Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that the Court en banc

issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 8, 2011, which reads as follows: "B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for Improving the Conduct of the Bar Examinations). - The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter dated January 28, 2011 of Justice Roberto A. Abad re: Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (Annual Examination), incident to the implementation of B.M. No. 2265 (Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations). The Court further Resolved to APPROVE the Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit: "Section 11. Annual examination. - Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law, and Labor and Social Legislation (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Second d ay: Civil Law (morning) and Mercantile Law (afternoon); Third day: Remedial Law, and Legal Ethics and Forums (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Trial Memorandum (morning) and Legal Opinion (afternoon)". (adv107) Very truly yours, (Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL Clerk of Court

BAR MATTER No. 1161 RE: PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE BAR EXAMINATIONS RESOLUTION ON REFORM IN THE BAR EXAMINANTIONS WHEREAS, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the Supreme Court en banc item in its Resolution of 21 March 2000, created a "Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms" to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools"; WHEREAS, the Special Study Group, with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted to the Supreme Court its Final Report, dated 18 September 2000, containing its findings and recommendations; WHEREAS, on 21 August 2001, the Supreme Court en banc referred, for further study, report and recommendation, the Final Report of the Special Study Group to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM) headed by Justice Jose C. Vitug; WHEREAS, in connection with the discussion on the proposed reforms in the bar examinations, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, then a Member of the CLEBM, submitted a Paper, entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer, proposing structural and administrative reforms, changes in the design and construction of questions, and the methodological reforms concerning the marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination; WHEREAS, proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine Association of Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the University of the Philippines College of Law, Arellano Law Foundation, the Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar; WHEREAS, considering her Memorandum to the Chief Justice on "Proposed Technical Assistance Project on Legal Education," dated 27 February 2003, Program Director Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum of the Program Management Office (PMO) was invited to a meeting of the CLEBM; WHEREAS, under the auspices of the PMO, the CLEBM conducted fur (4) regional round-table discussions with the law deans, professors, the students and members of the Integrated Bar of he Philippines for (a) the National Capital Region, at Manila Diamond Hotel on 19 November 2003; (b) Mindanao, at the Grand Regal Hotel Davao City on 23 January 2004; (c) the Visayas, at the Montebello Hotel in Cebu City on January 2004; and (d) Luzon, at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Manila on 6 February 2004.

WHEREAS, in a Special Meeting of the CLEBM at the Pan Pacific Hotel on 23 April 2004, the Committee heard the views of Ms. Erica Moeser, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the National Conference of Board Examiners in the United States of America on a number of proposed bar reforms; WHEREAS, the CLEBM, after extensive deliberation and consultation, has arived at certain recommendations for consideration by the Supreme Court and submitted its report , dated 21 May 2004, to the Court en banc; NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, sitting en banc, hereby RESOLVES to approve and adopt the following Bar Examination Reforms: For implementation within one (1) up to two (2) years: Initial determination by the Chairman of admission to the bar examinations of candidates (on the merits of the each case) to be passed upon by the Court en banc. Submission by law deans of a certification that a candidate has no derogatory record in school and, if any, the details and status thereof. Disqualification of a candidate after failing in three(3) examinations, provided, that he may take a fourth and fifth examination if he successful completes a one (1) year refresher course for each examination; provided, further, that upon the effectivity of this Resolution, those who have already failed in five(5) or more bar examinations shall be allowed to take only one (1) more bar examination after copleting (1) year refresher course. Promulgation of disciplinary measures for those involved in (a) attempts to violate or vitiate the integrity and confidentiality of the bar examination process; (b) improper conduct during the bar examination; and (c) improper conduct of "bar examinations." Disqualification of a Bar Examination Chairperson: kinship with an examinee who if his or her spouse or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity; having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee, or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an examinee; and being a member of the governing board, faculty or administration of a law school. Desirable qualifications of Examiners: membership in good standing in the Philippine Bar; competence in the assigned subject; a teacher of the subject or familiarity with the principles of test construction; and

commitment to check test papers personally and promptly pending the creation and organization of the readership panels provided for in item B(6) below Disqualifications of Examiners: kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee; or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an examinee; being a member of the governing board, faculty or administration of a law school teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or review center during the particular semester following the bar examinations; having any interest or involvement in any law school, bar review center or group; and suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction. Personal preparation, by handwriting or using a typewriter, of fifty (50) main questions, excluding subdivisions, and their submission to the Chairperson in sealed envelope at least forty-five (45) days before the schedule examination on any particular subject; examiners should not use computers in preparing questions; Apportionment of examination questions among the various topics covered by the subject; Burning and shredding of rough drafts and carbon papers used in the preparation of questions or in any other act connected with such preparation; Publication of names candidates admitted to take the bar examinations; Disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in any subject; Fixing at June 30 of the immediately preceding year as the cut-off date for laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar examinations; and Consideration of suggested answers to bar examinations questions prepared by the U.P. Law Center and submitted to the Chairperson. For implementation within two (2) years up to five (5) years: Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions; Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as part of the calibration of test papers;

Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and improving the essay examination;1awphil.net Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on the number of examinees ; Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson; Creation and organization of readership panels for each subject area to address the issue of bias or subjectivity and facilitate the formulation of test questions and the correction of examination booklets; and Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay questions to correct variations in the level of test standards. 1awph!l.t For implementation within five(5) years and beyond is the further computerization or automation of the bar examinations to facilitate application, testing, and reporting procedures. Items not covered by this resolution, such as those that pertain to a possible review of the coverage and relative weights of the subjects of the bar examinations, are maintained. For referral to the Legal education Boards: Accreditation and supervision of law schools. Inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in the law curriculum, including an apprenticeship program in the Judiciary, prosecution service, and law offices. Imposition of sanctions on law schools that fail to meet the standards as may be prescribed by the Legal Education Board. Mandatory Law School Admission Test. This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of July 2004, and shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. Promulgated this 8th day of June 2004.

BAR MATTER NO. 730 June 13, 1997 Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 10, 1997. IN RE: NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE ACTUALLY SUPERVISED DURING TRIAL (BAR MATTER NO. 730). The issue in this Consulta is whether a law student who appears before the court under t he Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A) should be accompanied by a member of the bar during the trial. This issue was raised by retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio P. Barredo, counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. BCV-92-11 entitled Irene A. Caliwara v. Roger T. Catbagan filed before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. The records show that the plaintiff in civil Case No. BCV-92-11 was represented by Mr. Cornelio Carmona, Jr., an intern at the Office of Legal Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-OLA). Mr. Carmona conducted hearings and completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence-in-chief without the presence of a supervising lawyer. Justice Barredo questioned the appearance of Mr. Carmona during the hearing because the latter was not accompanied by a duly accredited lawyer. On December 15, 1994, Presiding Judge Edelwina Pastoral issued an Order requiring Mr. Carmona to be accompanied by a supervising lawyer on the next hearing. In compliance with said Order, UP-OLA and the Secretary of Justice executed a Memorandum of Agreement directing Atty. Catubao and Atty. Legayada of the Public Attorney's Office to supervise Mr. Carmona during the subsequent hearings. Justice Barredo asserts that a law student appearing before the trial court under Rul e 138-A should be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. 1 On the other hand, UP-OLA, through its Director, Atty. Alfredo F. Tadiar, submits that "the matter of allowing a law intern to appear unaccompanied by a duly accredited supervising lawyer should be . . . left to the sound discretion of the court after having made at least one supervised appearance." 2 For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides. Section 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed the by supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clini c. The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than the physical presence of the supervising lawyer during the hearing. This is in accordance with the threefold rationale behind the Law Student Practice Rule, to wit: 3

1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence or inexperience of law students, who, not having as yet passed the test of professional competence, are presumably not fully equipped to act a counsels on their own; 2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be able to protect itself from any potential vicarious liability arising from some culpable action by their law students; and 3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to practice a particular profession without possessing the qualifications, particularly a license, as required by law. The matter of allowing a law student to appear before the court unaccompanied by a supervising lawyer cannot be left to the discretion of the presiding judge. The rule clearly states that the appearance of the law student shall be under the direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by law schools. The rule must be strictly construed because public policy demands that legal work should be entrusted only to those who possess tested qualifications, are sworn to observe the rules and ethics of the legal profession and subject to judicial disciplinary control. 4 We said in Bulacan v. Torcino : 5 Court procedures are often technical and may prove like snares to the ignorant or the unwary. In the past, our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party litigants in places where duly authorized members of the bar are not available (U.S. vs. Bacansas, 6 Phil. 539). For relatively simple litigation before municipal courts, the Rules still allow a more educated or capable person in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer. But for the protection of the parties and in the interest of justice, the requirement for appearances in regional trial courts and higher courts is more stringent. The Law Student Practice Rule is only an exception to the rule. Hence, the presiding judge should see to it that the law student appearing before the court is properly guided and supervised by a member of the bar. The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34 Rule 138 provides; Section 34. By whom litigation is conducted . In the court of a justice of the peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar. IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under the authority of Rule 138-A must be under the direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school and that said law student must be accompanied by a supervising lawyer in all his appearance.