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.

 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.