8/12/2019 Re Query Free Acces to Court

1/3

M A Y 31, 2010 OFFICIAL G ZETTE 39[A .M. N o. 09-6-9-SC. A ug ust 19, 20 09]

EN BANGR E: Q U ER Y O M R . RO G ER C. PRIO RESCH I R E.

X M P T IO N F R O M L EG AL N D F ILING F EESO T H E G O O D SH EP H ERD F O U ND ATI ON,IN C.

S Y L L A BU S of th e R uling of the CourtPOLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; BILL O FRIGHTS; RIGHT O F F R EE ACCESS T OCOURTS AND Q U A S I JUDICIAL BODIESAND T O ADEQUATE L EG A L ASSISTANCE;EXEM P T IO N F R O M P A Y M EN T O F L EG A LF EES G R A N T ED T O IN D IG EN T LITIG NTS

CANNOT BE EXTENDED TOFOUNDATIONS WORKING FORINDIGENTS.The Courts cannot grant to foundations like the Good ShepherdF o undation, In c, th e sa me exemptions frompayment of legal fees granted to indigentlitigan ts even if th e foundations are workingfor indigent and underprivileged peo ple. T he basis for th e exem ption from le gal an d filingfeesis the free access clause embodied inSec. 11, A rt. Illof th e 1987 C o nstitution, th us:Sec. 11. F ree access to th e c o urts and quasijudicial bo dies and ade quate lega lassistanceshall no t be de nied to an y per so n by re aso nof poverty. T he importance of the right tofre e acc ess to th e courts an d quasi judicialbodies an d to adequate legal assistancecannot be de nied. A mo ve to rem o ve th eprovisio n on free access fro m the C o nstitutionon the ground that it was alreadycovered byth e equal pro te c tio n c lause was defeated byth e des ireto givec o nstitutional stature to suc hspecific protection of the poor Inimplementation of the right of free accessunder th e Constitution the Supreme Courtpromulgated rules, specifically Sec. 21 , R ule3, uleso Court and Sec. 19, R ule 141,ules o Court th e clear in tent an d preciselanguag e the re o f indicate that only a naturalparty lit igant may be regarded as an indigentlitigant. T he G oo d Shep herd F o undation, In c.,be inga co rpo ratio n inves ted by the State with aju rid ical personality separate and distinct fro mthato fits members, is a juridical person. A mongo the rs, it has the power to acquire and po ssessproperty o f all kinds aswel l as incur o bligationsand bring civil o r crim inal actions, in confo rmitywith the laws an d regulations of theiro rganization. A s a ju rid ic al person, therefore, itcanno t be ac co rde d the exe mption from legalan dfiling fees gran ted to indigent litigan ts. Thatthe G ood Shep he rd F o un dation, In c. is wo rkingfo r indigent and underprivileged peo ple is o f nomomen t. Clearly , the C o nstitution has exp lic itlypremised the free access clause on a person's

pover ty a co ndition that only a natur al pe rsoncan suffer. T he reareother rea sons that warrantthe rejection o f the reque st forexem ption in favo ro f a ju ridical person. F o r one, extending theexe mptio n to a juridical person on the gro und th at it wo rks fo r in digent and un derprivilegedpe ople ma y be prone to abuse (even with theim po si tio no f rigid documentation requiremen ts),partic ularly by corpo ratio ns and en tities bent oncircumve nting the rule on pa ymen t o f the fees.Also the scrutiny of compliance with thedo cumentatio n requiremen ts maypro ve too tim e-co nsum ing and wasteful fo r the courts.O P IN IO N O F T H E C O U R T

BERSA M IN, J.:In his letter dated May 22 2009addre ssed to the ChiefJustice M r. RogerC. Prioreschi administrator of the G o o dS hepherd F o u ndation, Inc., wro te :T he G o od Shepherd F oun datio n, Inc, is ve rygrateful fo r your 1st. Indorsemen t to pay a no minalfee o f P hp 5,000 .00 and the balance upo n th eco llectio n actiono f 10 mill io n pesos, thus giving us ac ces s to theJustice System previo usly denied byan up -fro nt ex cessive co ur t fee.T he H on. C o urt A dm in is tra to rJose Prezpointedout to the need o f co mplying with O C A C irc ularNo. 42-2005 and R ule 141 that reserve this

pr ivilege to indigent pe rsons . W hile ju dges areappo inted to in terpret thelaw, this type o f law se emsto ex tremelydetailed with requirem ents that do no tleave much ro om fo r interpretatio ns.In ad dition, this law deals mainly with individualindigent and it do es no t inc lude F oundations orAssociations that wo rk with and for the m o stIncJ ig ent persons. A s seen in o ur Article o fInco rpo ra tion, since 1985 th e G o o d S hepherdF o undation, In c. reache d-out to thepoo re st am o ngthe po or, to the newlybornand abandoned babies,to children who never sa w thesmile of the ir mother,

to old peo ple who can no t affo rd a few pes os to payfo r co mmon prescriptions , to broken fam ilie s whoreturned to a normal life . I n o ther words, we havebeenworking hard fo rthe very F i lipino pe ople, th atthe G overnment and the so ciety cann o t reac h to,or have rejected o r abandoned them .Can the Co urts gran t to o ur F oundation whowo rks fo r indigent and un derprivileged pe ople, thesame opt ion granted to indigent peo ple?T he two Executive Judges that we haveapproache d, fearaccusatio ns o f fav o ritism or o therkind o f attack if th ey ap prove so mething which isno t cle arly and spe c ifically stated in the law o rapproved by your H O N O R .Can yo ur H o no r help us onc e more?G rateful fo ryo ur un derstanding, G od bless youand yo ur unde rtakings.

8/12/2019 Re Query Free Acces to Court

2/3

3 9 OFFICIAL GAZETTE VOL. 106, No. 22We shall be privileged if you find t ime to visitou r orphanage - the Home of Love- and the SpiritualRetreat Center in Antipolo City.To answer the Querry of Mr. Prioreschi,the Court cannot grant to fo undations l ike

the G ood S hepherd Foundations, Inc, thesame exempt ion from payment of legal feesgranted to in d igent l i t igants even if th efoundat ions are working for indigent andun derprivileged people.The bas is for th e exemption from legaland filing fees is the free access clauseembodied in Sec. 11, Art. Ill of th e 1987Constitution, thus:Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and quasi

ju dicial b od ies and adequate legal assistance shallnot be denied to any person b y re ason of poverty.The importance of the right to free accessto the courts and quasi judicial bodies andto adequate legal assis tance cannot bedenied. A move to remove the provisionon f ree access from the Constitution on theground that it was already covered by th eequal protection clause was defeated by thedesire to give constitutional stature to suchspecific protection of the poor.

In implementat ion of the right of freeaccess under the Consti tut ion, the SupremeCourt promulgated rules, specifically, Sec.21, Rule 3 Rules of C ourt, and Sec. 19,ule 141, Rules of Court whichrespectively state thus:

Sec. 21. Indigent party A party m ay beauthorized to lit igate his action, claim or defenseas an indigent if the court, upon an ex parteapplication and hearing, is satisfied that the partyis one who has no money or property sufficientand available fo r food, shelter and basic necessit iesfor himself and his family.

Such authority shall include an exem ption frompayment of docket and other lawful fees, and oftranscripts of stenographic notes which the courtmay order to b e furnished him. The amount of thedocket and other lawful fees which the indigentwas exempted from paying sha ll be l ien on anyjudgment rendered in the case favora ble to theindigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

Any adverse party m ay contest the grant of suchauthori ty at any t ime before judgment is renderedb y the tria l court. I f the court should determineafter hearing that the party declared as an indigentis in fact person with suff icient income or property,the proper docket and other lawful fees shall beassessed and collected by the clerk of co urt. Ifpayment is not made within the time f ixed by thecourt, execution shall issue for the payment th ereof,without prejudice s to such other sanctions as thecourt may impose. (22a)

Sec. 19. Indigent l itigants exe mpt from paymentof legal fees. Indigent l it igants (a) whose grossin come and that of their immediate family do notexc eed double the monthly minimum wage of anamount double the monthly m in imum wage of anemployee and (b) who do not own real propertywith a fair market value as stated in the current taxdeclaration of more than three hundred thousand(P300.000.00) pesos shall be exempt from paymentof legal fees.

The legal fees shall b e a l ien on any judgmentrendered in the case favorable to the indigent litigantunless the court otherwise provides.To be entitled to the exemption herein provided,the litigant shall execute an aff idavi t that he andhis im m ediate family do not earn a gross incomeabovem entioned, and they do not own any realproperty with the fair value aforementioned,

supported by an affidavit of disinteres ted personattesting to the truth of the l i t igan t s affidavit. Thecurrent tax declaration, if any shall be attached tothe l i t iga nt s affidavit. ny falsity in the affidavit of litigant ordisinterested person shall be suff icient cause todismiss the compla int or action or to strike out . thepleading of that party, without prejudice to whatevercriminal liabili ty may have been incurred.The clear intent and precise language ofthe aforequoted provisions of the Rules of

Court indicate that on ly a natural partylitigant may b e regarded as an indigentl i t igant. The Good Shepherd Foundation,Inc., b eing a corporation invested b y thestate with a juridica l personal i ty separateand distinct from that of its members , 4 is a

Bernas, 1987 Philippine Constitution of theRepublic of the Philippines: A Commentary 1996Ed., p. 4064, citing the Journal of the 1935Con stitutional Convention 1275-1277. 19 97 Ru/es of Civil Procedure.3 As revised, effective August 16, 2004.

4 The Civil Code provides:Art. 44 The following are juridica l persons:1)The state and its political subdivis ions;2) Other corporations, institutions and entities fo rpu blic interest or purpose, created by law; theirpersonal i ty begins as soon as they have beenconsti tuted according to law;3 Corporations, p rtnerships and sso-ciations for private interest or purpose to whichthe law grants juridical personality separateand distinct from that of each shareholderpartner or member.

8/12/2019 Re Query Free Acces to Court

3/3

M A Y 31, 2010 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 9juridical person. A mon g others, it has thepower to acquire and possess property ofall kinds as well as incur obligations andbring civil or criminal actions, in conformitywith the laws and regulations of theirorganization. A s a juridical persons,therefore, it cannot be accorded theexemption from legal and filing fees grantedto indigent litigants.

That the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc,is working for indigent and underprivi legedpeopl e is of no moment. Clearly, theConstitution has explicitly premised the freeaccess clause on a persons poverty acondition that only a natural person cansuffer.

There are other reasons that warrant therejection of the request for exemption infavor of a juridical person. For one,extending the exemption to a juridicalperson on the ground th t it works forindigent and underprivileged people may beprone to abuse (even with the imposit ion of

rigid documentation requirements ,particularly by corporations and entit ies benton circumventing the rule on payment o fthe fees. A lso, the scrutiny o f compliancewith the documentation requirements mayprove too t ime consuming and wasteful forthe courts.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the oodShepherd Foundation, Inc. cannot beextended the exemption from legal and filingfees despite its working for indigent andunderprivi leged people.SO ORDERED.

Puno C J. Carpi Corona CarpiMorales Chico-Nazario Ve/asco, Jr.Nachura Leonardo-de Castro Brion andPeralta JJ. concur.Quisumbing and Ynares-Santiago JJ. onofficial leave.Del Casti l lo and Abad JJ. no part.

Art . 46, Civil Code.