Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Preparatory to filing a complaint for violation of BP22 The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him
that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his
RULE 7 knowledge, information and belief there is a good ground
to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. An
Parts of a Pleading
unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the
SECTION 1. Caption. — The caption sets forth the name of court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be
the court, the title of the action, and the docket number if remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
assigned. inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent
They shall all be named in the original complaint or matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a
petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate
the name of the first party on each side be stated with an disciplinary action. (5a)
appropriate indication when there are other parties. Their
respective participation in the case shall be indicated. (1a,
2a)
SECTION 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be
under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
SECTION 2. The body. — The body of the pleading sets forth
its designation, the allegations of the party’s claims or A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has
defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true
pleading. (n) and correct of his personal knowledge or based on
authentic records.
Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a pleading
shall be divided into paragraphs so numbered as to be A pleading required to be verified which contains a
readily identified, each of which shall contain a statement verification based on “information and belief, or upon
of a single set of circumstances so far as that can be done “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper
with convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (4a)
number in all succeeding pleadings. (3a) (As amended by SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 48-00,
August 29, 2000, [A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC. Re: Amendments To
(b) Headings. — When two or more causes of action are Section 4, Rule 7 And Section 13, Rule 41 Of The 1997 Rules
joined, the statement of the first shall be prefaced by the Of Civil Procedure]).
words, “first cause of action,” of the second by “second
cause of action,” and so on for the others.
When one or more paragraphs in the answer are addressed SECTION 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The
to one of several causes of action in the complaint, they plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
shall be prefaced by the words “answer to the first cause of complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
action” or “answer to the second cause of action” and so relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
on; and when one or more paragraphs of the answer are simultaneously filed therewith; (a) that he has not
addressed to several causes of action they shall be prefaced therefore commenced any action or filed any claim
by words to that effect. (4) involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such
(c) Relief . — The pleading shall specify the relief sought, other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such
but it may add a general prayer for such further or other as other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
may be deemed just or equitable. (3a, R6) present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
(d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. (n)
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
SECTION 3. Signature and address. — Every pleading must
be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not
in either case his address which should not be a post office be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
box. initiatory pleading but shall be cause for dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
1
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false SECTION 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all
certification or non-compliance with any of the averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with
court, without prejudice to the corresponding particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition
administrative and criminal sanctions. If the acts of the of the mind of a person may be averred generally. (5)
party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate
forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary
dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
SECTION 6. Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial
(n)
tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the
judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing
jurisdiction to render it. (6)
RULE 8
SECTION 3. Conditions precedent. — In any pleading a SECTION 9. Official document or act. — In pleading an
general averment of the performance or occurrence of all official document or official act it is sufficient to aver that
conditions precedent shall be sufficient. (3) the document was issued or the act done in compliance
with law. (9)
2
averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of
shall have the effect of a denial. (10a) court. (1a, R18)
3
panlalawigan may determine but shall in no case exceed
Three hundred pesos (P300.00).
4
k. Bar Matter No. 287, SC En Banc Resolution dated July 9,
1985, quoted in OCA Circular No. 10-85, July 24, 1985
CIRCULAR NO. 10
[1985]
5
L..[B.M. No. 1132.November 12, 2002]
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
6
Am No. 07-6-5-SC on the recommendation of the Project Management Office
(PMO) and Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Chair of the
[A.M. No. 07-6-6-SC : February 26, 2010] Computerization and Library Committee, Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno directed the preparation of the
RE: NON-OBSERVANCE BY ATTY. EDEN T. CANDELARIA, reappointment paper of Mendoza as MISO Chief. But the
CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (OAS), OF EN BANC Chief Justice set it to last for six months.
RESOLUTION A.M. NO. 05-9-29-SC DATED SEPTEMBER 27,
2005 AND EN BANC RULING IN OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN V. The Office of the Administrative Services (OAS), through its
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (G.R. NO. 159940 DATED Chief, Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, prepared the paper, stating
FEBRUARY 16, 2005), in it that Mendoza's reappointment was coterminous with
Chief Justice Puno but he was to serve for only six months
DECISION from December 7, 2006. On January 4, 2007 the OAS
submitted this and the earlier coterminous appointments
of Mendoza to the CSC for approval.
ABAD, J.:
Four months later or on May 8, 2007 the PMO
recommended the permanent appointment of Mendoza as
Chief of MISO after he passed the Career Service
This administrative matter is about the possible liability of
Professional Exams. But action on this was deferred to first
the Court's Chief of Administrative Services as a
await the CSC's approval of Mendoza's coterminous
consequence of the Civil Service Commission's (CSC's)
appointments. On June 1, 2007, however, the CSC
denial on June 1, 2007 of the two coterminous
disapproved Mendoza's coterminous appointments on the
appointments of Joseph Raymond Mendoza as Chief of the
ground that the CSC had no occasion to declare the position
Management and Information Systems Office (MISO).
of Chief of MISO as primarily confidential, highly technical,
The Facts and the Case or policy-determining as to qualify Mendoza to a
coterminous appointment. The CSC letter to the Court
stated in part:
On September 27, 2005 the Court en banc issued a
resolution in A.M. 05-9-29-SC, classifying as highly technical In a letter dated September 1, 2006 to CSC, [Atty.
or policy-determining the position of Chief of MISO, a Candelaria] represented that except for the positions of
permanent item in the Court's list of personnel. On March Executive Assistant III and Chauffer, all the positions in the
14, 2006 the Court additionally issued a resolution in A.M. MISO are permanent in nature.
06-3-07-SC, establishing the qualification standards for
Chief of MISO, including a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Sec. 12 (9), Chapter 3, Book V of the Administrative Code of
Science or any equally comparable degree with Master in 1987 states in part the following:
Science Degree in Computer Science or Information
Sec. 12. Powers and Functions.-- The Commission shall have
Technology. The CSC approved these standards.
the following powers and functions: x x x
7
Records are bereft of any showing that the position of Chief
of MISO has been declared by the Commission as primarily On being required, Atty. Candelaria submitted on July 10,
confidential, highly technical or policy-determining to 2007 her comment. She denied committing the offenses
qualify as coterminous in nature. charged. She said that she submitted Mendoza's
appointments to the CSC for approval in compliance with
In view thereof x x x the coterminous appointments of the Civil Service Law and implementing rules and that she
[Mendoza] are disapproved.[1] would have faced administrative sanction if she had not.
9
positions has been dispensed with. It merely says that CSEE appointments and for adjudicating contested
or CES eligibility is no longer required for those positions. appointments.[8]
Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, who dissents from the Contrary to the view expressed in the dissenting opinion,
Court's opinion, cite in support of Justice Carpio's position the 2007 Ombudsman case did not do away with the
the 2007 identically titled case of Office of the Ombudsman requirement of CSC approval of appointments. It merely
v. Civil Service Commission.[4] In that case, the Office of the said that in passing upon and approving qualification
Ombudsman sought the CSC's approval of its amended standards, the CSC should not substitute its own standards
qualification standards for a Director II position. The for those of the department or agency concerned. Indeed,
amendment reduced the requirement from CSEE or CES the dispositive portion of the decision directed the CSC to
eligibility to that of Career Service Professional or other approve the Ombudsman's amended qualification
relevant eligibility for second level position, invoking the standards for Director II.
Court of Appeals ruling in Inok v. Civil Service
Commission[5] that the letter and intent of the law is to The requirement of CSC approval of qualification standards
restrict the CES eligibility to CES positions in the Executive is demonstrated in Paredes v. Civil Service
Department. The CES governed by the CES Board, it was Commission,[9] where the Court held that the CSC was in
claimed, did not cover the Office of the Ombudsman. But error in applying qualification standards that it had not
the CSC disapproved the amendment, saying that the CES previously approved. Not even the exigencies of the service
covered the Director II position being a third level position. can justify the use of unapproved qualification standards.
Said the Court:
This Court disagreed. It reiterated that the CES covers
presidential appointees only. Since Director II appointees Without a duly approved Qualification Standard it would be
are appointed by the Ombudsman, they are neither extremely difficult if not impossible for the appointing
embraced in the CES nor do they need to possess CES authority to determine the qualification and fitness of the
eligibility. The Court upheld the Ombudsman's applicant for the particular position. Without an approved
administrative control and supervision of its Office, Qualification Standard the appointing authority would have
including the authority to determine and establish the no basis or guide in extending a promotional or original
qualifications, duties, functions, and responsibilities of its appointment in filling up vacant positions in its department
various services. The Ombudsman, said the Court, or agency. Public interest therefore requires that a
possesses the authority to establish reasonable Qualification Standard must exist to guide the appointing
qualification standards for the personnel of the Office. The authority not only in extending an appointment but also in
CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of the settling contested appointments.[10]
department or agency, its role being limited only to
assisting the department or agency with respect to these
The applicable qualification standards for the position of
qualification standards and approving them.
Chief of MISO at the time of Mendoza's first appointment
included a requirement for a Bachelor's Degree in
The dissenting opinion interprets the above ruling as doing
Computer Science or any equally comparable degree with
away with the requirement of approval by the CSC of the
Master in Science Degree in Computer Science or
qualification standards set by the department or agency,
Information Technology. Mendoza simply did not have this
concluding that the qualification standards are effective as
qualification. Chief Justice Panganiban thus gave him a
of the date of their issuance by the department or agency.
coterminous appointment, not a permanent one, as Chief
of MISO, trusting that the CSC would approve it. Chief
But, although the law vests in the department or agency
Justice Puno followed suit, but with the further limitation
concerned the responsibility for establishing, administering,
that it was to last for six months. These are not the
and maintaining its qualification standards, such standards
circumstances contemplated by the
have to be drawn with the assistance and approval of the
2007 Ombudsman ruling.
CSC and in consultation with the Wage and Position
Classification Office.[6] The Court's ruling in the
At any rate, whether or not the CSC was correct in denying
2007 Ombudsman case affirms this.[7] The CSC approval is
Mendoza's appointments is of course irrelevant to the
still a must since it remains the government's clearing
charge against Atty. Candelaria. She is not answerable to
house for all appointments in the civil service. The duty to
the Court for the decision of the CSC no matter if that
enforce the laws on the selection, promotion, and discipline
decision is perceived to be wrong. All that she did was
of civil servants primarily rests in the CSC. Once approved,
submit those appointments to that constitutional body as
the qualification standards serve as guide for new
the law and the rules required of her.
10
independence. The dissenting opinion attacks Atty.
Parenthetically, the CSC apparently did not deny Mendoza's Candelaria's comment as eerily silent regarding the nature
coterminous and temporary appointments because it and details of the meeting.
disagreed that the position was highly technical, which it
was, by any reckoning. But the position of Chief of MISO is a But, first, the charge against Atty. Candelaria is about her
permanent position, he being the head of an office that failure to inform the Assistant Commissioner of CSC that
performs a vital and continuing function in the work of the the Court had already classified as highly technical or
Court. Yet, his appointments as recommended were to be policy-determining the position of Chief of MISO. Justice
coterminous with the tenure of the Chief Justice or for six Carpio did not charge her of improperly meeting sub
months, whichever ended first. This uncertain or diminutive rosa with the CSC Assistant Commissioner. The Court
tenure does not seem to make sense in the light of the cannot punish Atty. Candelaria for an alleged wrong of
constitutionally protected right to security of tenure of which she has not been charged nor given the opportunity
government personnel under the civil service system. of a hearing.
Two. Justice Carpio claims that Atty. Candelaria failed in her Second, under the rules of evidence, a party's silence only
duty to inform the Assistant Commissioner of CSC, whom amounts to admission when he is accused of some
she met shortly before that body disapproved Mendoza's wrongdoing that naturally calls for comment if not
appointments, that the Court had already classified as true.[11] Here, Justice Carpio censured Atty. Candelaria
highly technical or policy-determining the position of Chief solely for something she failed to tell the CSC Assistant
of MISO. Commissioner at that meeting and she commented on this,
defending her omission. The censure did not call for her to
Atty. Candelaria does not deny failing to tell the Assistant defend the meeting itself or disclose its other details.
Commissioner at that meeting that the Court already Consequently, it would not be fair to infer that Atty.
classified the position of Chief of MISO as policy- Candelaria had chosen to be "eerily silent" regarding those
determining or highly technical. But, as the record shows, other details.
her office sent a copy of the Court's resolution in A.M. 05-9-
29-SC embodying that classification to the CSC earlier on The dissenting opinion of course insists that the technical
October 18, 2005. Indeed, the CSC wrote back to say that it rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to
had placed on record the Court's classification for guidance administrative proceedings. This may be true but only with
and reference. Further, Atty. Candelaria's office also respect to those rules that are really "technical" like a
attached to Mendoza's first appointment a certification party's failure in a petition for review to state the correct
that the Court had classified the position of Chief of MISO evidence of the identity of the person who signed the
as highly technical. These rendered it unnecessary for Atty. certification of non-forum shopping. Rules of evidence that
Candelaria to reiterate the matter to the CSC Assistant are founded on fairness, such as the rule that a party's
Commissioner at their meeting. silence only amounts to admission when he is accused of
some wrongdoing that naturally calls for comment if not
Still, Atty. Candelaria should have immediately taken up true, are not technical rules that can be thrown out when
with the Court the result of her meeting with the Assistant convenient--even in administrative proceedings.
Commissioner of the CSC. It seems likely that the latter
gave her an inkling of the position that the CSC might take Third, even Justice Carpio, who appeared stunned and
on Mendoza's appointments. Of course, neither Atty. despaired by the CSC's disapproval of Mendoza's
Candelaria nor the Assistant Commissioner had control of appointments and had information about the
the actions of the CSC but, by the nature of the circumstances of the subject meeting, was critical of it only
bureaucracy, the outright denial of Mendoza's because Atty. Candelaria did not tell the CSC Assistant
appointments could have been aborted and the matter Commissioner that the Court had already classified the
negotiated to the satisfaction of the two Constitutional position of Chief of MISO as highly technical or policy-
bodies. Since this is not a step prescribed by the rules, determining. Justice Carpio did not make out a case of
however, it cannot be said that Atty. Candelaria had treachery against her.
violated a duty enjoined on her by law.
There is no evidence for instance that the meeting took
The dissenting opinion would have Atty. Candelaria held to place at the wee hours of the night behind some trees at
answer for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the the Luneta Park. Justice Carpio, who seems to know what
service for having met, sub rosa, with the CSC Assistant the two talked about at that meeting, did not characterize
Commissioner, thereby undermining the judiciary's it as done secretly or sub rosa. Many court employees are
11
required by their jobs to meet and transact business with
those from other government agencies. That these But in a temporary appointment, the appointee meets all
employees give no prior briefing to the Court about the the requirements for the position except the appropriate
purposes of such meetings cannot justify an assumption civil service eligibility. At the time of his second
that those meetings took place sub rosa. appointment, Mendoza did not meet even the lowered
qualification standards that the Court set for his position.
Further the dissenting opinion recalls that Atty. Candelaria The lesser standards wanted a bachelor's degree holder
had disagreed with the Court's position that coterminous with a major in computer science. Mendoza's transcript of
appointments can be made for permanent positions. The records from the Philippine Military Academy showed that
dissenting opinion speculates that her views may have, he had a bachelor's degree but not the required major. He
through discussions with its Assistant Commissioner, took a master's course in computer science at the Ateneo
influenced the CSC's opinion regarding the propriety of Information Technology Institute but his transcript there
Mendoza's appointments. But such speculation places an does not show that he finished the course or had been
unfairly low esteem on the competence of the CSC and its conferred a master's degree in Computer
head, experts in the legal requirements of all sorts of Science.[13] Consequently, the Court could not give
appointments. It cannot be assumed that the CSC would Mendoza a temporary appointment as Chief of MISO.
give more weight to the opinion of a subordinate like Atty.
Candelaria than to the opinion of the Court and its Chief The coterminous appointment that the PMO and Justice
Justice. Carpio recommended for Mendoza was also apparently
problematical since the Court and the CSC had always
Besides, honest difference in opinion cannot be a cause for regarded his position as permanent, not dependent on the
unfavorable inference or speculation. If this were so, the tenure of the appointing power. The job of the Chief of
Court itself would have no reason for being. Honest MISO does not fit the usual descriptions of primarily
disagreements are catalysts of sound ideas especially in confidential positions that call for trust and confidence
democratic institutions like the Court. above anything else.
Three. Justice Carpio claims that Atty. Candelaria exhibited In sum, no sufficient ground exists to take disciplinary
gross incompetence when she stated in Mendoza's second action against Atty. Candelaria for gross neglect of duty,
appointment that it was "coterminous" with the term of gross incompetence in the performance of official duties,
the Chief Justice rather than simply that it was for a term of and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
six months as the Chief Justice directed. At most, she may be admonished in regard to the results of
her meeting with the CSC Assistant Commissioner.
But, firstly, in making that statement in the second
appointment, Atty. Candelaria merely echoed the Court's WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to NOTE Atty. Eden T.
stand respecting the nature of Mendoza's appointment as Candelaria's Comment dated July 10, 2007 and
coterminous. The Court originally adopted this idea on to ADMONISH her for failing to take up with the Court the
recommendation of the PMO and Justice Carpio when Chief results of the meeting she had with the Assistant
Justice Panganiban issued Mendoza's first appointment. Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission.
The Court had done nothing since then to change that
stand. SO ORDERED.
12
BM 1922
Sirs/Mesdames:
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation." Caprio-
Morales Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., on official leave.
(adv216a)
13
AM 05-11-07-CTA address to the Clerk of Court and file his written
appearance within forty-eight hours from such open court
A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA November 22, 2005 appearance. An attorney or party who has filed his
appearance and who changes his address of record shall
REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
notify the Clerk of Court and the adverse party of such
Sirs/Mesdames: change of address, and a separate notice of such change of
address shall be filed for each additional case. (RCTA, Rule
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of 10, sec. 1a)
this Court dated NOV 22 2005.
22 November 2005.
RULE 6
PLEADINGS FILED WITH THE COURT
14
P.B.M. No. 2012 February 10, 2009 expedite the resolution of cases involving them. Mandatory
free legal service by members of the bar and their active
PROPOSED RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE FOR support thereof will aid the efficient and effective
PRACTICING LAWYERS administration of justice especially in cases involving
indigent and pauper litigants.
RESOLUTION
SECTION 3. Scope. - This Rule shall govern the mandatory
Acting on the Memorandum dated January 27, 2009 of
requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid
Justice Renato C. Corona re: Comment of the Integrated Bar
services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or
of the Philippines on our Suggested Revisions to the
administrative) involving indigent and pauper litigants
Proposed Rule of Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing
where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It shall also
Lawyers, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.
govern the duty of other members of the legal profession
This Resolution shall take effect on July 1, 2009 following to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of
publication of the said Rule and its implementing the Philippines.
regulations in at least two (2) newpapers of general
SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule:
circulation.
(a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar
February 10, 2009
who appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and
quasi-judicial agencies, including but not limited to the
National Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation
REYNATO S. and Mediation Board, Department PUNO of Labor and
Chief Justice Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board and National Commission for
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO Indigenous Peoples. The term "practicing lawyers" shall
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice Associate Justiceexclude:
15
motions. It shall also cover assistance by a practicing lawyer (b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and
to indigent or poor litigants in court-annexed mediation obtain a certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting to the
and in other modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). number of hours spent rendering free legal aid services in a
Services rendered when a practicing lawyer is appointed case.
counsel de oficio shall also be considered as free legal aid
services and credited as compliance under this Rule; The certificate shall contain the following information:
(e) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official (i) The case or cases where the legal aid service was
national organization of lawyers in the country; rendered, the party or parties in the said case(s) for whom
the service was rendered, the docket number of the said
(f) National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) is the case(s) and the date(s) the service was rendered.
committee of the IBP which is specifically tasked with
handling legal aid cases; (ii) The number of hours actually spent attending a hearing
or conducting trial on a particular case in the court or quasi-
(g) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) is the committee of judicial body.
the IBP which is specifically tasked with disciplining
members of the Bar; (iii) The number of hours actually spent attending
mediation, conciliation or any other mode of ADR on a
(h) IBP Chapters are those chapters of the Integrated Bar of particular case.
the Philippines located in the different geographical areas
of the country as defined in Rule 139-A and (iv) A motion (except a motion for extension of time to file a
pleading or for postponement of hearing or conference) or
(i) Clerk of Court is the Clerk of Court of the court where the pleading filed on a particular case shall be considered as
practicing lawyer rendered free legal aid services. In the one (1) hour of service.
case of quasi-judicial bodies, it refers to an officer holding
an equivalent or similar position. The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in triplicate,
one (1) copy to be retained by the practicing lawyer, one (1)
The term shall also include an officer holding a similar copy to be retained by the Clerk of Court and one (1) copy
position in agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or a to be attached to the lawyer's compliance report.
responsible officer of an accredited PO or NGO, or an
accredited mediator who conducted the court-annexed (c) Said compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal
mediation proceeding. Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter within the court’s
jurisdiction. The Legal Aid Chairperson shall then be tasked
SECTION 5. Requirements. - with immediately verifying the contents of the certificate
with the issuing Clerk of Court by comparing the copy of the
(a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum certificate attached to the compliance report with the copy
of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent retained by the Clerk of Court.
litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread within a
period of twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five (5) (d) The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a
hours of free legal aid services each month. However, compliance certificate to the concerned lawyer. The IBP
where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to render Chapter shall also submit the compliance reports to the
legal aid service for more than five (5) hours in one month, IBP’s NCLA for recording and documentation. The
the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the submission shall be made within forty-five (45) days after
succeeding periods. the mandatory submission of compliance reports by the
practicing lawyers.
For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with
the Clerk of Court for cases where he may render free legal (e) Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed
aid service. He may also coordinate with the IBP Legal Aid before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and
Chairperson of the IBP Chapter to inquire about cases date of issue of their certificate of compliance for the
where he may render free legal aid service. In this immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to
connection, the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP disclose the required information would cause the dismissal
Chapter shall regularly and actively coordinate with the of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the
Clerk of Court. records.
The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the (f) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by
requirement within ten (10) days of the last month of each the category under Section 4(a)(i) and (ii), shall fill up a
quarter of the year. form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that
16
year, they are employed with the government or pursuant to this Rule to effectively carry out the provisions
incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice of this Rule. For this purpose, it shall annually submit an
or lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court. accounting to the IBP Board of Governors.
The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP The accounting shall be included by the IBP in its report to
Chapter or IBP National Office together with the payment the Supreme Court in connection with its request for the
of an annual contribution of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000). release of the subsidy for its legal aid program.
Said contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP
for the support of its legal aid program. SECTION 7. Penalties. -
(g) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by (a) At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer
the category under Section 4(a)(iii) shall secure a who fails to meet the minimum prescribed 60 hours of legal
certification from the director of the legal clinic or of the aid service each year shall be required by the IBP, through
concerned NGO or PO to the effect that, during that year, the NCLA, to explain why he was unable to render the
they have served as supervising lawyers in a legal clinic or minimum prescribed number of hours. If no explanation
actively participated in the NGO’s or PO’s free legal aid has been given or if the NCLA finds the explanation
activities. The certification shall be submitted to the IBP unsatisfactory, the NCLA shall make a report and
Chapter or IBP National Office. recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors that the
erring lawyer be declared a member of the IBP who is not in
(h) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by good standing. Upon approval of the NCLA’s
the category under Section 4(a)(iv) shall fill up a form recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors shall declare
prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, the erring lawyer as a member not in good standing. Notice
they are neither practicing lawyers nor covered by Section thereof shall be furnished the erring lawyer and the IBP
(4)(a)(i) to (iii). The form shall be sworn to and submitted to Chapter which submitted the lawyer’s compliance report or
the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the the IBP Chapter where the lawyer is registered, in case he
payment of an annual contribution of Four Thousand Pesos did not submit a compliance report. The notice to the
(P4,000) by way of support for the efforts of practicing lawyer shall include a directive to pay Four Thousand Pesos
lawyers who render mandatory free legal aid services. Said (P4,000) penalty which shall accrue to the special fund for
contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the the legal aid program of the IBP.
support of its legal aid program.
(b) The "not in good standing" declaration shall be effective
(i) Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the for a period of three (3) months from the receipt of the
lawyer to a penalty of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) for erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP Board of
that year which amount shall also accrue to the special fund Governors. During the said period, the lawyer cannot
for the legal aid program of the IBP. appear in court or any quasi-judicial body as counsel.
Provided, however, that the "not in good standing" status
SECTION 6. NCLA. - shall subsist even after the lapse of the three-month period
until and unless the penalty shall have been paid.
(a) The NCLA shall coordinate with the various legal aid
committees of the IBP local chapters for the proper (c) Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this
handling and accounting of legal aid cases which practicing Rule for at least three (3) consecutive years shall be the
lawyers can represent. subject of disciplinary proceedings to be instituted motu
proprio by the CBD. The said proceedings shall afford the
(b) The NCLA shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of
erring lawyer due process in accordance with the rules of
the Legal Aid Office with respect to the coordination with
the CBD and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. If found
Clerks of Court on legal aid cases and the collation of
administratively liable, the penalty of suspension in the
certificates submitted by practicing lawyers.
practice of law for one (1) year shall be imposed upon him.
(c) The NCLA shall act as the national repository of records
(d) Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form
in compliance with this Rule.
required to be submitted under this Rule or any contents
(d) The NCLA shall prepare the following forms: certificate thereof shall be administratively charged with falsification
to be issued by the Clerk of Court and forms mentioned in and dishonesty and shall be subject to disciplinary action by
Section 5(e) and (g). the CBD. This is without prejudice to the filing of criminal
charges against the lawyer.
(e) The NCLA shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the
contributions and penalties that will be paid by lawyers
17
(e) The falsification of a certificate or any contents thereof
by any Clerk of Court or by any Chairperson of the Legal Aid
Committee of the IBP local chapter where the case is
pending or by the Director of a legal clinic or responsible
officer of an NGO or PO shall be a ground for an
administrative case against the said Clerk of Court or
Chairperson. This is without prejudice to the filing of the
criminal and administrative charges against the malfeasor.
18