Scribd
Upload
90 views2 pages

LEG PROF. - Regulation of Legal Profession

1) The Supreme Court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over legal education, which is part of the larger Philippine educational system, and that its rule-making power is limited to regulating the practice of law. 2) The Court found no conflict between its rule-making authority and the power of the Legal Education Board to prescribe minimum standards for law admission, such as the PhiLSAT exam. 3) The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Legal Education Board and its power to regulate admission to law schools.

Uploaded by

Nor-Hatab Dalagan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
90 views2 pages

LEG PROF. - Regulation of Legal Profession

1) The Supreme Court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over legal education, which is part of the larger Philippine educational system, and that its rule-making power is limited to regulating the practice of law. 2) The Court found no conflict between its rule-making authority and the power of the Legal Education Board to prescribe minimum standards for law admission, such as the PhiLSAT exam. 3) The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Legal Education Board and its power to regulate admission to law schools.

Uploaded by

Nor-Hatab Dalagan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Regulation of Legal Profession

Case Digest: Pimentel, et. al., vs. LEB et. al., G.R. Nos. 230642 & 242952,
September 10, 2019

Facts:
On December 23, 1993, the Congress passed into law R.A. No. 7662,
R.A. 7662 created the LEB, with prior authorization from the court, by the JBC.
The LEB issued MO No. 7, Series of 2016 pursuant to its power to “prescribe the
minimum standards for law admission” under Section 7(e) of Republic Act No.
7662.
The rationale behind LEBMO No. 7-2016 is to improve legal education by
requiring all those seeking admission to the basic law course to take and pass a
nationwide uniform law school admission test, known as PhiLSAT to be
administered under the control and supervision of LEB. Effective Academic Year
2017-2018, no applicant of law school was allowed to admission without having
taken or passed the PhiLSAT.
The petitioners, Oscar Pimentel et. al., filed their Petition for Prohibition,
docketed as G.R. No. 230642, principally seeking that R.A No. 7662 be declared
unconstitutional and that the creation of the LEB be invalidated together with all
its issuances, most especially the PhiLSAT, for encroaching upon the rule-
making power of the Court concerning admission to the practice of law.
Petitioners argue that R.A No. 7662 and PhiLSAT are offensive to the
SC’s power to regulate and supervise the legal profession pursuant to the
constitution and that Congress cannot create an administration office that
exercise the Court’s power over the practice of law. The petitioners also assailed
the power of LEB under R.A 7662 to prescribe the qualifications and
compensation of faculty members and to adopt a system of continuing legal
education as being repugnant to the Court’s rule-making power concerning the
practice of law.

Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court has the rule-making power covers the
practice of law?

Ruling: In the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Jose Reyes, Jr., the
court ruled that contrary to the submission of the petitioners, the Court has no
jurisdiction over legal education, as it is a mere component of the entire
Philippine educational system. According to the Court, the Supreme Court’s
exclusive rule-making power covers the practice of law and not the study of law.
Its authority is limited to define the practice of law, to determine who will be
admitted to the practice of law, to hold in contempt any person found to be
engaged in unauthorized practice of law and to exercise corollary disciplinary
authority over members of the bar.
The Court finds no constitutional conflict between its rule-making power
and the power of LEB to prescribe the minimum standards for law admission
under Sec. 7(e) of R.A 7662. As such, the PhiLSAT, which intends to regulate
admission to law schools, cannot be voided on this ground. Sec. 7(e) insofar as it
gives LEB the power to prescribe minimum standards for law admissions is
faithful to the reasonable supervision and regulation clause. It merely amounts to
supervision, not to control.

You might also like