A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC; August 28, 2009
RE: REQUEST OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID TO EXEMPT LEGAL AID CLIENTS FROM PAYING FILING, DOCKET AND OTHER FEES

FACTS

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Misamis Oriental Chapter passed a resolution requesting the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) to seek an exemption from the payment of filing, docket, and other legal fees for clients of IBP legal aid offices. The resolution highlighted that while clients of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) are automatically exempt from such fees under Section 16-D of R.A. No. 9406 , indigent clients represented by IBP legal aid chapters are not. These IBP clients, though meeting the same indigency and merit tests as PAO clients, must undergo the separate and often burdensome process of applying to litigate as paupers under the Rules of Court, which involves additional expense and procedural difficulty.
The IBP, through the NCLA, submitted a comment endorsing the request. It argued that the existing pauper litigant process is onerous for indigent clients and that the government’s legal aid subsidy to the IBP is insufficient to cover these court fees. The NCLA thus requested the Supreme Court to promulgate a rule granting IBP legal aid clients the same automatic exemption from payment of legal fees enjoyed by PAO clients, to further the public service mission of legal aid.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant an automatic exemption from the payment of filing, docket, and other legal fees to indigent clients represented by IBP legal aid offices.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the request for an automatic exemption. The Court clarified that the exemption granted to PAO clients is a statutory privilege expressly provided by Republic Act No. 9406 , the law governing the PAO. No similar statutory mandate exists for clients of the IBP’s legal aid program. The power to grant such an exemption lies with the legislature, not the judiciary.
The Court emphasized that existing remedies are already available to indigent litigants, including IBP clients, under the Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 3, Section 21 allows a party to litigate as an indigent (pauper litigant) upon application and submission of proof of indigency. The Court noted that the IBP’s role is to assist these clients in complying with these procedural requirements, not to bypass them. Creating an automatic exemption by judicial fiat would be an unwarranted judicial legislation, encroaching upon the domain of Congress. The proper course of action for the IBP is to lobby Congress for the passage of a law that would grant the exemption it seeks, mirroring the legislative grant given to the PAO.