Title
Supreme Court
Re: Request of National Committee on Legal Aid
Case
A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC
Decision Date
Aug 28, 2009
IBP sought exemption from legal fees for indigent clients, citing access to justice. Supreme Court granted exemption, aligning IBP Legal Aid with PAO, ensuring equal access for the poor.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter, through Board of Officers, seeking fee exemptions for its legal aid clients.
Respondent: Supreme Court, acting on an administrative matter (A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC).

Key Dates

• September 23, 2008 – IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter adopts Resolution No. 24, s. 2008.
• November 18, 2008 – Supreme Court requires IBP/NCLA to comment.
• December 18, 2008 – IBP/NCLA submits its comment.
• August 28, 2009 – Supreme Court resolves to grant the fee exemption and promulgate the implementing rule.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III Section 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.”
• Section 16-D, R.A. 9406 (PAO Law) – automatic fee exemption for PAO clients.
• Rules of Court, Rule 3 Section 21 and Rule 141 Section 19 – in forma pauperis litigation.
• IBP’s Guidelines on Legal Aid; Code of Professional Responsibility.

Resolution No. 24, Series of 2008 (IBP-Misamis Oriental)

The chapter requested the NCLA to petition the Supreme Court, Philippine Mediation Center, DOJ, National Prosecution Service, and other agencies to exempt IBP legal aid clients from filing, docket, motion, mediation, and other incidental fees, mirroring the automatic exemption enjoyed by PAO clients under R.A. 9406.

NCLA’s Comment and Rationale

• PAO clients automatically exempt under Section 16-D, R.A. 9406; IBP clients must litigate via in forma pauperis, requiring costly barangay and DSWD certifications.
• Government subsidy to IBP legal aid insufficient for operational costs, let alone court and mediation fees.
• Supreme Court previously exempted IBP clients from stenographic transcript fees by circular.
• Recommended issuance of a Supreme Court directive to grant a fee exemption analogous to PAO clients.

Constitutional Mandate on Access to Justice

The Court emphasized that access to justice is both a democratic imperative and a constitutional right under Article III Section 11. It recognized the IBP’s role in providing legal aid and noted that indigent litigants may proceed in forma pauperis under existing Rules of Court but that a tailored rule could simplify and expand access for IBP clients.

Principles Underlying Legal Aid and Fee Exemption

• Legal aid is a public responsibility of the bar, not charity, intended to correct social imbalances that lead to injustice (IBP Guidelines; Code of Professional Responsibility).
• The combined “means and merit tests” ensure that only qualified indigents with reasonable cases access assistance, preventing abuse of fee exemptions.

Rule on the Exemption from Payment of Legal Fees (A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC [IRR])

Purpose
– Enforce free access to courts by exempting qualified NCLA and local IBP chapter clients from all legal fees incidental to instituting actions or appeals.

Key Definitions
– “Legal fees”: filing, docket, appeal, provisional remedy, mediation, sheriff’s, stenographer’s, and commissioner’s fees.
– “Means test”: gross family income ≤ 2× local minimum wage and real property ≤ ₱300,000; certain disadvantaged groups exempt.
– “Merit test”: cause or defense must be valid and reasonably winnable.

Coverage and Exclusions
– Covered: indigent individual clients of NCLA and chapter legal aid offices who pass both tests.
– Exclusions: juridical persons (except public interest entities), those with de parte counsel, certain landowners, repeat offenders for falsity, and conflicting-interest cases; criminal prosecution.

Procedural Safeguards
– Standard application, affidavits, and interviews; provisional acceptance for urgent matters; assignment of control numbers; issuance of court-recognized certificates; mandatory statement and attachment of certificate in initiatory pleadings; co-signing of pleadings; distribution of cases; and policies to avoid conflicts





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.