RE: REQUEST OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID

Citation: A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC

Date of Promulgation: August 28, 2009
Ponente: Corona, J.

FACTS:
 Misamis Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) promulgated Resolution No. 24, series of 2008 which
requested the IBPs National Committee on Legal Aid] (NCLA) to ask for the exemption from the payment of filing, docket and
other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP chapters.
 The Court noted Resolution No. 24, series of 2008 and required the IBP, through the NCLA, to comment thereon.
 In a comment dated December 18, 2008, the IBP, through the NCLA, made the following comments:
o (a) Under Section 16-D of RA 9406, clients of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) are exempt from the payment of
docket and other fees incidental to the institution of action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies. On the other
hand, clients of legal aid offices in the various IBP chapters do not enjoy the same exemption. IBPs indigent clients
are advised to litigate as pauper litigants under Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court;
o (b) They are further advised to submit documentary evidence to prove compliance with the requirements under
Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, i.e., certifications from the barangay and the Department of Social Welfare
and Development. However, not only does the process involve some expense which indigent clients could ill-afford,
clients also lack knowledge on how to go about the tedious process of obtaining these documents;
o (c) Although the IBP is given an annual legal aid subsidy, the amount it receives from the government is barely
enough to cover various operating expenses;
o (d) While each IBP local chapter is given a quarterly allocation (from the legal aid subsidy), ] said allocation covers
neither the incidental expenses defrayed by legal aid lawyers in handling legal aid cases nor the payment of docket
and other fees collected by the courts, quasi-judicial bodies and the prosecutors office, as well as mediation fees
and
o (e) Considering the aforementioned factors, a directive may be issued by the Supreme Court granting IBPs indigent
clients an exemption from the payment of docket and other fees similar to that given to PAO clients under Section
16-D of RA 9406. In this connection, the Supreme Court previously issued a circular exempting IBP clients from the
payment of transcript of stenographic notes.
ISSUE:
recipients of the service of the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP chapters may enjoy free access to courts by exempting them
from the payment of fees assessed in connection with the filing of a complaint or action in court.

RULING:

At the outset, we laud the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP for its effort to help improve the administration of justice,
particularly, the access to justice by the poor. Its Resolution No. 24, series of 2008 in fact echoes one of the noteworthy
recommendations during the Forum on Increasing Access to Justice spearheaded by the Court last year. In promulgating Resolution
No. 24, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP has effectively performed its duty to participate in the development of the legal system
by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the administration of justice. [11]

We now move on to determine the merits of the request.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE:
MAKING AN IDEAL A REALITY

Access to justice by all, especially by the poor, is not simply an ideal in our society. Its existence is essential in a democracy and in the
rule of law. As such, it is guaranteed by no less than the fundamental law:

Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason
of poverty.[12] (emphasis supplied)

The Court recognizes the right of access to justice as the most important pillar of legal empowerment of the marginalized sectors of
our society.[13] Among others, it has exercised its power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights[14] to open the doors of justice to the underprivileged and to allow them to step inside the courts to be heard of
their plaints. In particular, indigent litigants are permitted under Section 21, Rule 3 [15] and Section 19, Rule 141[16] of the Rules of Court
to bring suits in forma pauperis.
The IBP, pursuant to its general objectives to improve the administration of justice and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively,[17] assists the Court in providing the poor access to justice. In particular, it renders free legal aid under
the supervision of the NCLA.

A NEW RULE, A NEW TOOL

FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Under the IBPs Guidelines Governing the Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid Offices in All Chapters of the IBP (Guidelines on
Legal Aid), the combined means and merit tests shall be used to determine the eligibility of an applicant for legal aid:

The means and merit tests appear to be reasonable determinants of eligibility for coverage under the legal aid program of the IBP.
Nonetheless, they may be improved to ensure that any exemption from the payment of legal fees that may be granted to clients of
the NCLA and the legal aid offices of the various IBP chapters will really further the right of access to justice by the poor. This will
guarantee that the exemption will neither be abused nor trivialized. Towards this end, the following shall be observed by the NCLA
and the legal aid offices in IBP chapters nationwide in accepting clients and handling cases for the said clients:

FINAL WORD

Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there is a right, there must be a remedy. The
remedy must not only be effective and efficient, but also readily accessible. For a remedy that is inaccessible is no remedy at all.

The Constitution guarantees the rights of the poor to free access to the courts and to adequate legal assistance. The legal aid service
rendered by the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP chapters nationwide addresses only the right to adequate legal assistance.
Recipients of the service of the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP chapters may enjoy free access to courts by exempting them from
the payment of fees assessed in connection with the filing of a complaint or action in court. With these twin initiatives, the
guarantee of Section 11, Article III of Constitution is advanced and access to justice is increased by bridging a significant gap and
removing a major roadblock.

WHEREFORE, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby COMMENDED for helping increase the
access to justice by the poor. The request of the Misamis Oriental Chapter for the exemption from the payment of filing, docket and
other fees of the clients of the legal aid offices of the various IBP chapters is GRANTED. The Rule on the Exemption From the Payment
of Legal Fees of the Clients of the National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) and of the Legal Aid Offices in the Local Chapters of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) (which shall be assigned the docket number A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC [IRR] provided in this resolution
is hereby APPROVED. In this connection, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to cause the publication of the said rule in a newspaper of
general circulation within five days from the promulgation of this resolution.

The Office of the Court Administrator is hereby directed to promptly issue a circular to inform all courts in the Philippines of the import
of this resolution.

SO ORDERED.

RE: QUERY OF MR. ROGER C. PRIORESCHI RE EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL AND FILING FEES OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD FOUNDATION,
INC.
Citation A. M. No. 09-6-9-SC
Date of Promulgation: August 19, 2009
Ponente: Bersamin, J.

FACTS:

 In his letter dated May 22, 2009 addressed to the Chief Justice, Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi, administrator of the Good Shepherd
Foundation, Inc., wrote:
 The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. is very grateful for your 1rst. Indorsement to pay a nominal fee of Php 5,000.00
and the balance upon the collection action of 10 million pesos, thus giving us access to the Justice System previously
denied by an up-front excessive court fee.

The Hon. Court Administrator Jose Perez pointed out to the need of complying with OCA Circular No. 42-2005 and
Rule 141 that reserves this privilege to indigent persons. While judges are appointed to interpret the law, this type of
law seems to be extremely detailed with requirements that do not leave much room for interpretations.

In addition, this law deals mainly with individual indigent and it does not include Foundations or Associations that
work with and for the most Indigent persons. As seen in our Article of Incorporation, since 1985 the Good Shepherd
Foundation, Inc. reached-out to the poorest among the poor, to the newly born and abandoned babies, to children
who never saw the smile of their mother, to old people who cannot afford a few pesos to pay for common
prescriptions, to broken families who returned to a normal life. In other words, we have been working hard for the
very Filipino people, that the Government and the society cannot reach to, or have rejected or abandoned them.

Can the Courts grant to our Foundation who works for indigent and underprivileged people, the same option granted
to indigent people?

The two Executive Judges, that we have approached, fear accusations of favoritism or other kind of attack if they
approve something which is not clearly and specifically stated in the law or approved by your HONOR.

Can your Honor help us once more?

Grateful for your understanding, God bless you and your undertakings.

We shall be privileged if you find time to visit our orphanage the Home of Love and the Spiritual Retreat Center in
Antipolo City.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Courts can grant to foundations like the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same exemption from payment of legal
fees granted to indigent litigants.

RULING:

To answer the query of Mr. Prioreschi, the Courts cannot grant to foundations like the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the
same exemption from payment of legal fees granted to indigent litigants even if the foundations are working for indigent and
underprivileged people.

The basis for the exemption from legal and filing fees is the free access clause, embodied in Sec. 11, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution,
thus:

Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason
of poverty.
The importance of the right to free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies and to adequate legal assistance cannot be denied.
A move to remove the provision on free access from the Constitution on the ground that it was already covered by the equal
protection clause was defeated by the desire to give constitutional stature to such specific protection of the poor.[1]

In implementation of the right of free access under the Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgated rules, specifically, Sec. 21, Rule
3, Rules of Court,[2] and Sec. 19, Rule 141, Rules of Court,[3] which respectively state thus:

Sec. 21. Indigent party. A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte
application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes
which the court may order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted
from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court
should determine after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper
docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by
the court, execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose. (22a)

Sec. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal fees. Indigent litigants (a) whose gross income and that of their immediate
family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee and (b) who do not own real property with a
fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos shall be exempt
from payment of legal fees.

The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent litigant unless the court otherwise
provides.

To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant shall execute an affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn
a gross income abovementioned, and they do not own any real property with the fair value aforementioned, supported by an affidavit
of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of the litigants affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any, shall be attached to the
litigants affidavit.

Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested person shall be sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint or action or to strike
out the pleading of that party, without prejudice to whatever criminal liability may have been incurred.

The clear intent and precise language of the aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court indicate that only a natural party litigant
may be regarded as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., being a corporation invested by the State with a juridical
personality separate and distinct from that of its members,[4] is a juridical person. Among others, it has the power to acquire and
possess property of all kinds as well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal actions, in conformity with the laws and regulations
of their organization.[5] As a juridical person, therefore, it cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing fees granted to
indigent litigants.
That the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. is working for indigent and underprivileged people is of no moment. Clearly, the
Constitution has explicitly premised the free access clause on a persons poverty, a condition that only a natural person can suffer.

There are other reasons that warrant the rejection of the request for exemption in favor of a juridical person. For one, extending the
exemption to a juridical person on the ground that it works for indigent and underprivileged people may be prone to abuse (even
with the imposition of rigid documentation requirements), particularly by corporations and entities bent on circumventing the rule
on payment of the fees. Also, the scrutiny of compliance with the documentation requirements may prove too time-consuming and
wasteful for the courts.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. cannot be extended the exemption from legal and filing fees
despite its working for indigent and underprivileged people.

SO ORDERED.

LAPU-LAPU v PEZA
Petitioner: City of Lapu Lapu
Respondent: PEZA
Citation G.R. No. 184203
Date of Promulgation:November 26, 2016
Ponente: Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
 Marcos issued P.D. 66 in 1972, declaring the establishment of PEZA, Export Processing ZoneAuthority
 (EPZA) was created to carry out this policy2.EPZA was declared exempt from all taxes.
 Certain parcels of land of public domain located in Lapu-Lapu Cebu were reserved to serve assite of the Mactan Export Processing Zone4.
 In 1995, Ramos directed PEZA to assume and exercise all EPZA’s power, all the properTes of EPZAwere transferred to PEZA5.
First Casea.Lapu-Lapu demanded from PEZA real property taxi.No provision in the Special Economic Zone Act (SEZA) of 1995
exempted PEZAunlike P.D. 66 that explicitly provided for EPZA’s exempTonii.88M from years 1992 to 2002b.PEZA ²led declaratory
relief with R±Cc.R±C Pasay– PEZA remained tax exempt, Sec 24 of SEZA 1995 applies only to privatedevelopersd.
CA- Dismissed; pure quesTons of law, should have been directed to CA via peTTon forreview on certiorari
ISSUE:
Whether or not the PEZA is exempt from payment of real property taxes.

RULING:
YES. The Philippine Economic Zone Authority is exempt from payment of real property taxes.

These are consolidated... the City of Lapu-Lapu (the City)... appealed the Regional Trial Court 's decision finding the PEZA exempt from payment of
real property taxes.
The Province of Bataan (the Province)... assails the Court of Appeals' decision... granting the PEZA's petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals...
ruled that the Regional Trial Court,... gravely abused its discretion in finding the PEZA liable for real property taxes to the Province of Bataan.

President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 66 in 1972... the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) was created to operate,
administer, and manage the export processing zones established in the Port of Mariveles, Bataan... and such other export processing zones that
may be created by... virtue of the decree.

EPZA was declared exempt from all taxes that... may be due to the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities, and other
government agencies and instrumentalities.

Specifically, Section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 66 declared the EPZA exempt from payment of real... property taxes

From all income taxes, franchise taxes, realty taxes and all other kinds of taxes and licenses to be paid to the National Government, its provinces,
cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities... the PEZA was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 7916 or "the Special
Economic Zone Act of 1995"

The PEZA was granted the power... to register, regulate, and supervise the enterprises located in the economic zones.

By virtue of the law, the export processing zone in Mariveles, Bataan became the Bataan Economic Zone... and the Mactan Export Processing

Zone the Mactan Economic Zone. s for the EPZA, the law required it to "evolve into the PEZA

President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 282, directing the PEZA to assume and exercise all of the EPZA's powers, functions, and
responsibilities "as provided in Presidential Decree No. 66