by the Supreme Court on August 22, 2000 and amended on October 2, 2001,contains the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines (IBP). The rules were recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, andreviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. The rules took effect onSeptember 15, 2000, following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation. The MCLE Committee ofthe Supreme Court, assisted by the IBP national office, implements and evaluates this national activity. (BarMatter No. 850, Sec. 2, Rule 2).

Continuing legal education is now required of all Filipino lawyers (IBP members) to ensure thatthroughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession andenhance the standards of the practice of law. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 1).

Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 of the Rules shall complete every three (3) years at leastthirty-six (36) hours or credit unitsof continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Ofthe 36 hours:

(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units.
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn45http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn45http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn45http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn46http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn46http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn46http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn47http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn47http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn47http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn48http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn48http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn48http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn49http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn49http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn49http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn49http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn48http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn47http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn46http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/philippine-legal-profession-part-2.html#_ftn45


12/46

12

(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) creditunits.

(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, andjurisprudence 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) creditunits.

(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions equivalent totwo (2) credit units.

(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLECommittee equivalent to six (6) credit units. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 2).

Members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unittoward compliance with the MCLE requirement. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 3). Please see Figure 2, infra, for the list

of the accredited MCLE service providers as of March 2002 (cf. www.ibp.org.ph, website of the IBPnational office).

Credit units are either participatory or non-participatory. (Bar Matter No. 850,Sec. 1, Rule 5).

Participatory credit units may be claimed for:

(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia, in-houseeducation programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussion.

(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker,moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities.

(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 5).

Non-participatory credit units may be claimed per compliance period for:

(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for publication, e.g., inthe form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute to the legal education of the authormember, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of the member=s practice or employment.

(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter. (Id., Sec. 3, Rule 5).

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 ofExecutive 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 thejudiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by thePhilippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;


13/46

13

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

(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 SpecialProsecutor 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 ofthe Philippine Judicial Academy; and

(l) Governors and Mayors. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 7).

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. (Id., Sec.2, Rule 7).

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 therequirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established bythe MCLE Committee. (Id., Sec. 3, Rule 7).

Subject to the implementing regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal educationprogram may be granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accreditedprovider and certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider isspecifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal education. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 8).

All continuing legal education activities must meet the following standards:

(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.

(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal subjects and the legal profession,including cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability topractice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.

(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional experience.

(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written materials must be distributed to allparticipants. Such materials must be distributed at or before the time the activity is offered.

(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be free from interruption liketelephone calls and other distractions. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 8).

Accreditation of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 9).


14/46

14

Any person or group may be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, uponwritten application. All providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible tobe accredited providers. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 9).

Each IBP member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his complianceperiod. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement orthat he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to theCommittee not later than the day after the end of the member=s compliance period. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 11).

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 38 of Rule 9 should be asufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also bemaintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 11).

The following shall constitute non-compliance by the IBP members:

(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 theprescribed period;

(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) daysfrom 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 withthe MCLE requirements. (Id.,Sec. 1, Rule 12).

Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be givensixty (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 thenotice in capital letters:

IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERTDATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALLNOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE ISRECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.

Members are given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to attain theadequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned during this period may only be counted towardcompliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, inwhich case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. ( Id., Sec. 2,Rule 12)

A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 13)

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. Theinvestigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBP=s Commission on Bar Discipline as afact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 13).

Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the active rate against a member during the period he/she is listed asa delinquent member. (Id., Sec. 3, Rule 13).


15/46

15

The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of compliancewith the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary creditunits 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 unitsearned during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance periodrequirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 14).

The termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the MCLECommittee. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 14).

Figure 2

Philippine Legal Profession _ Part 3

Final excerpts from my 2000 Ll.M. thesis, for research purposes of the readers.

x x x.

2. Rules 138, Rules of Court

a. Duties of Attorneys

Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates the duties of attorneys, thus:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws ofthe Philippines.(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as

he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent withtruth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of factor law;(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and toaccept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge andapproval;(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a partyor witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man'scause, from any corrupt motive or interest;(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinionas to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may bedeprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law. (Sec. 20, Rule 138).

A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if uponinvestigation it appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services ofcounsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of theattorney so assigned to render the required service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficientcause shown. (Sec. 31, Rule 138).

b. Malpractice; Solicitation of Cases


16/46

16

A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court forany deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconductin such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of hisconviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take beforethe admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly orwillful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases atlaw for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Sec.27, Rule 138).

The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of thecauses named in the last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice hisprofession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises. (Sec. 28, Rule 138).

Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court of First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the SupremeCourt a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same wasbased. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigationof the facts involved and make such order revoking or extending the suspension, or removing the attorney fromhis office as such, as the facts warrant. (Sec. 29, Rule 138).

No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had fullopportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf,and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer theaccusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte. (Sec. 30, Rule 138; see also: Rule 139 and139-A, Rules of Court).

c. Rights of Attorneys to Fair Compensation

An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensationfor his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the servicesrendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys asexpert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on itsown professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unlessfound by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. (Sec. 24, Rule 138).

However, when an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded,he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; butproceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution. (Sec. 25, Rule 138).

An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of hisclient filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent ofhis client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to beallowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the

docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the advanceparty. (Sec. 26, Rule 138).

A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contractbetween client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiablecause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract. However,the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his rights. For the payment of hiscompensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issuedin pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client. (Id.).

Subject to availability of funds as may be provided by the law the court may, in its discretion, order anattorney employed as counsel de oficio to be compensates in such sum as the court may fix in accordance withsection 24 of this rule. Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall be not less than thirty pesos (P30) in anycase, nor more than the following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50) in light felonies; (2) One hundred pesos (P100)in less grave felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200) in grave felonies other than capital offenses; (4) FiveHundred pesos (P500) in capital offenses. (Sec. 32, Rule 138. Note the outdated amounts fixed by the Rules).

An attorney shall have a lienupon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully comeinto his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and mayapply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments forthe payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in alitigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have the caused a statement of his claim of such liento be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall havethe caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have thesame right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and securethe payment of his just fees and disbursements. (Sec. 37, Rule 138).


17/46

17

3. Jurisprudence on Law Firm Marketing.a. Law is Not a TradeThe practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege. It is clothed with public interest. A lawyer owes duties notonly to his client but also to his in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation. He takes part in one of the mostimportant functions of the state, which is the administration of justice, as an officer of the court. Hence, it is theright and duty of the state to supervise, control and regulate the selection of candidates for admission to the Bar,as well as the exercise of that privilege to assure compliance with the lawyer=s public responsibilities. (Diaz v.Martinez, 119 Phil. 490, 7 SCRA 475 [1963]).

The right to practice is not a natural or constitutional right nor an absolute right de jurebut is a privilege.The right to practice is not a property. It cannot be assigned or inherited but must be earned by hard study andgood conduct. (Ernami Cruz Pano, supra, citing In re, Gibbs, 278 p. 371; In re Manuero, 66 SCRA 245 [1975]; Inre ethics, 203 p. 957; In re Miller, 244 p. 376; In re Cliffton, 155 So. 324).

Lawyers play an important role in society. Depending on the circumstances, the lawyer may lead in makingpolicy as well as in resolving conflict. He is often a scholar or a philosopher seeking to refine the analysis by whichlawyers live, or to propose new solutions for problems new or old. (Id., at p. 43).

For the achievement of its objective of dedicated service to society, the ancient and learned profession oflaw exacts from its members the highest standard of morality. Trusted with the confidential affairs of their clients,attorneys are sworn to subordinate their personal interests to those of the people they represent. They shouldstrive at all times to uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the legal profession, which is higher than that ofthe market place. (Id., at p. 44, citing Canon 29, Canons of Professional Ethics; Calo v. Degamo, 20 SCRA 447(1967).

After passing the bar examinations and taking the lawyer=s oath, the lawyer is considered authorized topractice law before all courts in the Philippines. However, the first duty that he has to perform is not to his client,as popularly believed, but to assist in the administration of justice. (Id., pp. 48-49, citing Rule 138, Sec. 20 [b]).

As the practice of law is not a right granted to anyone who seek it, it is accorded only to those who meetspecific standards of mental and moral fitness. (In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399; In re Gutierrez, 52 O.G. 24) . Forthis reason, failure on the part of the lawyer to maintain a high standard of morality may result in disbarment. (Id.,pp. 52-53, citing Belivar v. Sumibol, 16 SCRA 623. Toledo v. Toledo, A.C. no. 266, April 27, 1963).

The proscription against lawyer advertising and solicitation of cases lawyers aim to preserve the dignity of the legalprofession. A lawyer cannot advertise his talent as a shopkeeper advertises his wares. ( In re: Tagorda, 54 Phil. 37[1929]; Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil. 579 (1944); Rule 138, Sec. 27, RRC; Jayme v. Bualan, 58Phil. 422).

A lawyer is a member of an honorable profession whose primary purpose is to render public service and helpsecure justice and in which remuneration is a mere incident (Canon 12, Code of Professional Ethics). Suchprofessional consideration makes a lawyer radically different from a shopkeeper, a trader, a manufacturer or a

money changer whose primordial aim is private gain and whose principal tool to sell his product or service isadvertising . To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, lower theprofession in public confidence, and lesser its ability to render efficiently that higher character of service to whichevery member of the bar is called. (Id.).

Advertising inescapably involves self-praise. If competitive advertising among lawyers were permitted, theconscientious and ethical will unavoidably be at the mercy of the braggart. (In Re Rothman, 97 A 2d 627, 39 ALR2d 1032 [1953]). It will undoubtedly increase lawsuits and needless litigations. (In re Tagorda, supra; Director ofReligious Affairs v. Bayot, supra).

b. 1917 Code of Professional Ethics

Section 21 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1919 by Act 2828, provided that Athe practice ofsoliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutesmalpractice@. Section 27 of Rule 138 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court maintained the provision. Sections 27and Section 28 of the 1908 American Bar Association's Code of Professional Ethics and the 1917 Philippine BarAssociation=s Code of Professional Ethics were identical in their provisions, to wit:

Sec. 27. Advertising, Direct or Indirect. - The most worthy and effectiveadvertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brotherlawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacityand fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of characterand conduct. The publication or circulation of ordinary simple busin

Philippine Legal Profession

Documents

Transcript of Philippine Legal Profession