By Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno

The Supreme Court could only have meant well when it issued a circular ordering all practicing lawyers to render 60 hours of free legal service to indigent or pauper litigants every year. After all, there is truly a need for lawyers to understand that they have a duty to society and to help the poor enjoy access to justice. But the reactions of lawyers to the circular—not without valid reason—have been one of outrage and disbelief.

The circular dated Feb. 10, denominated as SC Bar Matter no. 2012, states that all practicing lawyers must render at least 60 hours of free legal service to indigent or pauper litigants every year. What is interesting in the circular is that not all lawyers are mandated to render free legal service. Only practicing lawyers are obligated to do so. As defined in the resolution, a practicing lawyer is one who appears for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial bodies. Excluded from the definition of practicing lawyers are government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice; lawyers who, by law, are not allowed to appear in court; supervising lawyers in accredited legal aid clinics of law schools and NGOs and people’s organizations which already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants; and lawyers in the private sector who do not appear in behalf of parties in courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

The definition alone in the circular of what a practicing lawyer is, already poses problems because it runs afoul with the Supreme Court’s own definition of what a practicing lawyer is. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod (GR no. 100113 Sept. 3, 1991, citing the case of Philippine Lawyers’ Association vs. Agrava) the Supreme Court stressed that “practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court.” It said, “practice of law consists in no small part, of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court.” It added that “practice of law means any activity, in and out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.”

Based on the circular, if a practicing lawyer, as defined in it, fails to comply with the mandatory service of legal aid for one year, he can be declared as not in good standing. This means, he will be disallowed to appear in court for three months and to pay a penalty of P4,000. And if he continues not to comply with the directive for three continuous years, he shall be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and may be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Some lawyers have called this new requirement as involuntary servitude. Others have said it is unfair, unconstitutional and unrealistic. Reactions of some lawyers to the new requirement as appearing in the Philippine e-Legal Forum (JLP blog) are quoted and reprinted here.

“Sixty hours of involuntary servitude?! Is that constitutional? That’s taking of liberty and property without due process of law! I don’t even spend that much time in court. And one pleading equivalent to one hour? They gotta be kidding!”

“The lawyers would be compelled to take cases and do hopsphod [sic] work just to comply with the circular. It is certain that lawyers would rather find ways and means than actually comply with this circular.”

“Does the SC want lawyers to be ambulance chasers? Does the SC want to clog the dockets in court?”

“Now, how about government lawyers, PAO and prosecutors, who are not exempted from this rule? They have been serving indigent litigants BUT this Rule is over and above what they do. Does this mean that when they would render free legal service in compliance with this Rule they would have to file a leave of absence without pay? Otherwise, it wouldn’t be free since they are actually being paid by the government. And in case they would be allowed to serve indigent litigants on government time to comply with this Rule, isn’t it an unconstitutional classification because private lawyers spend their time [sic] without pay just to comply with this Rule?”

“How about government and private in-house counsels, considered by this Rule as practicing lawyers, who work 8 to 5, Monday to Friday. When will they render this free legal service? Would they have to work on a Saturday or Sunday to render this service, but would take away time with their families? And when they appear in court in compliance with this Rule, will they, too, file for a leave of absence without pay to comply with the ’so-called’ FREE legal service?”

“If I am lawyer who by law is not allowed to appear in court, why should I be penalized by filing an annual P2,000 contribution?”

“The SC cannot do this to us even if it is called the “supreme” court. The SC cannot violate our constitutional rights.”

“To compel lawyers to render 60 hours of service, whether paid or not, for whatever noble purpose, by threat of punishment is clearly a violation of an individual’s freedom from involuntary servitude.”

“To compel only lawyers, excluding all other professionals, to help the poor is a violation of the equal protection clause. Is there any other profession that is being required to render free services?”

“Under SC BM 2012, lawyers who are not covered by the law are required to pay a contribution of P2,000 or P4,000. That is simply unfair. A practicing lawyer would be required to work for 60 hours while those who are not covered will only pay P2,000 or P4,000. Is 60 hours of professional service of a lawyer equivalent to only P4,000?”

These are only a few of the many serious reactions to the new mandate from the High Tribunal that litigation lawyers should render free legal service for 60 hours every year.

I used to render free legal aid for years when the show Saklolo Abogado, which I hosted and produced with my law office partner, Antonio C. Cope, was on. I still do in fact, when there are those whose cases are meritorious but they are without means. I have always believed that rendering free legal service is a lawyer’s way of giving back to society. Yet, helping the poor is a personal choice which should spring from a genuine desire to give and to share. If imposed, with a threat of penalty of that, it becomes a burden that is resented and abhorred. And sadly, this will only reflect on the quality of service a lawyer will give, to the prejudice of the pauper client he is supposed to serve.

Should not then the Supreme Court take a second look at this?

E-mail: ritalindaj@gmail.com Web: www.jimenolaw.com.ph