FACTS ISSUE LOWER SC

COURT/IBP/CA
Sps. Gimena vs Atty. Vijiga Did the respondent violate his Suspension for Suspension for 6 months
 complaint brought by the Spouses Vicente and Precywinda Gimena (complainants), against Atty. Jojo S. Vijiga (respondent) for the latter's failure ethical duties as a member of 6 months
to file the appellants' brief in their behalf, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal in the Court of Appeals. the Bar in his dealings with the
 Spouses Gimena alleged that they hired the respondent to represent them in a civil case for nullity of foreclosure proceedings and voidance of complainants?
loan documents filed against Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, involving eight parcels of land.
 Respondent failed to file the brief. As a result, the CA issued a Resolution
 Complainants alleged that respondent violated Canon 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit
Atty. Espina vs Atty. Chavez Whether or not PAO III Jesus G. xxxx xxxx xxxx Denied petition for
 Atty. Espina and his law firm represented Atty. Espina's parents in an ejectment suit filed against Remedios C. Enguio (Enguio) in the Municipal Chavez violated Rule 19.01 of Suspension/Disbarment
Trial Court (MTC) of Carmen, Agusan Del Norte. Atty. Chavez who was then a Public Attorney III of the Public Attorney's Office, Regional Office XIII, Canon 19 of the Code of
Butuan City represented Enguio. Professional Responsibility
 MTC dismissed the ejectment suit for lack of cause of action. when he prepared and
 Neither party appealed the RTC decision. transmitted the complaint of
 Atty. Espina contends that Atty. Chavez violated the above-quoted provisions when he indispensably participated in the filing of the falsification Remedios Enquio for
complaint against him, his wife and his parents. The falsification case was filed, according to Atty. Espina, solely for the purpose of gaining an falsification to the Provincial
improper advantage and leverage in the ejectment case. Prosecutor of Agusan del
 We point out that Atty. Chavez was then a PAO lawyer. In this capacity, he had the duty to assist clients who could not afford the services of a Norte.
private lawyer. His assessment on the merit of the criminal complaint might have been erroneous but the act of endorsing the affidavit-complaint
to the Provincial Prosecutor did not per se violate Rule 19.01.

Masamud vs NLRC and Atty. Go The court of appeals Petition is Affirmed

 On July 9, 2003, Evangelina Masmud (Evangelina) husband, the late Alexander J. Masmud (Alexander), filed a complaint against First Victory Shipping committed serious and partially
Services and Angelakos (Hellas) S.A. for non-payment of permanent disability benefits, medical expenses, sickness allowance, moral and exemplary reversible error of law in its Granted
damages, and attorney’s fees. Alexander engaged the services of Atty. Rolando B. Go, Jr. (Atty. Go) as his counsel. decision dated 31 october
2007 and resolution dated 6
 The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision granting the monetary claims of Alexander. june 2008 insofar as it upholds
 During the pendency of the proceedings before the NLRC, Alexander died. After explaining the terms of the lawyer’s fees to Evangelina, Atty. Go respondent lawyers claim of
caused her substitution as complainant. On April 30, 2004, the NLRC rendered a Decision dismissing the appeal of Alexanders employer. The forty percent (40%) of the
employer subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. The NLRC denied the same in an Order dated October 26, 2004. monetary award in a labor
case as attorneys fees.
 Eventually, the decision of the NLRC became final and executory. Atty. Go moved for the execution of the NLRC decision, which was later granted
by the LA. The surety bond of the employer was garnished. Upon motion of Atty. Go, the surety company delivered to the NLRC Cashier, through
the NLRC Sheriff, the check amounting to P3,454,079.20. Thereafter, Atty. Go moved for the release of the said amount to Evangelina.
 On January 10, 2005, the LA directed the NLRC Cashier to release the amount of P3,454,079.20 to Evangelina. Out of the said amount, Evangelina
paid Atty. Go the sum of P680,000.00.
 Dissatisfied, Atty. Go filed a motion to record and enforce the attorneys lien alleging that Evangelina reneged on their contingent fee agreement.
Evangelina paid only the amount of P680,000.00, equivalent to 20% of the award as attorneys fees, thus, leaving a balance of 10%, plus the award
pertaining to the counsel as attorneys fees.
 In response to the motion filed by Atty. Go, Evangelina filed a comment with motion to release the amount deposited with the NLRC Cashier. In her
comment, Evangelina manifested that Atty. Gos claim for attorneys fees of 40% of the total monetary award was null and void based on Article 111
of the Labor Code.
 Article 111 of the Labor Code deals with the extraordinary concept of attorneys fees. It regulates the amount recoverable as attorney's fees in the
nature of damages sustained by and awarded to the prevailing party. It may not be used as the standard in fixing the amount payable to the lawyer
 by his client for the legal services he rendered

Mercado vs Atty. Vitriolo Whether respondent violated Suspension for Dismissed

 Complainant’s husband filed Civil Case No. 40537 entitled Ruben G. Mercado v. Rosa C. Francisco, for annulment of their marriage with the Regional the rule on privileged 1 year
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. This annulment case had been dismissed by the trial court, and the dismissal became final and executory on July 15, communication between
1992. attorney and client when he
 Atty. Anastacio P. de Leon, counsel of complainant, died. On February 7, 1994, respondent entered his appearance before the trial court as filed a criminal case for
collaborating counsel for complainant. respondent filed a criminal action against complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Pasig City, falsification of public
entitled Atty. Julito Vitriolo, et al. v. Rose Dela Cruz F. Mercado, and docketed as I.S. No. PSG 99-9823, for violation of Articles 171 and 172 document against his former
(falsification of public document) of the Revised Penal Code.[5] Respondent alleged that complainant made false entries in the Certificates of Live client.
Birth of her children, Angelica and Katelyn Anne. More specifically, complainant allegedly indicated in said Certificates of Live Birth that she is
married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, and that their marriage was solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is legally married to Ruben
G. Mercado and their marriage took place on April 11, 1978.
 Complainant Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint for falsification of public document (I.S. No. PSG 99-9823) disclosed confidential facts
and information relating to the civil case for annulment, then handled by respondent Vitriolo as her counsel
 In filing the criminal case for falsification, respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship, and should
be disbarred.
 According to respondent, the complainant confided to him as then counsel only matters of facts relating to the annulment case. Nothing was said
about the alleged falsification of the entries in the birth certificates of her two daughters.
Anglo vs Atty. Valencia The essential issue in this case Suspension for Reprimand and Stern
 In his complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan is whether or not respondents 1 year Warning
Rubica Law Office(law firm), of which Attys. Valencia, Ciocon, Dabao, Uy-Valencia, De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and Rubica were partners, for are guilty of representing
two (2) consolidated labor cases where he was impleaded as respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent conflicting interests in
complainant. The labor cases were terminated on June 5, 2008 upon the agreement of both parties. violation of the pertinent
 On September 18, 2009, a criminal case for qualified theft was filed against complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE provisions of the CPR.
Farms) acting through a certain Michael Villacorta (Villacorta). Villacorta, however, was represented by the law firm, the same law office which
handled complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved, complainant filed this disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they violated Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR,
 Respondents admitted that they indeed operated under the name Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office,
but explained that their association is not a formal partnership, but one that is subject to certain "arrangements." According to them, each lawyer
contributes a fixed amount every month for the maintenance of the entire office; and expenses for cases, such as transportation, copying, printing,
mailing, and the like are shouldered by each lawyer separately, allowing each lawyer to fix and receive his own professional fees exclusively.
 They averred that complainant’s labor cases were solely and exclusively handled by Atty. Dionela and not by the entire law firm. Moreover,
respondents asserted that the qualified theft case filed by FEVE Farms was handled by Atty. Peñalosa, a new associate who had no knowledge of
complainant’s labor cases, as he started working for the firm after the termination thereof.
 Moreover, respondents asserted that the qualified theft case filed by FEVE Farms was handled by Atty. Peñalosa, a new associate who had no
knowledge of complainant’s labor cases, as he started working for the firm after the termination thereof.
Palacios (Behalf of AFP-RSBS) vs Atty. Amora The singular issue for the Suspension for Suspended for 2 years
 Complainant is the owner[-]developer of more or less 312 hectares of land estate property located at Barangays San Vicente, San Miguel, Biluso consideration of this Court is 3 years
and Lucsuhin, Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite ("property") whether Atty. Amora should
 In 1996, complainant entered into purchase agreements with several investors in order to finance its Riviera project. One of these investors was beheld administratively liable
Philippine Golf Development and Equipment, Inc. ("Phil Golf'). On 07 March 1996, Phil Golf paid the amount of Php54 Million for the purchase of based on the allegations on
2% interest on the Riviera project consisting of developed residential lots, Class "A" Common Shares, Class "B" Common Shares, and Class "C" the Complaint.
Common Shares of the Riviera Golf Club and Common Shares of the Riviera Golf Sports and Country Club.
 On 02 June 1997, complainant retained the services of respondent of the Amora and Associates Law Offices to represent and act as its legal counsel
in connection with the Riviera project
  Respondent's legal services under the said agreement include the following: issuance of consolidated title(s) over the project, issuance of individual
titles for the resultant individual lots, issuance of license to sell by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, representation before the SEC, and
services concerning the untitled lots included in the project. For the said legal services, respondent charged complainant the amount of Php
6,500,000.00 for which he was paid in three different checks (Annexes "D" to "D3" of the complaint).
 For the registration of the Riviera trademark with the Intellectual Property Office (Annex "E" of the complainant) where respondent was paid in
check in the amount of Php158, 344.20 (Annex "F" of the complaint).
 Another contract for services was executed by complainant and respondent for the latter to act as its counsel in the reclassification by the
Sangguniang Bayan of Silang, Cavite of complainant's agricultural lot to "residential commercial and/or recreational use" in connection with its
Riviera project (Annexes "G" to "G4" of the complaint). Under this contract, respondent was hired to "act as counsel and representative of AFP-
RSBS before the Sangguniang Bayan of Silang, Cavite in all matters relative to the reclassification of the subject properties from agricultural to non-
agricultural uses."
 As complainant's legal counsel, respondent was privy to highly confidential information regarding the Riviera project which included but was not
limited to the corporate set-up, actual breakdown of the shares of stock, financial records, purchase agreements and swapping agreements with
its investors. Respondent was also very familiar with the Riviera project[,] having been hired to secure Certificate of Registration and License to
Sell with the BLURB and the registration of the shares of stock and license to sell of the Riviera Golf Club, Inc. and Riviera Sports and Country Club,
Inc. Respondent further knew that complainant had valid titles to the properties of the Riviera project and was also knowledgeable about
complainant's transactions with Phil Golf

Venterez et al vs Atty. Cosme Whether or not the Suspension for Suspended for 3 months
 Venterez and friends hired Atty. Cosme as counsel for a land title dispute. The court ruled against the complainants. They wanted to file a motion respondent violated the Code 3 months
of reconsideration but Atty. Cosme failed or refused to do so. Because of this, the complainants were constrained to contact another lawyer to of the Professional
prepare the motion for reconsideration. Responsibility
 Atty. Cosme claims that the son of one of the complainants informed him that the complainants were withdrawing the case from him because he
(the son) engaged another lawyer to take over the case. Atty. Cosme further explained that he even turned over the records of the case to the
son, ceased to be counsel of the complainants.
B.M. No. 1922 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 Counsel’s 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.

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
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Whereas, case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial syste1n that the judiciary has in place;

Whereas, about 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that complainants simply give up con1ing to court after repeated postponements;

Whereas, few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines because its courts are unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their investments, keeping its people poor;

Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under litigation, on February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of
judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;

Whereas, it is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases;

Whereas, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, headed by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and the Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules on Civil Procedure, headed by Associate Justice
Roberto A. Abad, have recommended for adoption a Judicial Affidavit Rule that will replicate nationwide the success of the Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court En Banc finds merit in the recommendation;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby issues and promulgates the following:

Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:

(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;

(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;

(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate Courts;

(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and

(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.1

(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be uniformly referred to here as the "court."

Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. - (a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pre-trial
or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:

(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses' direct testimonies; and

(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case
of the respondent or the defendant.

(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his possession, he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or
reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with the
attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted.

This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when allowed by existing rules.

Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the place where the examination is being held;

(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;

(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:

(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;

(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and

(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court;

(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to administer the same.

Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:

(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and

(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the latter's answers.

(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.

Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just
cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum
or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shal1 be understood
to be ex parte.

Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of the
witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking
of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents the witness may
also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the issues.

Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their
chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.

(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings,
dispensing with the description of each exhibit.

Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. - (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or

(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such
documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.

(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days from receipt
of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the
accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.

Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. - (a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow
only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00 at the discretion
of the court.

(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his client's
right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.

(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however, allow only once the subsequent
submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible
for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of procedure governing investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence are repealed or
modified insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.1âwphi1

The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.

Section 12. Effectivity. - This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.

Manila, September 4, 2012.

A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC

EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE

Whereas, to produce 500 reams of paper, twenty trees are cut and 100,000 liters of water are used, water that is no longer reusable because it is laden with chemicals and is just released to the environment to poison our rivers and seas;

Whereas, there is a need to cut the judicial system’s use excessive quantities of costly paper, save our forests, avoid landslides, and mitigate the worsening effects of climate change that the world is experiencing;

Whereas, the judiciary can play a big part in saving our trees, conserving precious water and helping mother earth;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby issues and promulgates the following:

Sec. 1. Title of the Rule– This rule shall be known and cited as the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.

Sec. 2. Applicability. – This rule shall apply to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court.

Sec. 3. Format and Style. – a) All pleadings, motions and similar papers intended for the court and quasi-judicial body’s consideration and action (court-bound papers) shall written in single space with one-and-a –half space between
paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of the party’s choice, of 14-size font, and on a 13 –inch by 8.5- inch white bond paper; and
b) All decisions, resolutions and orders issued by courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court shall comply with these requirements. Similarly covered are the reports submitted to the courts
and transcripts of stenographic notes.

Sec. 4. Margins and Prints .— The parties shall maintain the following margins on all court-bound papers: a left hand margin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; a right hand margin of 1.0 inch from
the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the edge. Every page must be consecutively numbered.

Sec. 5. Copies to be filed. – Unless otherwise directed by the court, the number of court- bound papers that a party is required or desires to file shall be as follows:

a. In the Supreme Court, one original (properly marked) and four copies, unless the case is referred to the Court En Banc, in which event, the parties shall file ten additional copies. For the En Banc, the parties need to submit only two
sets of annexes, one attached to the original and an extra copy. For the Division, the parties need to submit also two sets of annexes, one attached to the original and an extra copy. All members of the Court shall share the extra copies
of annexes in the interest of economy of paper.

Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further required, on voluntary basis for the first six months following the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily afterwards unless the period is extended, to submit, simultaneously with
their court-bound papers, soft copies of the same and their annexes (the latter in PDF format) either by email to the Court’s e-mail address or by compact disc (CD). This requirement is in preparation for the eventual establishment of an
e-filing paperless system in the judiciary.

b. In the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, one original (properly marked) and two copies with their annexes;

c. In the Court of Tax Appeals, one original (properly marked) and two copies with annexes. On appeal to the En Banc, one Original (properly marked) and eight copies with annexes; and

d. In other courts, one original (properly marked) with the stated annexes attached to it.

Sec. 6. Annexes Served on Adverse Party. – A party required by the rules to serve a copy of his court-bound on the adverse party need not enclose copies of those annexes that based on the record of the court such party already has in
his possession. In the event a party requests a set of the annexes actually filed with the court, the part who filed the paper shall comply with the request within five days from receipt.

Sec. 7. Date of Effectivity. – This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 after publication in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Re: 1999 Bar Examinations

The crux of the case involving Bar Matters Nos. 979 and 986 concerning Bar applicant Mark Anthony A. Purisima stemmed from a Resolution issued by the Supreme Court on the April 13, 2000, disqualifying the applicant from membership
in the Bar after he successfully passed the previous year’s bar examinations. Such disqualification was based on the declaration by the Court that Purisima’s examinations were null and void for two reasons: (1) that he failed to submit
the required certificate of completion of the pre-bar review course under oath for his conditional admission to the 1999 Bar Examinations; and (2) that he committed a serious act of dishonesty when he made it appear in his Petition to
Take the 1999 Bar Examinations that he took his pre-bar review course at the Philippine Law School (PLS) when, as certified by the school’s Acting Registrar, no such course was offered there since 1967.

In March 2000, Supreme Court Associate Justice Fidel Purisima was relieved as chairman of the 1999 Bar Examination Committee for not disclosing to the court that his nephew, Marcos Antonio “Mark Anthony” Purisima, was among
those who took the exam. Mark Anthony is the son of Purisima’s elder brother, retired Manila Judge Amante Purisima. Justice Purisima apologized to the court, but was censured by his peers, who also ordered the forfeiture of half of his
P500,000 fee as chairman of the 1999 exam committee.

Sources said the Supreme Court accepted the apology, but not Purisima’s explanation that he did not know his nephew took the exam or had been planning to take it in 1999.

Due to public outrage and with some quarters calling the censure “a mere slap on the wrist,” Purisima’s case was later referred to a special commission composed of retired justices. The commission was tasked with conducting a separate
investigation of the scandal. The Supreme Court also ordered Purisima to comment on a petition brought by about 100 law students, asking the court to conduct an “impartial, thorough and speedy” probe of the circumstances surrounding
the 1999 bar exam. Purisima quietly retired in October 2000 without giving reporters copies of his comments on the petition.

Although Mark Anthony Purisima passed the 1999 exam, he was stricken off the list of new lawyers who were to take the oath in May that year. The justices unanimously decided to disqualify him after discovering that he falsified a
certification that he had taken the pre-bar review and refresher course required for candidates who had failed the exam more than three times.
But the court allowed him to take the lawyer’s oath in December 2002.
PRINICIPLES: every applicant for admission into the practice of law, two qualifications of relevance to this in this instant case the requests of educational qualifications and good moral character.
ISSUE: IS HE QUALIFIED TO BE ADMITTED AS MEMBER OF THE BAR?
HELD: YES. There was only an honest mistake with respect to the documents given to the Supreme Court for the application for bar and He did not commit with any grave dishonesty that would amount him to be disqualified for admittance
to law.

PRINICIPLES: every applicant for admission into the practice of law, two qualifications of relevance to this in this instant case the requests of educational qualifications and good moral character.
B.M. No. 1222, February 4, 2004. WON Atty. Balgos and Atty. Disbarment Suspended for 7 years
 On September 22, 2003, there was a rumored leakage in the bar examination on the Mercantile Law subject. Investigation was lead back to de Guzman are guilty of
the office of Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgos, then Mercantile Law Examiner, where the leakage started. Allegedly, Atty. Danilo de Guzman (assistant gross misconduct
lawyer in the firm of Balgos and Perez) stole a copy of Atty. Balgos’ file on Mercantile Law with the proposed test items, and the former sent unbecoming a member of
it to some members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity. the Bar.
Bar Matter No. 1153
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 9, 2010

"B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court). - The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and
6 of Rule 138, to wit:

SEC. 5.Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. — All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding sections shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have successfully
completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where
the degree has been granted.

No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed the following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the
government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.

A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of
Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the
Philippine Government.

SEC. 6.Pre-Law. — An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present a certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the study of law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in
an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.

A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having completed a separate bachelor's degree course.

The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, is hereby directed to CIRCULARIZE this resolution among all law schools in the country."
B.M. No. 2265

RE: REFORMS IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS

Preliminary Statement

The Court has found merit in the proposed changes in the conduct of the bar examinations that the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar Examinations and Philippine Association of Law Schools recommended.

One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the annual bar examinations that in the past consisted merely of naming the laws that each subject covered. This description has been regarded as too general and
provides no specific understanding of the entry-level legal knowledge required of beginning law practitioners.

A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar examinations that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of laws, doctrines, principles, and precedents, it has been noted that such examinations
are unable to hit a significant cross-section of the subject matter. Further, the huge number of candidates taking the examinations annually and the limited time available for correcting the answers make fair correction of purely essay-
type examinations difficult to attain. Besides, the use of multiple choice questions, properly and carefully constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying professionals all over the world because of its proven reliability and facility of
correction.
A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type examinations but dedicating these to the assessment of the requisite communication skills, creativity, and fine intellect that bar candidates need for the practice of law.

Approved Changes

The Court has previously approved in principle the above recommended changes. It now resolves to approve the following rules that shall govern the future conduct of the bar examinations:

1. The coverage of the bar examinations shall be drawn up by topics and sub-topics rather than by just stating the covered laws. The test for including a topic or sub-topic in the coverage of the examinations is whether it covers laws,
doctrines, principles and rulings that a new lawyer needs to know to begin a reasonably prudent and competent law practice.

The coverage shall be approved by the Chairperson of the Bar Examination in consultation with the academe, subject to annual review and re-approval by subsequent Chairpersons.

2. The bar examinations shall measure the candidate’s knowledge of the law and its applications through multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) that are to be so constructed as to specifically:

2.1. Measure the candidate’s knowledge of and ability to recall the laws, doctrines, and principles that every new lawyer needs in his practice;

2.2. Assess the candidate’s understanding of the meaning and significance of those same laws, doctrines, and principles as they apply to specific situations; and

2.3. Measure his ability to analyze legal problems, apply the correct law or principle to such problems, and provide solutions to them.

3. The results of the MCQ examinations shall, if feasible, be corrected electronically.

4. The results of the MCQ examinations in each bar subject shall be given the following weights:

Political Law — 15%

Labor Law — 10%
Civil Law — 15%
Taxation — 10%
Mercantile Law — 15%
Criminal Law — 10%
Remedial Law — 20%
Legal Ethics/Forms — 5%
5. Part of the bar examinations shall be of the essay-type, dedicated to measuring the candidate’s skills in writing in English, sorting out the relevant facts in a legal dispute, identifying the issue or issues involved, organizing his thoughts,
constructing his arguments, and persuading his readers to his point of view. The essays will not be bar subject specific.

5.1. One such essay examination shall require the candidate to prepare a trial memorandum or a decision based on a documented legal dispute. (60% of essays)

5.2 Another essay shall require him to prepare a written opinion sought by a client concerning a potential legal dispute facing him. (40% of essays)

6. The essays shall not be graded for technically right or wrong aswers, but for the quality of the candidate’s legal advocacy. The passing standard for correction shall be work expected of a beginning practitioner, not a seasoned lawyer.

7. The examiners in all eight bar subjects shall, apart from preparing the MCQs for their respective subjects, be divided into two panels of four members each. One panel will grade the memorandum or decision essay while the other will
grade the legal opinion essay. Each member shall read and grade the examination answer of a bar candidate independently of the other members in his panel. The final grade of a candidate for each essay shall be the average of the
grades given by the four members of the panel for that essay.

8. The results of the a) MCQ and b) essay-type examinations shall be given weights of 60% and 40%, respectively, in the computation of the candidate’s final grade.

9. For want of historical data needed for computing the passing grade in MCQ kind of examinations, the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar
Examinations shall, with the assistance of experts in computing MCQ examination grades, recommend to the Court the appropriate conversion table or standard that it might adopt for arriving at a reasonable passing grade for MCQs in
bar examinations.

10. In the interest of establishing needed data, the answers of all candidates in the essay-type examinations in the year 2011 shall be corrected irrespective of the results of their MCQ examinations, which are sooner known because they
are electronically corrected. In future bar examinations, however, the Bar Chairperson shall recommend to the Court the disqualification of those whose grades in the MCQ are so low that it would serve no useful purpose to correct their
answers in the essay-type examinations.

11. Using the data and experience obtained from the 2011 Bar Examinations, future Chairpersons of Bar Examination are directed to study the feasibility of:

11.1. Holding in the interest of convenience and economy bar examinations simultaneously in Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao; and

11.2. Allowing those who pass the MCQ examinations but fail the essay-type examinations to take removal examinations in the immediately following year.

12. All existing rules, regulations, and instructions that are inconsistent with the above are repealed.

This Bar Matter shall take effect immediately, and shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

January 18, 2011.