Al Philip P. Geli Jan.

13, 2018

LLB-3

Essay on the Rule on Community Legal Aid Service

It is not fair for a lawyer in his first year to be required

to render mandatory free legal aid. A.M. 17-03-09-SC is too

burdensome for new covered lawyers to comply with. Article

III, section 11 of the Constitution does not require at all any

mandatory legal service to those who are otherwise would

be denied access to adequate legal service. What the said

provision states is only that free access to the courts and

quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not

be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Furthermore, the said rule will bear much

inconvenience to the new covered lawyers to comply the

first 120 hours of pro bono legal aid services to qualified

parties, who render their legal services in remote provinces

where there are only a few people in the locality who are

willing to bring up their case in a court litigation, especially

if the new lawyer comes from a poor humble stock of a

family. Moreover, as stated in the case of Ramos v. Atty.

Imbang, the Public Attorney’s Office was created for the

purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent

litigants. Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the

Revised Administrative Code provides that the PAO shall be

the principal law office of the Government in extending free

legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor,

administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. The case of

indigents must be handled by experienced and skilled

lawyers and not new ones to ensure that the administration

of justice is best served, which is in accordance with the

mandate of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall serve his

client with competence and diligence. The indigent clients

have more to lose than the other clients who are not living

in poverty if their cases are handled by new lawyers since

they have no sufficient income to hire another lawyers in

case their new counsel is incompetent to handle their cases

in litigation.
Al Philip P. Geli March 3, 2018

LLB-3

Short Paper 2

My advice will be Tumbokon should file a separate

action for specific performance for the collection of 20%

commission that Atty. Pefiangco owes to him before the

Regional Trial Court of Aklan. A separate action should be

filed because a final judgment was already rendered in the

case. According to Antonio v. Samonte, a final order of

judgment finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the

rights, or some right or rights of the parties, either on the

entire controversy or on some definite and separate branch

thereof, and concludes them until it is reversed or set aside.

Thus, Tumbokon should assert that their agreement was

reflected in a letter dated August 11, 1995 in which Atty.

Mariano R. Prefianco undertook to give him 20%

commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees

the latter would receive in representing Spouses Amable

and Rosalinda Yap, whom he referred, in an action for

partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap which is civil

case No. 4986 before the Regional Trial Court of Aklan.

 However, Tumbokon could also resort to having an

amicable settlement with Atty. Pefianco by first having a

written agreement among themselves and subsequently file

a motion to enforce the compromise agreement before the

lower court. As stated in Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel v. Jerry D.

Montanez, a compromise has upon the parties the effect

and authority of res judicata; but there shall be no

execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise.