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; that62.91 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 unitsof 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

MandatoryContinuingLegalEducation
MCLE LIST OF ACCREDITED PROVIDERS
as of March 2002

Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz Offices (ACCRA Law)

ACCRA Building, 122 Gamboa Street, Legaspi Village, Makati
ADDRESS 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
BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, East Triangle, Diliman,
ADDRESS Quezon City
Atty. Edmundo P. Guevarra - Deputy Commissioner, Legal and
CONTACT PERSON 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 Elepao 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
Suites 800, 805-809, Ermita Center Building, 1350 Roxas
ADDRESS Boulevard, Ermita, Manila
CONTACT PERSON Dean Ricardo L. Sadac - President and Bar ReviewDirector
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 BaguioBenguet
 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

Suite 3-E (3rd Floor) Maryville Square Building., Mc. Arthur
ADDRESS 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
Rm. 235, Hall of Justice Building, City Hall Compound, Quezon
ADDRESS City
CONTACT PERSON Gov. Santos V. Catubay Jr. - Gov. IBP-Greater ManilaRegion
TELEPHONE 925-7183
TELEFAX NUMBER 925-7183
APPLICATION DATE 2001-09-11
EXPIRATION DATE 2003-09-10
IBP Makati City Chapter
UG 39, Cityland Dela Rsa Condminium, Dela Rosa Street, Makati
ADDRESS City, Metro Manila
CONTACT PERSON Atty. Aileen Duremdes - Chairman, Legal EducationCommittee
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-MisamisOriental Chapter)
TELEPHONE (088) 858-6143
TELEFAX NUMBER (088) 858-6143
APPLICATION DATE 2001-09-28
EXPIRATION DATE 2003-09-27
IBP National Office
IBP Building, 15 Doa Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig
ADDRESS 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
Judge Jose R. De Venecia Sr., Memorial Hall, Bonuan Tondaligan,
ADDRESS 2400 Dagupan City
CONTACT PERSON Atty. Vicente Marteja Jr. - Chairman of ContinuingLegal Education
TELEPHONE -
TELEFAX NUMBER (075) 552-5891
APPLICATION DATE 2001-10-11
EXPIRATION DATE 2003-10-10

IBP Pasay-Paraaque-Las Pias-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.
2nd Floor, Ocampo Heritage Building, 214 Wilson Street,
ADDRESS 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 Pias City Bar Association (LPBA)
c/o the Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices. Unit 15, Star
ADDRESS Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue, Philamlife Village, Las Pias 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
ACP Armando C. Velasco - Assistant City Prosecutor,P.R.O.,
CONTACT PERSON 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
3rd Floor, Gusaling Katipunan, General Luna Street, Intramuros,
ADDRESS 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. Hofilea - 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 RegulationDepartment
TELEPHONE 725-3702
TELEFAX NUMBER 726-1593
APPLICATION DATE 2002-02-01
EXPIRATION DATE 2004-01-31

Quisumbing Torres Law Office

11th Floor, Pacific Star Building, Makati Avenue, cor Sen. Gil
ADDRESS Puyat, Makati City
Atty. Rodrigo Lope S. Quimbo - Partner, QuisumbingTorres Law
CONTACT PERSON 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).