CIRCULAR NO.

10 July 24, 1985

SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS AND ORDERS
TO: INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, SANDIGAN-BAYAN,
COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRLAL COURTS IN
CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: INCLUSION OF NUMBER AND DATE OF OFFICIAL
RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES TO THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES IN ALL PLEADINGS,
MOTIONS AND PAPERS TO BE FILED IN COURT.
For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the
Resolution En Banc of this Court, dated July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No. 287,
to wit:
Effective August 1, 1985, all lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings, motions
and papers signed and filed by them in any court in the Philippines, the
number and date of their official receipt indicating payment of their annual
membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current
year; provided, however, that such official receipt number and date for any
year may be availed of and indicated in all such pleadings, motions and papers
filed by them in court up to the end of the month of February of the next
succeeding year.
Strict compliance herewith is hereby enjoined.
July 24, 1985.

[B.M. No. 1132.November 12, 2002]

RE:REQUEST TO REQUIRE LAWYERS TO INDICATE IN THE
PLEADING THEIR NUMBER IN THE ROLL OF ATTYS.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 12
NOV 2002.
Bar Matter No. 1132(Re:Request to Require Lawyers to Indicate in the
Pleading their Number in the Roll of Attorneys.)
The Court Resolved, upon recommendation of the Office of the Bar
Confidant, to GRANT the request of the Board of Governors of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte to
require all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers or
pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in addition
to the requirement of indicating the current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR)
and the IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.
Strict compliance herewith is
immediately.Austria-Martinez, J., is on leave.

hereby

enjoined

effective

xx__________________________________________________________xx
xx___________________________________________________________xx

EN BANC

RE: REQUEST OF CHIEF JUSTICE

ANDRES R. NARVASA (RET.) FOR RECOMPUTATION OF HIS CREDITABLE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE.

A.M.No. 07-6-10-SC
x
-

--------------------------------------------x

The retired CJ, assisted by Justice Bernardo P. Pardo (Ret.), however,

comes before this Court anew, this time to request the re-computation of his
retirement benefits based on a Basic Monthly Salary (BMS) that includes the
step increments he claims to have accrued in his favor as provided for in the
Salary Standardization Law, Republic Act No. 6758. [1] His letter contains his
own computations of his monthly pension and SAJ since December 1, 2003 as
well as the money value of the 142 leave credits he was required to
reimburse. In all, his computations show a total deficiency of P224,198.74, the
amount allegedly still due him as of February 29, 2008.

The Court, by Resolution of March 25, 2008,[2] noted the letter of the
retired CJ and referred his request for comment within 30 days from notice to
the Deputy Clerk of Court and FMBO Chief Atty. Corazon Ferrer-Flores
(Flores) or FMBO Chief.

RESOLUTION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

By letter dated March 10, 2008, Chief Justice (CJ) Andres R. Narvasa (Ret.)
thanked the Court for its Resolution of January 15, 2008 approving his
entitlement to monthly pension and directing the Fiscal Management and
Budget Office (FMBO) to immediately determine the value of the 142 days
leave that he was required to reimburse to the Court to pave the way for the
payment of his monthly pensions starting December 1, 2003. He informed the
Court that he received payment of his accumulated monthly pensions, Special
Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ), and monthly annuities with SAJ
components on February 16, 2008.

By Comment dated May 28, 2008, [3] Flores stresses at the outset that
the FMBO based the computation of the retired CJs monthly pension on the
January 30, 2008 memorandum of the Office of the Administrative Services
(OAS) which keeps track of the creditable services of Supreme Court officials
and employees and furnishes the necessary supporting documents for the
preparation of the vouchers for the payment of retirement benefits.

Regarding the monetary value of the 142 leave credits that the retired
CJ was required to reimburse, Flores clarifies that the correct amount
is P386,963.61 as computed by the retired CJ, and not P393,752.45 which was
deducted from his accumulated monthly pensions following the OAS
computation. The difference of P6,788.84 has thus to be reimbursed to him,
she says.

Flores points out that in computing the total monetary value of the
retired CJs leave credits which he was asked to reimburse, the OAS factored
the Personnel Emergency Relief Allowance (PERA) and the additional
compensation (ADCOM), apparently in accordance with the Courts Resolution
of February 29, 2000 in A.M. No. 99-8-05-SC [4] holding that the same be
included in the computation of retirement benefits and terminal leave pay of
justices and judges. The monetary value of the leave credits actually received
by the CJ did not, however, include the PERA and ADCOM in the
computation thereof.

Regarding the retired CJs entitlement to step increments,

Flores refers to the provisions of applicable laws and this Courts
resolutions, viz:

one (1) step increment shall be granted for every 3 years of

continuous satisfactory service in the position.

3. Resolution of January 25, 2000 in A.M. No. 99-12-01SC, which granted justices and judges increment through length of
service, in addition to their longevity pay, subject to the condition
that payments of increments shall include only those that have
accrued effective January 1999 and subject further to availability of
funds.

[5]

1. Section 13 (c) of R.A. No. 6758 or the SSL, that

effective January 1, 1990, step increments shall be granted based on
merit and/or length of service in accordance with rules and
regulations that will be promulgated jointly by the DBM and the
Civil Service Commission.

2. CSC and DBM Joint Circular No. 1, s. 1996, as amended

by Joint CSC and DBM Circular No. 2 series of 1991 dated July 5,
1991.

Section 1 of the aforementioned circular, as amended,

makes the rules and regulations applicable to all officials and
employees in the national and local governments x x x who are
appointed on a permanent status in the career and non-career
service. Section 2 meanwhile provides the grant of step increments
to all deserving officials and employees based, among other
criteria, on the rendition of continuous service in a particular
position for at least three (3) years. Section 3 further provides that a

4. Resolution dated May 28, 2002, in A.M. No. 02-5-06SC, which approved the formula for computing the longevity pay
(LP) and step increments (SI) of justices and judges of lower
courts, as follows:
(1) x x x
(2) The proper step increments that have accrued
from 1 January 1990 until 1 January 1999 shall be paid
starting from the latter date provided that there shall be no
back pay for step increments that accrued from 1 January
1990 to 31 December 1998, as the difference between
salary actually received and the earned step increments
during the period shall be deemed waived and forfeited.

As the service record of the retired CJ shows that he served as Chief

Justice from December 8, 1991 to November 29, 1998, Floresemphasizes that
he had earned step increments equivalent to three (3) steps during the said
period. The non-crediting of these step increments, she opines, may have been
due to the interpretation by the OAS of the Courts Resolutions dated January
25, 2000 and May 28, 2002 that the step increments apply only to incumbent
justices and judges as of January 1999.

Flores states, however, that January 1, 1999 was set in the

aforementioned Court Resolutions only for the purpose of reckoning the
payments for step increments without precluding incumbent justices and
judges who had rendered service from January 1, 1990 to January 1,
1999 from earning step increments. This interpretation is more in accord with
the liberality of retirement laws, she adds.

another position in the Government or who retired was receiving at

the time of his cessation in the office: Provided, That any benefits that
have already accrued prior to such increase or decrease shall not be
affected thereby.

The Court finds the comments of the FMBO chief well taken.
Flores thus submits that the monthly pension of the retired CJ should
have been computed on the basis of the basic monthly salary of a Chief Justice
at SG 32, Step 3, of P48,539. This amount, she points out, is the basis of the
re-computation by the OAS [6] of the monthly pension of the retired CJ, which
also shows the adjustment of the Representation and Traveling Allowance
(RATA)[7] and the ADCOM.[8]

Flores reports that

his accumulated monthly
beginning December 1,
the P6,788.84 which he
of P250,198.74, she says.

a total of P243,409.90 is still due the retired CJ for

pensions (including the SAJ component thereof)
2003 up to February 29, 2008. Together with
overpaid, the retired CJ is entitled to a total

Flores further recommends that the corresponding adjustments be

made on the monthly pension of the former CJ to reflect the 10% salary
increase authorized by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 611 and the corresponding
deduction from the monthly SAJ component in accordance with the resolution
of the Court dated March 31, 2008 in A.M. No. 07-8-3-SC. This adjustment,
she says, is also in consonance with Section 3-A of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
910, as amended:

Sec. 3-A. In case the salary of Justices of the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeals is increased or decreased, such increased or
decreased salary shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be
the salary or the retirement pension which a Justice who as of June
twelve, nineteen hundred fifty-four had ceased to be such to accept

The inclusion by the OAS of both the PERA and the ADCOM in the
computation of the monetary value of the 142 days leave credits that the
retired CJ was required to reimburse to the Court may have indeed been
prompted by the Courts Resolution of February 29, 2000 in A.M. No. 99-8-05SC declaring that the PERA and the ADCOM must be included in the
computation of retirement benefits and terminal leave pay of justices and
judges, viz:

Republic Act 8250 (GAA for CY 1997) granted PERA to

all government employees and officials as a replacement of the
[Cost of Living Allowance} COLA. Effective January 1, 1999,
ADCOM was granted pursuant to RA 8745. Both PERA and
ADCOM are financial benefits given to augment the takehome pay of government employees in view of the increasing
cost of living. Both financial benefits are part of compensation
embraced in the term living allowance provided under
Republic Act No. 910, as amended. In the Borromeo case,[9] we
included COLA in the computation of retirement benefits because
COLA was part of the basic salary, thereby recognizing that
COLA must be part of the retirement package. Both PERA and
ADCOM are part of the compensation of government
employees, including members of the judiciary. x x x .
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

As reflected earlier, however, the terminal leave pay received by the

retired CJ did not include the PERA and ADCOM in the computation

thereof. The computer printout of his Voucher[10] for Terminal Leave shows
that the commutation of the money value of his terminal leave with pay as
Chief Justice was based on the following: (a) monthly salary of P40,000; (b)
LP of P4,000; and (c) RATA at P13,000 from November 30, 1998 to December
3, 2001.

Early on in Borromeo v. Civil Service Commission,[11] this Court held

that RATA and COLA (now the PERA) should be included in the highest
monthly salary in computing the terminal leave pay of the therein petitioner,
retired chairperson of the Civil Service Commission.The Court ruled:

A different law, R.A. 910 as amended, governs the

petitioner. In the case of members of the Judiciary and
Constitutional Commissions, the basis in computing the
retirement gratuity if the highest monthly aggregate of
transportation, living and representation allowance (COLA and
RATA).x x x.

Clearly then, the retired CJs terminal leave pay must be computed with
the PERA and ADCOM components. As such, the P6,788.84 that the FMBO
chief recommends to be refunded to former CJ Narvasa should not be
considered an overpayment but, more appropriately, a deficiency payment or
differential between the amount actually due him as terminal leave pay
(P393,752.45) and the amount actually received by him (P386,963.618).

As to the inclusion of the step increments claimed by the retired CJ,

the FMBO likewise correctly points out that his pension starting December 1,
2003 should be recomputed based on the total BMS of an incumbent CJ at SG
32, Step 3.

It may be recalled that by Resolution of January 25, 2000 in A.M. No.

99-12-01-SB,[14] the Court grant[ed] justices and judges increment through
length of service, in addition to their longevity pay, subject to the condition
that payments of increments should include only those that have accrued
effective January 1999 and subject further to availability of funds.

x x x x.
Since terminal leave pay may also be considered a
gratuity, then applying the rule on liberal interpretation of
retirement laws, the basis for its computation in the case of
members of the Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions must
be the same as that used in computing the 5-year lump sum
gratuity under RA 910 as amended and Administrative Order No.
444.[12]

Further to the computation of the LP and step increments of judges of

the lower courts, the Court in A.M. No. 02-5-06-SC [15] resolved to approve the
formula recommended by the Chief Attorney for computing the LP [16] and step
increments of lower court judges, as follows:

(1)
Borromeo, however, held that the inclusion of COLA and RATA in the
computation of terminal leave pay applied only to those qualified members of
the Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions who retired or shall retire on or
after the change of government in February, 1986. [13]

(a)

Longevity pay shall be computed as follows:

For the first five-year period, by multiplying the

basic monthly salary including step increments and
salary increases, by five percent (5%) x x x;

(b)

For the second five-year period, by multiplying the

basic monthly salary including step increments, salary
increases and the earned longevity pay, by five percent
(5%) x x x.

x x x x.

2) The proper step increments that have accrued from 1

January 1990 until 1 January 1999 shall be paid starting
from the latter date provided that there shall be no back pay
for step increments that accrued from 1 January 1990 to
31 December 1998, as the difference between salary actually
received and the earned step increments during that period
shall be deemed waived and forfeited. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

The foregoing recognized that step increments accrued from January 1,

1990 to January 1, 1998 although the same could not be the subject of back
pay. It cannot be gainsaid, however, that the step increments already earned
should form part of the BMS of the government officials or employees
concerned at the time of their compulsory retirement for the purpose of
computing retirement gratuity and monthly pension.

The Court, by Resolution of February 24, 2004 in A.M. No. 03-12-04SC, has clarified that the BMS under Section 2 [17] of R.A. No. 9227 is the
actual basic monthly salary of Justices and Judges, including step increments
and longevity pay. Insofar as the inclusion of step increments is concerned,
the Court held:

1. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9227 provides that

basic monthly salary shall be that which is in accordance
with the basic monthly salary specified for the respective
salary grades of Justices and Judges under Republic Act
No. 6758. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6758 provides for a
Salary Schedule that allows eight (8) step increments per
Salary Grade. Said section further provides that [a]ll salaries
in the Salary Schedule expressed as monthly rates in pesos
shall represent full compensation for full time employment
regardless of where the work is performed. Considering that
step increment is made a component of the Salary
Schedule, which in turn represents full compensation, it
only follows that step increments form part of basic
salary. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

It also bears noting that in the May 26, 2008 Memorandum [18] of the
OAS to the FMBO, the former reconsidered the bases for computing the
retired CJs monthly pension at SG 32, Step 3, rather than at SG 32, Step 1, that
was reported in its previous Memorandum of January 30, 2008. The
RATA[19] and ADCOM[20] components of the total monthly pension of the
retired CJ were also adjusted to reflect the increased amounts thereof.

Finally, the Court finds merit in Flores position that the salary and SAJ
component of the monthly pension of the former CJ must be adjusted to reflect
the 10% basic salary increase authorized under E.O. No. 611 [21] which, in turn,
translates into a corresponding deduction of the SAJ component.

In previous Resolutions,[22] this Court has categorically held that the

special allowances are actually part of the increased salary of justices and
judges and all other positions in the judiciary with equivalent rank. A fortiori,
such salary becomes the basis of the retirement pension of the retiree at the
time of his cessation from office.[23]

The Court in A.M. No. 07-8-3-SC[24] further clarified that pursuant to

Section 6 of R.A. No. 9227,[25] viz:

Sec. 6. Effects of Subsequent Salary Increase. - Upon

implementation of any subsequent increase in the
salary rates provided under Republic Act No. 6758, as
amended, all special allowances granted under this Act to
justices and all other positions in the Judiciary with the
equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and
judges of the Regional Trial Court as authorized under
existing laws and any additional allowance granted to
other personnel of the Judiciary shall be considered as an
implementation of the said salary increases as may be
provided by law. The special allowance equivalent to the
increase in the basic salary as may be provided by law
shall be converted as part of the basic salary: Provided,
that, any excess in the amount of the special allowance not
converted as part of the basic salary shall continue to be
granted as such. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),

the SAJ is to be considered an implementation of the 10% salary increase

authorized under E.O. No. 611 effective July 2007. As such, the 10% increase
in basic salary shall be made to apply to justices, judges and other court
personnel of ranks equivalent to CA justices and RTC judges but will be
sourced from the SAJ funds and result in a corresponding 10% reduction in
SAJ.[26]

Accordingly, the Court ordered the FMBO to deduct the 10% salary
increase authorized under E.O. No. 611 from the monthly SAJ of incumbent
justices, judges and judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of CA Justices
and RTC judges and to source the 10% salary increase from the SAJ fund.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the request of Chief Justice Andres R.

Narvasa (Ret.) for the re-computation of his retirement benefits.The FMBO is
directed to:

(1) Effect the payment of the amount of P6,778.84

representing the deficiency in the monetary value of the
retired CJs terminal leave pay;

(2) Effect the payment of the amount of P243,409.90,

representing the deficiency in the retired CJs accumulated
monthly pensions from December 1, 2003 to February 29,
2008 as a consequence of the inclusion of the step
increments he had earned from December 8, 1991 to
November 29, 1998, and other adjustments not included
in the original computation of his monthly pension; and

(3) Adjust the monthly pension of the retired CJ, including

the SAJ component, to reflect the 10% salary increase
authorized under E.O. No. 611 and the corresponding
10% deduction of the monthly SAJ component, in line
with the March 31, 2008Resolution of this Court in A.M.
No. 07-8-3-SC.

SO ORDERED.

xx___________________________________________________________xx

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)
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA(sgd)
Clerk of Court

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
B.M. No. 1922

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

June 3, 2008

RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE OF

COMPLETION/EXEMPTION REQUIRED IN ALL
PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court En Banc
dated June 3, 2008
"Bar Matter No. 1922. Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the
Courts the Counsels MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemption. The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of
Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on
Legal Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing
interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement program.
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on
Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar
to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies,
the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding
compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause
the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA

November 22, 2005

REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated
NOV 22 2005.
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the
Rules of Court submitting for this Courts consideration and approval the
Proposed Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court Resolved to
APPROVE the same.
The Rule shall take effect on the fifteenth day of December 2005 following its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines not later
than 25 November 2005.
22 November 2005.
REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
Pursuant to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 1125, as further amended by
Republic Act No. 9282, the Court of Tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as the
Court) hereby adopts and promulgates the following Rules for the conduct of
its business:

RULE 6
PLEADINGS FILED WITH THE COURT
SEC. 6. Entry of appearance. An attorney may enter his appearance by
signing the initial pleading. An attorney may later enter his appearance only by
filing an entry of appearance with the written conformity of his client.

address to the Clerk of Court and file his written appearance within forty-eight
hours from such open court appearance. An attorney or party who has filed his
appearance and who changes his address of record shall notify the Clerk of
Court and the adverse party of such change of address, and a separate notice of
such change of address shall be filed for each additional case. (RCTA, Rule 10,
sec. 1a)

The initial pleading or entry of appearance shall show:

(1) The attorneys specific address which must not be a Post Office Box
number;
(2) His Roll of Attorneys Number;
(3) The date and number of his current membership due in the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) per Official Receipt, or Lifetime Member Number;
(4) Current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) number together with date and
place of issuance; and
(5) MCLE certificate number and date of issue, unless exempt.
The attorney or party entering his appearance shall serve a copy of the entry of
appearance upon the opposing party. An attorney who appears in open court
without previously having filed his written appearance must give his business
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
B.M. No. 2012

February 10, 2009

PROPOSED RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE FOR

PRACTICING LAWYERS
RESOLUTION
Acting on the Memorandum dated January 27, 2009 of Justice Renato C.
Corona re: Comment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on our Suggested
Revisions to the Proposed Rule of Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing
Lawyers, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.

This Resolution shall take effect on July 1, 2009 following publication of the
said Rule and its implementing regulations in at least two (2) newpapers of
general circulation.
February 10, 2009
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice

SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule:

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice

DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice

(a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and
in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies, including but
not limited to the National Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation
and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and Employment Regional
Offices, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and National
Commission for Indigenous Peoples. The term "practicing lawyers" shall
exclude:

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

(i) Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law
to practice;

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE

SECTION 1. Title. - This Rule shall be known as "The Rule on Mandatory
Legal Aid Service."
SECTION 2. Purpose. - This Rule seeks to enhance the duty of lawyers to
society as agents of social change and to the courts as officers thereof by
helping improve access to justice by the less privileged members of society
and expedite the resolution of cases involving them. Mandatory free legal
service by members of the bar and their active support thereof will aid the
efficient and effective administration of justice especially in cases involving
indigent and pauper litigants.
SECTION 3. Scope. - This Rule shall govern the mandatory requirement for
practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in all cases (whether, civil,
criminal or administrative) involving indigent and pauper litigants where the
assistance of a lawyer is needed. It shall also govern the duty of other members
of the legal profession to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.

(ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;

(iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly
accredited legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and peoples organizations (POs) like the Free Legal
Assistance Group who by the nature of their work already render free legal aid
to indigent and pauper litigants and
(iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including those who
are employed in the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties
in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies.
(b) Indigent and pauper litigants are those defined under Rule 141, Section 19
of the Rules of Court and Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of
Naga (G.R. No.150135, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 81);
(c) Legal aid cases are those actions, disputes, and controversies that are
criminal, civil and administrative in nature in whatever stage wherein indigent
and pauper litigants need legal representation;
(d) Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or quasi-judicial body
for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of
pleadings or motions. It shall also cover assistance by a practicing lawyer to
indigent or poor litigants in court-annexed mediation and in other modes of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Services rendered when a practicing
lawyer is appointed counsel de oficio shall also be considered as free legal aid
services and credited as compliance under this Rule;

(e) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official national organization
of lawyers in the country;
(f) National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) is the committee of the IBP
which is specifically tasked with handling legal aid cases;
(g) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) is the committee of the IBP which is
specifically tasked with disciplining members of the Bar;
(h) IBP Chapters are those chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
located in the different geographical areas of the country as defined in Rule
139-A and
(i) Clerk of Court is the Clerk of Court of the court where the practicing
lawyer rendered free legal aid services. In the case of quasi-judicial bodies, it
refers to an officer holding an equivalent or similar position.
The term shall also include an officer holding a similar position in agencies
exercising quasi-judicial functions, or a responsible officer of an accredited PO
or NGO, or an accredited mediator who conducted the court-annexed
mediation proceeding.
SECTION 5. Requirements. (a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum of sixty (60)
hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year. Said 60 hours
shall be spread within a period of twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five
(5) hours of free legal aid services each month. However, where it is necessary
for the practicing lawyer to render legal aid service for more than five (5)
hours in one month, the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the
succeeding periods.
For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with the Clerk of Court
for cases where he may render free legal aid service. He may also coordinate
with the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter to inquire about cases
where he may render free legal aid service. In this connection, the IBP Legal
Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter shall regularly and actively coordinate
with the Clerk of Court.
The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the requirement within ten
(10) days of the last month of each quarter of the year.

(b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and obtain a certificate from
the Clerk of Court attesting to the number of hours spent rendering free legal
aid services in a case.
The certificate shall contain the following information:
(i) The case or cases where the legal aid service was rendered, the party or
parties in the said case(s) for whom the service was rendered, the docket
number of the said case(s) and the date(s) the service was rendered.
(ii) The number of hours actually spent attending a hearing or conducting trial
on a particular case in the court or quasi-judicial body.
(iii) The number of hours actually spent attending mediation, conciliation or
any other mode of ADR on a particular case.
(iv) A motion (except a motion for extension of time to file a pleading or for
postponement of hearing or conference) or pleading filed on a particular case
shall be considered as one (1) hour of service.
The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in triplicate, one (1) copy to be
retained by the practicing lawyer, one (1) copy to be retained by the Clerk of
Court and one (1) copy to be attached to the lawyer's compliance report.
(c) Said compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal Aid Chairperson of
the IBP Chapter within the courts jurisdiction. The Legal Aid Chairperson
shall then be tasked with immediately verifying the contents of the certificate
with the issuing Clerk of Court by comparing the copy of the certificate
attached to the compliance report with the copy retained by the Clerk of Court.
(d) The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a compliance certificate to
the concerned lawyer. The IBP Chapter shall also submit the compliance
reports to the IBPs NCLA for recording and documentation. The submission
shall be made within forty-five (45) days after the mandatory submission of
compliance reports by the practicing lawyers.
(e) Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or
quasi-judicial bodies the number and date of issue of their certificate of
compliance for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to
disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records.

(f) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under
Section 4(a)(i) and (ii), shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states
that, during that year, they are employed with the government or incumbent
elective officials not allowed by law to practice or lawyers who by law are not
allowed to appear in court.

(c) The NCLA shall act as the national repository of records in compliance
with this Rule.

The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National
Office together with the payment of an annual contribution of Two Thousand
Pesos (P2,000). Said contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for
the support of its legal aid program.

(e) The NCLA shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the contributions and
penalties that will be paid by lawyers pursuant to this Rule to effectively carry
out the provisions of this Rule. For this purpose, it shall annually submit an
accounting to the IBP Board of Governors.

(g) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under
Section 4(a)(iii) shall secure a certification from the director of the legal clinic
or of the concerned NGO or PO to the effect that, during that year, they have
served as supervising lawyers in a legal clinic or actively participated in the
NGOs or POs free legal aid activities. The certification shall be submitted to
the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office.

The accounting shall be included by the IBP in its report to the Supreme Court
in connection with its request for the release of the subsidy for its legal aid
program.

(h) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under
Section 4(a)(iv) shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that,
during that year, they are neither practicing lawyers nor covered by Section (4)
(a)(i) to (iii). The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or
IBP National Office together with the payment of an annual contribution of
Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) by way of support for the efforts of practicing
lawyers who render mandatory free legal aid services. Said contribution shall
accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.
(i) Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the lawyer to a penalty
of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) for that year which amount shall also accrue
to the special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.
SECTION 6. NCLA. (a) The NCLA shall coordinate with the various legal aid committees of the
IBP local chapters for the proper handling and accounting of legal aid cases
which practicing lawyers can represent.
(b) The NCLA shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of the Legal Aid
Office with respect to the coordination with Clerks of Court on legal aid cases
and the collation of certificates submitted by practicing lawyers.

(d) The NCLA shall prepare the following forms: certificate to be issued by the
Clerk of Court and forms mentioned in Section 5(e) and (g).

SECTION 7. Penalties. (a) At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer who fails to meet
the minimum prescribed 60 hours of legal aid service each year shall be
required by the IBP, through the NCLA, to explain why he was unable to
render the minimum prescribed number of hours. If no explanation has been
given or if the NCLA finds the explanation unsatisfactory, the NCLA shall
make a report and recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors that the
erring lawyer be declared a member of the IBP who is not in good standing.
Upon approval of the NCLAs recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors
shall declare the erring lawyer as a member not in good standing. Notice
thereof shall be furnished the erring lawyer and the IBP Chapter which
submitted the lawyers compliance report or the IBP Chapter where the lawyer
is registered, in case he did not submit a compliance report. The notice to the
lawyer shall include a directive to pay Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) penalty
which shall accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.
(b) The "not in good standing" declaration shall be effective for a period of
three (3) months from the receipt of the erring lawyer of the notice from the
IBP Board of Governors. During the said period, the lawyer cannot appear in
court or any quasi-judicial body as counsel. Provided, however, that the "not in

good standing" status shall subsist even after the lapse of the three-month
period until and unless the penalty shall have been paid.

jurisprudence and six (6) credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by
the MCLE Committee under Section 2(9), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.

(c) Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this Rule for at least
three (3) consecutive years shall be the subject of disciplinary proceedings to
be instituted motu proprio by the CBD. The said proceedings shall afford the
erring lawyer due process in accordance with the rules of the CBD and Rule
139-B of the Rules of Court. If found administratively liable, the penalty of
suspension in the practice of law for one (1) year shall be imposed upon him.

A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of
hours in a year for at least two consecutive years within the three year-period
covered by a compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited
the following: one (1) credit unit for legal ethics, one (1) credit unit for trial
and pretrial skills, one (1) credit unit for alternative dispute resolution, two (2)
credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy, two (2) credit units for
substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and three (3) credit units for
such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under Section
2(g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.

(d) Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form required to be submitted
under this Rule or any contents thereof shall be administratively charged with
falsification and dishonesty and shall be subject to disciplinary action by the
CBD. This is without prejudice to the filing of criminal charges against the
lawyer.
(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.
SECTION 8. Credit for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of
hours in a year for the three year-period covered by a compliance period under
the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following: two (2) credit units for
legal ethics, two (2) credit units for trial and pretrial skills, two (2) credit units
for alternative dispute resolution, four (4) credit units for legal writing and oral
advocacy, four (4) credit units for substantive and procedural laws and

SECTION 9. Implementing Rules. - The IBP, through the NCLA, is hereby

given authority to recommend implementing regulations in determining who
are "practicing lawyers," what constitute "legal aid cases" and what
administrative procedures and financial safeguards which may be necessary
and proper in the implementation of this rule may be prescribed. It shall
coordinate with the various legal chapters in the crafting of the proposed
implementing regulations and, upon approval by the IBP Board of Governors,
the said implementing regulations shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court
for final approval.
SECTION 10. Effectivity. - This Rule and its implementing rules shall take
effect on July 1,2009 after they have been published in two (2) newspapers of
general circulation.