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 of the Filipino lawyer. An indication of the low quality of pre-law education in the Philippines is the fact that the annual passing 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 Inquirer commented on the poor state of high school and college education in the Philippines as follows:
A...But colleges and universities are hobbled by the uneven and even sub-par quality of graduates of basic education. The problem has given rise to understandable calls for the restoration of Grade 7 and short of that, the introduction of a pre-baccalaureate program either in high school or college that will winnow graduating high school students 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 the problem of quality has given rise to calls in higher education to increase the number of educational units required for graduation, effectively adding another year to the regular four-year college program...@. (Editorial - AFatal Truancy@, 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 University of Santo Tomas opened its Faculty of Civil Law and a Faculty of Canon Law,[1] the professional education of the Filipino lawyer has faced many challenges, questions and changes.
Filled with the nationalistic confidence that the Filipinos themselves were prepared to educate their own future lawyers, 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 notary public.[2] In 1899 Don Felipe Calderon (author of the 1899 Malolos Constitution) founded the Escuela de Derecho de Manila, 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 in the intellectual enlightenment of the natives. Thus, in 1910 the College of Law of the University of the Philippines opened with 50 Filipino and American students. The first dean was Justice Sherman Moreland of the Philippine Supreme Court. He was replaced by George A. Malcolm, who later became a Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court.[4]
Other law schools followed: Philippine Law School, 1915; University of Manila College of Law, 1918; Far Eastern University Institute of Law, 1934; Southern College of Law, 1935; Arellano Law College, 1938; and Francisco Law School, 1940.[5]
Under the First Philippine Commission (1899) and the Second Philippine Commission (1900), laws were passed requiring the inspection of private schools, e.g. Act No. 74, which created the Department of Public Instruction; Act No. 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 for the supervision of private schools.[8]
Under the present dispensation, the latest law on legal education is R.A. No. 7662, also known as the "Legal Education 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-law requirement to a 4-year bachelor's degree (Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science) and increasing the law course 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.[10]
The University of the Philippines started the law aptitude test and interview by a screening committee as requirements 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 bar subjects listed in Sec. 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: civil law, criminal law, remedial law, legal ethics and legal forms, commercial law, political law, tax law, labor law, public corporation and public officers, and international law.[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]
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 the Shri 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 enroll up 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-year Bachelor of Laws degree composed of 51 subjects (124 units) which took effect in 1990.[16] It offered more subjects on 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] In 1982 the number decreased to 45 law schools, 35 percent of which were located in Metro Manila.[20] In the same year, there were 3 state-supported law schools: University of the Philippines College of Law, Mindanao State University, and Don Mariano Marcos University College of Law.[21]
The law schools accreditation system proposed by the Standing Committee on Legal Education and Bar Administration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is still pending with the Supreme Court for final action.[22]
In 1964 R.A. No. 3870 created the University of the Philippines Law Center to conduct continuing legal education programs 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 are[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 law curriculum[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 than 5 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 highly subsidized state university such as the University of the Philippines. "A person who embraces teaching as a career takes the vow of poverty".[30]
Despite the financial constraints that the law teacher faces, he plays a noble and important role in the training of future 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 and reflection. Through critical study, they also identify emerging trends and areas for reform and contribute towards making law an instrument of social development. Law teachers must principally assume the critical and predictive functions in the legal profession xxx."[31]
8. British Legal Education
In the case of United Kingdom, according to Prof. Thomas G. Lund, the requisites for admission to the English Bar are as follows: (a) "a test of general education (of approximately the same standard as that required for entry into a 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 terms in a year"; (d) "pass a qualifying examination of a largely theoretical nature" ("the examination approximates to those for a university law degree, and Bar students frequently keep their terms while at the university"); (e) as to citizenship, 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 in the society is voluntary. In 1951, out of 22,000 solicitors, only 16,000 were members thereof.[33] The society has been 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 (or apprenticeship) with a solicitor engaged in the active practice of law" (the term is normally five years but is reduced to three years for university graduates, whether in law or arts); (b) "to pass a preliminary examination on general knowledge, an intermediate and a final examination in law and an examination in bookkeeping and trust accounts"; (c) before he can "enter into articles he must obtain the consent of the Law Society and must satisfy the Society of his character, suitability and fitness to do so".[34] The clerk pays his principal a fee for clerkship, which in 1952 was 300 pounds.[35]
The management and control of examinations for solicitors were placed by the Parliament in the hands of the Law Society which was "empowered to make regulations governing the syllabus, the appointments of examiners, and other 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 school of 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 Filipino lawyers; in 1977, 28, 000; and in 1992, 34,922.[42] From 1946 to 1953, the passing percentage of most law schools 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 Court composed of one justice as chair and 8 lawyers, with a term of office of one year. The bar examinee must be at least 21 years of age, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, of good moral character, has completed the required 4-year law course (Ll.B.) in a law school recognized by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (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 a prerequisite for enrolling in the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Ll. B.) did not have a dramatic effect in increasing the passing 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 50 percent 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 a precise and accurate gauge of the effectiveness of legal education, the figures on bar examination results suggest an urgent need for reforms in legal education@. (Ernani Cruz Pano, Judiciary and the Bar, Manila: Rex Book Store, 1995, p. 111).
Of the 42 bar examinations conducted by the Supreme Court from 1946 to 1986, Ait was only in eleven bar examinations that more than one-half of the candidates passed@. In 31 bar examinations, the mortality rate was Amore 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 any of their candidates pass the bar exam. Of the 2,600 candidates, 491 passed the bar exam (18.8 percent national passing 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 rate ranged 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 taxation law and labor law from the exams and the increase of the number of units allotted for these subjects in the law curriculum. He recommends the appointment of bar examiners for a longer term, rather than the present ad hoc arrangement, to allow for much preparation. He proposes a consideration of the idea of establishing a quota system in the law profession, that is, the fixing of a limit on the number of candidates that a law school should send 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 formal education; they question the effectiveness of bar examinations as an instrument to test professional competence and success in law practice. But everyone agrees that until a more effective method of law school supervision is devised, the bar examination provides stimulus to these schools to do their best in legal education. It is for the moment 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 here definitely 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 the proficiency 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 testing information, memory or experience. The computer would be better lawyers if the gauge of admission would be the capacity to store information and the possession of a photographic memory. The law student is also without any experience to be tested.
Rather, the bar examination should test the candidate=s ability to reason logically, to analyze accurately the problems presented to him and to exhibit a thorough knowledge of the fundamental principles of law and their application.
xxx.
Is this task being performed by our law schools? Judging on the results of the bar examinations, it would appear that except for perhaps three or even five law schools, the rest have failed miserably in developing among its students the needed orientation, language capacity, analytical proficiency and the capacity to pass judgments which 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 are reproduced below:
ASec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. C Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Sec. 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America. C Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before 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 its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, 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 will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or 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 appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination.
Sec. 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. C All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, 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, and further evidence may be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
Sec. 6. Pre-Law. C No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts 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 Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship.
Sec. 8. Notice of Applications. C Notice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the beginning of the 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 (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).
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 a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally 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 in answering 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 papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers. No oral examination shall be given.
Sec. 11. Annual examination. C Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor 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 and Practical Exercises (afternoon).
Sec. 12. Committee of examiners. C Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of the members of this committee shall be published 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 any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, 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 examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative 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, 20 per 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 the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be examined 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 three times shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court that they have 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 oath that the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same conditions as ordinary students 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
In 1988-1989 the Bureau of Higher Education (which was replaced by the Commission on Higher Education) conducted a survey of law schools in the Philippines to evaluate the quality and state of legal education in the country. It was funded by the Asia Foundation. (Bureau of Higher Education, State of Legal Education in the Philippines, 1989. Manila: Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 111 pp.). The survey had 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 law graduates. 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 bar examinations, 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 in Metro Manila and Cebu.
The survey found that 70.28 percent of the law faculty members were practicing lawyers; that 51.67 percent of the faculty had four to six years of teaching experience; that 50.83 percent had no formal training in teaching methods; that the number one teaching method used was the recitation method, followed by lecture method; that 54.72 percent did not give out written course syllabi to students; that 69.17 percent were not revising/updating their syllabi; that 85 percent of the faculty were males; that 49.72 percent was between 45 to 49 years old; that 89.72 percent took their Ll. B. degree in private law schools; and that the pre-law degree of 65.28 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 schools based their admission solely on interviews of the students and that 17.58 percent considered the pre-law grades of the students.
The survey described the profile of a law student as follows: that 55.77 percent of law students were between the ages 25 and 29; that 62.91 percent were male; that 59.29 percent were single; that 44.56 percent finished a degree in social sciences and 30.73 percent in business; that 86.63 percent took their pre-law in private schools; that 62.25 percent were working; that 43.05 percent owned textbooks in all subjects; that 94 percent of law students were enrolled in private law schools; that 50 percent of the students were enrolled in Metro 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 was 31.15 percent; that the average passing rate of the University of the Philippines for the period was 77.32 percent; that the average passing rate of private law schools for the period was 27.13 percent; and that the common reasons given by respondents for failure in the bar examinations were English language deficiency, poor preparation, inadequate pre-bar review, lack of pre-bar review materials, poor teaching methods, absenteeism of faculty, 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 for teaching. In all probability, they have diverse motivations for joining the ranks of teachers, ranging from the materialistic 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 law profession or are employed on a full-time basis in private or government agencies. They cannot devote much time to their responsibilities as teachers, such as syllabi preparation, conferences with students having academic problems, and other duties which they leave to the administration to handle. Because of their tight schedule, the part-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 certain administrative expectations and requirements, law school deans are constrained from undertaking a program of faculty development. Considering the type of law faculty and their heavy schedules in their regular jobs it does not seem possible to have law faculty participate in faculty development programs, except in short in-service training programs to enhance their teaching competencies.
Due to time constraints, administrators and law faculty do not have enough opportunities for developing ideal relationships between them. Contacts are few and often are confined to general faculty assemblies and big university 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 23.4 percent were engaged in active private practice and that the rest were either employed in the government (32.2 percent) or private sector (38.6 percent).[45] In 1962, 25 percent of lawyers were in active private practice.[46] It appears that only one out of every five Filipino lawyers is actively engaged in private law practice and that the rest are employed either in the government or in the private sector or an engaged in private business. Most of the practitioners are located in the cities and are mostly solo practitioners or belong to small to medium law firms.
In a 1982 survey conducted by the UP Law Center, it was established that 55 percent of Filipino lawyers were 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 respondents was made up of independent (solo) practitioners, 7 percent were employed in law firms, and 7 percent was employed in private companies. (Manuel Bonifacio and Merlin M. Magallona, "Survey Of the Legal Profession", in Coquia, supra, pp. 308-353). Sixty-eight (68) percent of the respondent-lawyers felt that their legal training in law school was Anot adequate@. Ninety-seven (97) percent recommended continuing legal education (CLE) for all law practitioners. But the subject of legal ethics occupied only the fifth rank among the various subjects that the respondents recommended for inclusion in the CLE programs. The top ranks for the CLE subjects the respondents recommended 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 of 1911, under the regime of the Philippine Commission, there were 2,092 statutes. As of the end of 1970, there were 10,078 statutes (Republic Acts [RAs], Philippine Commission Acts [Acts], Commonwealth Acts [CAS]).[48] The figures 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 of the Philippines (IBP). The rules were recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. The rules took effect on September 15, 2000, following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation. The MCLE Committee of the Supreme Court, assisted by the IBP national office, implements and evaluates this national activity. (Bar Matter No. 850, Sec. 2, Rule 2).
Continuing legal education is now required of all Filipino lawyers (IBP members) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 1).
Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 of the Rules shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours or credit units of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 2).
Members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward 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 IBP national 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-house education 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., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute to the legal education of the author member, 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 of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors. (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 the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee. (Id., Sec. 3, Rule 7).
Subject to the implementing regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education program may be granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accredited provider and certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider is specifically 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 to practice 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 all participants. 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 like telephone calls and other distractions. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 8).
Accreditation of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 9).
Any person or group may be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to be accredited providers. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 9).
Each IBP member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not later than the day after the end of the member=s compliance period. (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 a sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5. (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 the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 12).
Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the following language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
Members are given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. (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. The investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBP=s Commission on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee. (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 as a delinquent member. (Id., Sec. 3, Rule 13).
The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit units to meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance during the period the member is on inactive status. These credit units may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit units earned during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 14).
The termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the MCLE Committee. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 14).
Figure 2
List of MCLE Service Providers as of March 2002
| M a n d a t o r y C o n t i n u i n g L e g a l E d u c a t i o n | |
| MCLE LIST OF ACCREDITED PROVIDERS as of March 2002 | |
| | |
| Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz Offices (ACCRA Law) | |
| ADDRESS | ACCRA Building, 122 Gamboa Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Francis Ed. Lim - Senior Partner |
| TELEPHONE | 830-8000 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 816-0119 / 812-4897 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-09-28 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-27 |
| Angeles City Lawyers League, Inc. | |
| ADDRESS | 1282 Miranda Street, 2009 Angeles City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Ricardo Bermudo - President, (ACLL) |
| TELEPHONE | (045) 888-3736 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | (045) 332-3306 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-11-16 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-11-15 |
| Arellano Law Foundation Inc. | ||
| ADDRESS | Menlo & Donado Sts. Corner Taft Avenue, Pasay City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Mr. Mariano Magsalin Jr. - Executive Director | |
| TELEPHONE | 521-4690 / 510-2856 to 57 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 521-4691 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-10-29 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-10-28 | |
| Ateneo de Manila School of Law Center for Continuing Legal Education | ||
| ADDRESS | Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Camilo Miguel Montesa - Executive Director | |
| TELEPHONE | 899-7691 to 96 loc. 2310/2311 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 899-7697 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-08-24 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-08-23 | |
| Bureau of Internal Revenue | ||
| ADDRESS | BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, East Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Edmundo P. Guevarra - Deputy Commissioner, Legal and Inspector Group | |
| TELEPHONE | 928-5833 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 928-4744 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2002-01-11 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2004-01-10 | |
| Calamba City Lawyers League | ||
| ADDRESS | 132 Elepañño I, Calamba City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Emilio Capulong - President, CCLL | |
| TELEPHONE | (049) 545-1245 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | - | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-11-16 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-11-15 | |
| Chamber of Customs Brokers Inc. | ||
| ADDRESS | Rm. 107, Port of Manila Building, South Harbor, Manila | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Alvin Gutierrez - Training Director | |
| TELEPHONE | 527-6801 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 527-5340 / 527-1980 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-11-09 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-11-08 | |
| Cosmopolitan Review Center | ||
| ADDRESS | Suites 800, 805-809, Ermita Center Building, 1350 Roxas Boulevard, Ermita, Manila | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Dean Ricardo L. Sadac - President and Bar Review Director | |
| TELEPHONE | 526-2079 / 526-4859 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | None | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2002-02-13 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2004-02-12 | |
| Disini & Disini Law Office | |
| ADDRESS | #35 Buchanan Street, North Greenhills, San Juan Metro Manila |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Jesus M. Disini Jr. - Managing Partner |
| TELEPHONE | 725-2799 / 727-1437 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 722-2167 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-08-24 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-08-23 |
| IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter | |
| ADDRESS | Rm. 317, Justice Hall, 2600, Baguio City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Abelardo C. Estrada - President (IBP Baguio Benguet Chapter) |
| TELEPHONE | - |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | (074) 442-8937 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-09-28 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-27 |
| IBP Cagayan Chapter | |
| ADDRESS | IBP Library, Hall of Justice, Tuguegarao, Cagayan |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Raymund R. Lauigan - Chapter President |
| TELEPHONE | (078) 844-1221 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | (078) 844-5499 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2002-02-13 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2004-02-12 |
| IBP Central Luzon | |
| ADDRESS | Suite 3-E (3rd Floor) Maryville Square Building., Mc. Arthur Highway, Saluysoy, Meyc, Bulacan |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Pedro S. Principe - Gov. IBP Central Luzon |
| TELEPHONE | (044) 935-2555 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | (044) 721-1085 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2002-02-01 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2004-01-31 |
| IBP Greater Manila Region | |
| ADDRESS | Rm. 235, Hall of Justice Building, City Hall Compound, Quezon City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Gov. Santos V. Catubay Jr. - Gov. IBP-Greater Manila Region |
| TELEPHONE | 925-7183 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 925-7183 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-09-11 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-10 |
| IBP Makati City Chapter | |
| ADDRESS | UG 39, Cityland Dela Rsa Condminium, Dela Rosa Street, Makati City, Metro Manila |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Aileen Duremdes - Chairman, Legal Education Committee |
| TELEPHONE | 813-4744 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 813-4744 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-09-28 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-27 |
| IBP Misamis Oriental Chapter | ||
| ADDRESS | Capitol Compound Cagayan de Oro City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Manuel Ravanera - President (IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter) | |
| TELEPHONE | (088) 858-6143 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | (088) 858-6143 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-09-28 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-27 | |
| IBP National Office | ||
| ADDRESS | IBP Building, 15 Doñña Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Teofilo S. Pilando Jr. - President, IBP National | |
| TELEPHONE | 634-4697 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 634-4697 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | | |
| IBP Pangasinan Chapter | ||
| ADDRESS | Judge Jose R. De Venecia Sr., Memorial Hall, Bonuan Tondaligan, 2400 Dagupan City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Vicente Marteja Jr. - Chairman of Continuing Legal Education | |
| TELEPHONE | - | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | (075) 552-5891 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-10-11 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-10-10 | |
| IBP Pasay-Parañaque-Las Piñas-Muntinlupa Chapter | |
| ADDRESS | 2nd Floor, Pasay City Hall, FB Harrison, Pasay City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Patricia A. Bunye - President, PPLM |
| TELEPHONE | - |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 831-1477 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-09-11 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-10 |
| Institute of Continuing Legal Studies and Education Inc. | |
| ADDRESS | 2nd Floor, Ocampo Heritage Building, 214 Wilson Street, Greenhills, San Juan Metro Manila |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Eliseo Ocampo - Executive Chairman |
| TELEPHONE | 725-1481 / 724-0595 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 722-0432 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-11-09 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-11-08 |
| Intellectual Property Office, Department of Trade and Industry | |
| ADDRESS | 351 Senator Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Emma C. Francisco - Director General |
| TELEPHONE | 752-5450 to 65 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 897-1724 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-10-01 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-30 |
| Las Piñas City Bar Association (LPBA) | |
| ADDRESS | c/o the Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices. Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue, Philamlife Village, Las Piñas City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr. - President, LPBA |
| TELEPHONE | 874-2539 / 872-5443 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 874-2539 / 872-5443 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-11-16 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-11-15 |
| National Prosecutors League of the Philippines | |
| ADDRESS | Department of Justice, Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila |
| CONTACT PERSON | ACP Armando C. Velasco - Assistant City Prosecutor, P.R.O., NPLP |
| TELEPHONE | 527-5228 / 527-8202 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 527-5228 / 527-8702 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2002-02-13 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2004-02-12 |
| Office of the Government Corporate Counsel | |
| ADDRESS | 3rd Floor, MWSS Building, Katipunan Road, Quezon City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Belsie C. Sy - Government Corporate Attorney IV |
| TELEPHONE | 436-3779 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | - |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-07-30 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-07-29 |
| Palawan State University | ||
| ADDRESS | Manalo Street, Puerto Princesa City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Roy Joseph Rafols - Dean, Palawan School of Law | |
| TELEPHONE | (048) 4336142 / 818-32-11 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | (048) 433-5303 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-09-14 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-13 | |
| Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Law Center | ||
| ADDRESS | 3rd Floor, Gusaling Katipunan, General Luna Street, Intramuros, Manila | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Dean Ernesto Pineda - Dean PLM | |
| TELEPHONE | 527-8229 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 521-9019 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-11-09 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-11-08 | |
| Philippine Association of Law Professors (PALP) | ||
| ADDRESS | Don Anton Building, No. 3 Gen. Lim Street, nr. cor. Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, 1104 | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Justice Hector L. Hofileña - Seminar Director | |
| TELEPHONE | 372-1227 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 372-4752 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-12-07 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-12-06 | |
| Philippine Judicial Academy - (PhilJA) | |
| ADDRESS | 3rd Floor of the Supreme Court Building, Taft Avenue, Manila |
| CONTACT PERSON | Chan. Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera |
| TELEPHONE | 523-9075 / 522-3249 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 523-9075 / 525-8939 |
| APPLICATION DATE | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | |
| Philippine Securities Consultancy Corporation | |
| ADDRESS | Suite 906 SEC Building, EDSA Greenhills, Mandaluyong City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Josefina Pasay-Paz - President, PSCC |
| TELEPHONE | 727-09-93 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 726-9560 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2002-02-01 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2004-01-31 |
| PhilSEC Institute Foundation Inc. | |
| ADDRESS | SEC Building, EDSA Greenhills, Mandaluyong City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Jose P. Aquino - Director, Market Regulation Department |
| TELEPHONE | 725-3702 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 726-1593 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2002-02-01 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2004-01-31 |
| Quisumbing Torres Law Office | ||
| ADDRESS | 11th Floor, Pacific Star Building, Makati Avenue, cor Sen. Gil Puyat, Makati City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Rodrigo Lope S. Quimbo - Partner, Quisumbing Torres Law Office | |
| TELEPHONE | 811-5925 to 36 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 811-5640 to 41 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-11-16 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-11-15 | |
| Sycip Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan | ||
| ADDRESS | 105 Paseo De Roxas, Makati City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Ricardo P. G. Ongkiko - Partner | |
| TELEPHONE | 817-9811 to 20 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 817-3896 / 817-3145 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-08-16 | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-08-15 | |
| University of the Philippines School of Law, Institute of Judicial Administration | ||
| ADDRESS | UP Law Center, Bocobo Hall, UP Diliman, Quezon City | |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Concepcion Jardeleza - Law Education Specialist | |
| TELEPHONE | 929-7137 | |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 929-7137 | |
| APPLICATION DATE | | |
| EXPIRATION DATE | | |
| Women Trial Lawyers Organization of the Philippines | |
| ADDRESS | #45 Esteban Abada Street, Loyola Heights, Quezon City |
| CONTACT PERSON | Atty. Yolanda Javellana - President, WTLOP |
| TELEPHONE | 426-0273 |
| TELEFAX NUMBER | 426-0328 |
| APPLICATION DATE | 2001-10-01 |
| EXPIRATION DATE | 2003-09-30 |
| | |
| | Source: IBP website, www.ibp.org.ph |
G. Law Firm Marketing and Law Practice Management
1. Overview
The biggest law firms in the Philippines, according to Hieros Gamos, a leading US Internet law website, are: Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz, 112 lawyers; Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz (minus Sen. Edgardo Angara), 77; Oporto Law, 61; Bengzon Narciso Cudala Jimenez Gonzales & Liwanag, 42; Quasha Asperilla Pena & Nolasco, 40; Siguion Reyna Montecillo & Ongsiako, 40; Puno & Puno, 40; Carpio Villaraza & Cruz (now Villaraza & Angangco), 38; Castillo Laman Tan Pantaleon & San Jose, 37; and Ponce Enrile Reyes Manalastas, 34. (http://www.hierosgamos.org/hg). (Author - The law firm of Romulo Mabanta De los Angeles, with approximately 40 lawyers, should be added to the list).
To the knowledge of the author, no in-depth survey or study has been done on the state, scope and nature of ethical law firm marketing activities and productive law practice management techniques of Philippine lawyers and law firms, although the issue of lawyer advertising has been raised in the Philippine legal circles in the past. Justice Ernani Cruz Pano, former Court Administrator, for instance, had initiated an academic discussion to review the present Philippine ethical ban against lawyer advertising. (See; Ernani Cruz Pano, Judiciary and the Bar, Manila: Rex Book Store, 1995, 312 pp.).
The rule in the Philippines is that a lawyer is Anot permitted to actively seek out clients for himself@. Lawyers are Anot allowed to publicize and advertise their availability, as lawyers might tend to exaggerate their abilities and stir up litigation, thereby bring disrepute to the law profession@. The principle is that Athe reputation of the lawyer is his best advertising@. In one case, Aa lawyer who distributed cards advertising his services was suspended for one month@. (Pano, id., p. 120, citing In Re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 38. See also: Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court; Canon 28, 1917 Philippine Code of Professional Ethics, modeled after the 1908 ABA Code of Professional Ethics).
It has been suggested, however, that in many cases the clients are Abenefitted by solicitation, especially in suits for personal injuries in which there is often immediate pressure for settlement, unfamiliarity with methods of securing legal services and a lack of facilities for expert investigation of the facts relating to the claims@. (id., citing Note, A Critical Analysis of Rules Against Solicitation by Lawyers, 25 U. Chicago L. Rev. 674 [1958]).
Justice Pano wrote that Athose who argue for a limited form of advertising and publicity for lawyers say that the public has a >need to know= who are the qualified and competent lawyers@. The traditional passive standard has been criticized Aas being appropriate only for lawyers who have established practice and for clients who have the sophistication to recognize their legal problems and the ability to locate competent attorneys to represent them@. (Id., pp. 126-127).
The ban against solicitation and advertising is Adeemed inappropriate for lawyers without established clientele and for most lower and middle-income clients who may be unaware of their needs for legal services@. The ban has also been attacked Aas anticompetitive and in conflict with the consumers= need to receive information about lawyers and their services@. (id., p. 127).
It has also been argued that Alawyers are primarily economic actors, men and women who perform a service, for profit@ and that the public and the consumers Aare best served if there is true competition among lawyers for their patronage@. (Id., p.127, citing Justice Steward, AProfessional Ethics for the Business lawyer: The Morals of the Market@, 31 Bus. Law Rev., 463-467 [1975]).
Price advertising of Aroutine legal services@ is considered as protected commercial speech and non-censurable misconduct in the US. In Bates vs. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), the US Supreme Court Astruck down a state law of Arizona prohibiting lawyer advertising and it held that the State of Arizona may not prevent the publication in a newspaper of the lawyers= truthful advertisement concerning the availability of routine legal services and that the flow of such information may not be restrained@. In Bates, Justice Blackman noted that Athe ban on advertising originated as a rule of etiquette and not as a rule of ethics in the days of the early British lawyers who viewed the law as a form of public service and looked down on >trade= as >unseemly=@. Justice Blackman argued that since the belief Athat lawyers are somehow above trade has become an anachronism, the historical foundation for the advertising restraint has crumbled@. (Id., p. 128).
Further, Pano stated that in Bates, supra, the Supreme Court had made it clear that its decision was a Anarrow one@ and that Aadvertising by attorneys may not be subjected to >blanket suppression= but it did not hold that advertising by attorneys may not be regulated@. Thus, Afalse, deceptive or misleading advertising was subject to restraint@. He added that Aboth the bar and the Philippines would do well to consider these views in order to improve the quality of legal services available to the public@. (Id., pp. 129-130).
[1] Bantigue, "The Filipino Legal Education", in Coquia, Jorge, The Legal Profession, Manila: Rex Book Store, 1993, 5.
[10] id.; see also Flerida Ruth Romero, "The Challenges to Legal Education in the Philippines", in Coquia, supra, 78.
[39] Coquia, 3. In Japan, Thailand and Germany, no bar exams are required to be a lawyer.All that is needed are academic training and apprenticeship. See Cortes, 235-236. The same rule applies in Indonesia.
