I've spent (read:wasted) my afternoon in a symposium sponsored by my local IBP (integrated Bar of the Philippines) chapter which talked about this new rule, otherwise known as Bar Matter No. 2012, which requires all practicing lawyers to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year. The rule also requires those lawyers who do not lucratively practice law and have chosen public service by dedicating their precious time as government servants (think:slaves) to pay PhP2,0000.00 every year. I know that the Supreme Court never makes a mistake, and if it does, it becomes part of the legal system, but if you ask me what do I really think of this rule, I'd tell you that I think this rule is full of shit. So don't ask me. Please.
The practice of law is not a trade. It is not a job. It is not a craft. It is not business. It is a vocation not unlike that of preisthood. With this in mind, the act of rendering free legal aid to indigents is a moral duty of every lawyer. In fact, if there is a universal ethical rule between all lawyers all over the world, it is the duty of the lawyer to provide its services to the needy. To my mind, the act of compelling a lawyer to render free legal aid service is an insult to lawyers everywhere. All lawyers who understand that it is their duty to offer their services free from cost and are already doing so should be abhorred by this rule. On the other hand, those unscroupulous men (and women) who call themselves lawyers but do not have pro bono cases in their portfolio are the ones who are going to be very vocal about this new rule.
In principle, the rule is sound enough. However, the framing is less than perfect. It twists and maligns the definition of the term "practice of law" as defined by jurisprudence in Cayetano v. Monsod (201 SCRA 210, 1991). It gives a new defenition to practicing lawyers.
Sec. 4(a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies, including but not limited to the National Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and National Commission for Indigenous Peoples.
The term “practicing lawyers” shall exclude:
(i) Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice;
(ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;
(iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and peoples’ organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by the nature of their work already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants and
(iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including those who are employed in the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies.
As the newsboy in the old Superman shouts all the time, just : "Read all about it!" For I'm too sick of writing about it.
Goddamit. Sayang PhP2,000.00 ko. LOL.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes you're right, this is rule is full of shit. Palibhasa Reynato Puno who thought of this was about to retire when the rule was thought of by him kaya he did not give a shit to the next generation of lawyers who will be burdened by this. When doing pro bono work, the SC did not even consider the time you spend in studying the case and preparing pleadings, affidavits and counter-affidavits, etc. The time considered is only for the court appearance. Any lawyer worth his salt knows that he spends a lot of hours doing legal research and drafting pleadings for his client. In fact, the time spent for doing this is even more than that spent for court appearances. The high and mighty Supreme Court should have considered the time spent for preparation and drafting of documents, including the kind of case the lawyer is handling. There are difficult and easy cases. Why was there not proper classification? What the SC made was a generalized issuance that was not studied at all. Hirap talaga sumunod sa mga bulag na nagpre-pretend na nakakakita. Also, ang matutuwa nito ay ang mga taga-PAO. Buwagin na yang PAO dahil wala nang silbi yang opisina na yan kung itutuloy yang MLAS. PAO lawyers dapat ang nagbabayad ng fees kasi sila ang makikinabang diyan sa rule na yan.
Post a Comment