In the resolution of the Philippine Supreme Court in re: BAR MATTER No. 1547 (RE: LETTER OF ATTY. JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, IBP, CONCERNING A NUMBER OF PRESSING CONCERNS OF THE IBP), February 7, 2006, it was reported that in a Letter dated January 24, 2006, Atty. Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, the National President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) at that time, raised the following concerns of the IBP:
(1) Retirement Plan for Legal Aid Clerks - The IBP proposes to set up a retirement plan for its legal aid clerks to be taken from the legal aid subsidy given by the Court. To cushion its financial impact on the finances of the IBP, it shall take effect five years from approval and be limited to two personnel per year. The retirement plan shall likewise be registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue to make it tax free.
(2) Subsidy for the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) - The CBD obtains its funds from the legal aid subsidy given by the Court. For the past five years, however, the average operational expenses of the CBD amounted to about P5 million. In order not to prejudice the IBP's legal aid activities, the IBP appeals that a subsidy be given to the CBD.
(3) IBP as Formal Party in Bar Discipline Cases - In two bar discipline cases appealed to the Court, the IBP claimed that its side was not heard because it was not made a formal party. To ensure that the IBP is given the opportunity to present its side, the IBP suggests that it be made a formal party in all appeals or petitions for review in bar discipline cases brought before the Court.
(4) Lifting of Suspension Order - Most courts require lawyers who have been suspended from the practice of law and who have served out their suspension to submit a certification from the Court that their suspension has been lifted. However, the IBP explained that the delay in securing the certification has the effect of extending the suspension. It requests that judges of the lower courts be directed to allow lawyers whose suspension period has already lapsed to practice before their courts upon proof of such fact without need of a formal certification from the Court.
(5) Resolution of the IBP Leadership Issue - Atty. Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz has been holding over the position of IBP National President for almost seven months. He will also be leaving soon for his masteral studies at the Harvard University. So as not to prejudice the next IBP President who will have a limited period to accomplish his projects for the IBP, the IBP requests the Court to resolve the leadership issue.
(6) New Rules on Notaries Public - A number of lawyers with pending bar discipline cases have complained on the refusal of judges to renew their notarial commissions unless they obtain a clearance from the Office of the Bar Confidant. It is the lawyers’ position that they should be presumed innocent until the cases are resolved against them and that they should be allowed to continue their notarial work in the meantime. The IBP requests the Court to clarify this matter.
(7) Payment of Delinquent IBP Dues - While membership in the IBP is mandatory, about 55% of the members do not pay their IBP dues. A great number of these members are public prosecutors, lawyers in the government service and even judges.
The IBP therefore requests that a circular addressed to the judges, prosecutors and all lawyers in the public service be issued by the Court enjoining them to comply with their IBP obligations. This will improve the collection of dues, augment lBP's finances, and make IBP less dependent on the Court subsidy for its legal aid program.
The Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM) made the following recommendations, which the Court duly noted and approved:
(1) To approve the IBP retirement plan subject to the submission of an actuarial study;
(2) To approve the subsidy for the Commission on Bar Discipline subject to the submission of a proposed budget;
(3) To advise the Clerk of Court to make the IBP a formal party in all appeals or petitions for review in bar discipline cases brought before the Court;
(4) To require the Office of the Bar Confidant to comment and recommend a resolution to the issue on lifting of suspension order for referral to the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court;
(5) To require Atty. Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz to advise the Court when he would be leaving for his masteral studies at the Harvard University;
(6) To refer the matter on renewal of notarial commissions of lawyers to the
Sub-Committee on Revision of Rules Governing Notaries Public; and
(7) To direct Atty. Edna E. Diño to inquire from the Office of the Court Administrator why the IBP dues of judges are not being paid and to submit her report to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters.
I wonder what has happened to this matter since 2006.
As far as I know, except for Item No. 5 above (re: Atty. Leonard de Vera’s aborted IBP presidency), no new resolutions or circulars have been issued by the Court on the abovementioned concerns. If there are such actions, the IBP national office and local IBP chapters have not issued formal circulars thereon for the information of its members.
I feel that the Court and the IBP must jointly act swiftly on the unresolved issues and concerns to continue to strengthen the Philippine Bar.
