Justice Dante Tinga Speech

I finally found the sought after Justice Dante Tinga Speech in the Manila Bulletin website. Bar takers, take heed of the buzzwords. Is this speech an indication of what will come out of the bar? I don't know. You be the judge. But to be on the safe side, just read the whole speech.

General practice to cross-border practice: Trends & paradigms

(Address delivered at the commencement exercises of the Ateneo de Manila School of Law, 27 April 2008)

Justice Dante O. Tinga

Good afternoon. Right off, I thank Justice Jose Sabio for a memorable yet straightforward introduction, shorn of the usual hyperbole.

I also thank the Ateneo Law School, for according me the privilege to address this year’s graduating class. I refuse to believe though that the privilege has something to do with my being the chair of the 2008 Bar Examination Committee. This graduating class particularly does not need "bar tips."

I congratulate the graduates, the Ateneo Law community, and the wider community of the family and friends of the 2008 graduates of the Ateneo School of Law. Without their love and support of the graduates, this day would not have been a reality. The travails of law school are especially unique, perhaps even barely comprehensible to the outsider. The untypically intense classroom; the daunting attrition rate; the inimitable pressure inflicted by reading voluminous textbooks, cases and materials, not to mention the unique writing style of a Chief Justice during the martial law years. It is difficult to translate these peculiar stresses to family and friends who are not lawyers or who had no experience in law school, yet all that suffices from them is unwavering trust and unquestioning support.

And to the members of the Ateneo law faculty, kudos to you for having finely honed a fresh batch of graduates in the proud tradition and values of the Ateneo Law School. The Ateneo legal education has more than adequately prepared the graduates not only to pass the final hurdle to law practice, the bar examinations, but more so to ply the legal profession. Its curriculum aptly looks beyond the immediacy of passing the examinations, focusing as it does on the consequential objective to mold intellectually proficient, morally upright, and properly oriented members of the Bar and citizens of the Republic.

I have found it hard choosing an appropriate topic for this occasion. That difficulty is peculiar to sitting members of the Supreme Court. While there are multitudes of fascinating legal topics worthy of discourse, the field of choice of incumbent justices is limited. They cannot speak on a question which is sub judice or which expectedly may be brought before the Court. In a way though, this difficulty flowing from the nature of our office bears an advantage. We cannot be compelled to speak on certain things, a form of "executive privilege," if you will.

As I was mulling over the choice of subject for my speech, I asked myself what may have motivated you, the graduates, to take up law just as I tried to recall how and why I entered law school myself. Was it because you really wanted to become a lawyer and practice law as well? Or was it just a delaying tactic? You didn’t know what you wanted to do. Or, you saw law as a means to an end? You wanted to become rich as you suspected lawyers make a lot of money. You wanted to get into politics having learned that many politicians are also lawyers. Or you wanted to go into business and preferred to be the one who would fool others, instead of being fooled. Or, you didn’t know what course else to take? Or you abhorred math? Or was it because there was no lawyer in the family yet?

In the end, I decided to devote my address today to the evolving legal practice in the Philippines, and to the challenges and benefits of such an evolution. To begin, we must accept the premise, shattering as it may be to our complacency, that our law practice is evolving, and will continue to evolve to respond to the needs of the times.

To backtrack a bit, I was admitted to the Philippine Bar during the presidency of Carlos P. Garcia, whose well-meaning "Filipino First" economic policy had the unfortunate effect of unduly favoring local cartels. Attuned perhaps to those protectionist times, the legal practice in the Philippines then was more insular. By tradition, most lawyers were immersed in general practice, and specialization was almost unheard of. We handled civil and criminal cases, land and family law cases, tax and simple patent cases – in short, the sort of cases which the public perceives to be the bread and butter of the legal profession. In a sense, the limited scope of legal practice then was reflective of the times. Our economy was less complicated and our society more parochial then than they are today. Our especially close military and political ties with the United States then, and the greater polarization of the Cold War world between communist and noncommunist nations, allowed the Philippines to bother less with the intricacies of the dynamics of globalization, which was then a pipe dream.

Subsequently, martial law and the dictatorship happened. No amount of revisionism can becloud the darkness of those times. Anybody who consciously exercised their guaranteed civil and political rights lived in reasonable fear that they could be abducted or even killed at the hands of the government that was supposed to protect them. Only Marcos-approved sentiments or messages could be expressed in the mass media. If the Internet existed then, it would have been restricted and censored, and bloggers would have lived in fear of arrest or worse.

Yet from the unholy cauldron of martial law, a new breed of lawyers emerged – the human rights lawyers, for whom totalitarian oppression proved to be their formative experience. There emerged a field of law that focused on the promotion of an individual’s civil and political rights, especially in behalf of those disadvantaged by circumstance or the will of others from fully comprehending the innate existence of such rights. The heroic human rights lawyers would later exert an especially strong influence on the post-EDSA socio-political discourse, such as in the crafting of the 1987 Constitution.

The post-EDSA years gave rise to an even more complex legal playing field, corresponding to the growing complexity of our own laws. The considerable economic boom the Philippines experienced during the 1990s had a profound effect on legal practice. Many law firms chose to embrace specialization over general practice, and the biggest of the firms created specialized departments or areas of practice. The height of economic success proved especially beneficial to firms specializing in corporate law, while the following economic downturn would favor firms specializing in civil litigation and collection cases.

Legislative developments also led to new fields of specialization in law. Earlier, the enactment of the Labor Code changed the dynamics of labor law from being a mere subset of civil and contract law into a specialized field that attracted many lawyers. Concerns over the ecosystem found expression in the 1987 Constitution, in jurisprudence and in legislation, from which environmental law emerged as another field of specialization in the Philippines. New technologies have given rise to added fields of legal practice -- witness the recent growth of telecommunications law and e-commerce law. Existing laws, such as the Tax Code and the Securities Regulation Code, became more sophisticated, leading to a greater necessity for specialized practice in those fields. And there have been recent laws that deal with uncharted waters, such as the Mining Act and the Indigenous People Rights Act that have created entirely new legal paradigms which may very well lead to a need for specialization in those areas as well.

There is a common thread to all these evolutionary developments. It is when these movements and trends enter the national public-consciousness that Philippine legal practice needed to adapt to accommodate these new developments. Many times, it was not enough to accommodate these emergent circumstances into the existing legal milieu; instead it is our own legal system that was forced to adjust to the times. And noticeably, many of these issues were thrust into the national public debate by figures or movements which may have initially been outside of the establishment or the mainstream thought, but whose ideas gained acceptance over time.

I now would like to bring focus to one trend that has emerged internationally which our own legal system has yet to accommodate. The rise of the globalized economy has led to the growing acceptance by many states of cross-border practice of law by foreign lawyers. Cross-border practice has been allowed within the European Union since the late 1970s as a consequence of the adoption of a common market. It has been regulated through Directives, which established guidelines governing the provision of services, the mutual recognition of diplomas, and the establishment of permanent professional law practices in foreign states. The allowance of the cross-border practice of law in the European Union has not led to any major problems or scandals, despite initial fears that there would be an unacceptable increase in unregulated or uncontrollable behavior, fears which have proved unfounded.

The accession by the Philippines to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) as part of the Uruguay Round Agreement might very well be the gateway to the allowance of cross-border practice of law in the Philippines. The GATS, which was intended towards "the early achievement of progressively higher levels of liberalization of trade in services," defines "services" as any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority," the latter exception being defined as "any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers."

This definition of "services" clearly includes the provision of professional legal services. The GATS mandates that "each Member shall accord immediately and unconditionally to services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable than that it accords to like services and service suppliers of any other country." However, it is also recognized that such treatment may not be possible for every service activity, thus the parties are authorized to specify exemptions, which are included as an annex to the GATS, and subject to review after five years and a normal limitation of 10 years in their duration. The GATS also provides guidelines for allowing the automatic and mutual recognition of education and experience obtained, requirements met, or licences or certifications granted, in a particular country.

In a recent workshop conducted by the ASEAN Law Association, there was a consensus that the liberalization of the legal services sector in ASEAN countries was desirable and inevitable because of the GATS, notwithstanding resistance among many ASEAN nations based on the view that the right to practice in the local Bar is an adjunct of sovereignty. The International Bar Association has likewise adopted a resolution calling for the "Regulation of Foreign Lawyers" as practitioners of foreign law for the limited purpose of permitting them to practice the law of their home jurisdiction in the host jurisdiction without examination or full admission to the host bar.

There are, as should be expected, potential problem areas with respect to cross-border practice. An especially sensitive topic is the applicable code of conduct that applies to a lawyer engaged in cross-border practice. Since most nations have adopted their own legal codes of conduct, the question arises whether such codes bind the foreign lawyer practicing in that country, or whether the foreign lawyer remains bound to her or his own national code. The European Union has mandated that such lawyer be subject to both home and host rules, a situation which has come to be known as "double deontology." Perhaps, as cross-border practice becomes more prevalent worldwide, the need will arise for the adoption of international agreements governing the code of conduct of lawyers in cross-border practice.

Section 14, Article XII of our Constitution states that "[t]he practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law." Nonetheless, since the GATS is part of the WTO Agreement, a treaty which the Philippines ratified in 1994, it has the force of law in this jurisdiction. In any event, any legislation allowing foreigners to practice their profession in the Philippines, following Section 14, Article XII, will pass constitutional muster, except the professions which the Constitution specifically confines to Filipino citizens, such as the management of mass media or the advertising industry.

There are understandable qualms within the Philippine legal community, especially among the old-guard, to the allowance of cross-border practice in the Philippines. Some of these concerns may arise out of self-interest, such as the potential diminution in profits of Filipino lawyers, but others do arise out of selfless, nationalistic motives. It is not an accessible assumption that foreign lawyers will act in the best interests of their Filipino clients, or adhere to the interests of Filipino sovereignty as they develop their particular advocacies. Neither could we intelligently assume that foreign lawyers will be well-versed in the Philippine legal system, or the Philippine social animus, to be able to render the most competent legal services to Filipino or Philippine-based clients. Indeed, even if cross-border practice were eventually allowed in the Philippines, a prospective client of a foreign lawyer would still be best served by an element of caution, or a minimal degree of caveat emptor.

Nonetheless, if we refuse to allow cross-border practice of law in the Philippines even as the rest of our Asian neighbors accede to the practice, the Philippines will be in danger of isolation from the global community. And truth be told, there are benefits to allowing cross-border practice here which extend beyond signification that we are members in good standing of the international trade community. Just as the Supreme Court has extremely benefited with its interactions with foreign high courts and foreign legal systems, the Philippine legal community can only be intellectually enriched with greater exposure to the legal practices of foreign lawyers. These interactions may even spur necessary law reforms in the Philippines. Added competition could likewise provide the impetus for the improvement or further competence of Filipino lawyers, who may have settled into professional complacency.

As a matter of fact, increasingly many of the best and brightest of our young lawyers have benefited from cross-border practice as they gained employment in foreign law firms in as diverse jurisdictions as Singapore and Norway. I can predict with certainty that within five years, some of you of the graduating class of 2008 will be practicing your profession in a different country. This development should not be cause for alarm, for we cannot really fault a Filipino desirous of self-improvement securing the most advantageous economic situation for her or his family. At the same time, if our own domestic law practice were to be diversified to allow cross-border practice, the result may very well be a more dynamic and profitable local milieu that provides more enticing opportunities for advancement.

The emergence of cross-border practice, not only as potentially adopted by the Philippines, but also as currently engaged in by Filipino lawyers abroad, may necessitate adjustments as well in the curriculum of Philippine law schools. The ASEAN Law Association, in its 2003 General Assembly, identified the need to train lawyers who are commercially relevant in an era where cross-border transactions are increasingly the norm; to sensitize law students to the larger issues of globalization such as human rights and the environment; and to revise law school curricula to include greater emphasis on international and comparative laws.

A legal curriculum that is designed solely to gain the law student’s eventual admission to the Philippine bar through rote memorization of Philippine legal provisions will be woefully insufficient to train such student in this fast evolving legal environment. A more viable curriculum is one designed to help the law student absorb the fundamentals that permeate all the legal systems of the world. A student who is grounded in these basics, as well as in legal methodology, will be better equipped in interacting with the international legal community and the transnational business circles, as well as in grasping the inevitable changes in Philippine law.

For example, in corporation law, I submit that it is more useful to train the student in the fundamental principles of corporate practice and securities regulation, as well as trade and finance, as they are applied in the world, rather than focus on mastery of the individual provisions of our Corporation Code. There is no harm, of course, in studying the provisions of the Corporation Code, yet the ultimate goal should be to use these provisions to unlock the philosophy which underlies their adoption, and how such philosophy relates to the theories that gave rise to the fundamentals in corporate law.

And if the Philippine legal scene were reoriented with an eye towards accommodating the international community, even the law schools such as that of the Ateneo would stand to benefit. There are all the good reasons, and there should be no impediments for a future wherein the most promising students in the Asia-Pacific region, if not the world, would aspire and compete for admission to the Ateneo School of Law. That prospect would become more immediate the moment cross-border practice is permitted in the Philippines. Still, when that time comes, it will most likely not spur a sudden need or rush for foreigners to devote their careers to the practice of law in the Philippines. That time will only emerge if Philippine law schools such as the Ateneo are able to provide a legal education that supplies universal legal skills that find application regardless of the legal system or jurisdiction.

Yes, we should not fear, but try to embrace, the continuing modernization of law even if it leads to directions that our own law school education might not have prepared us for. At the same time, we must always remember that the law exists not merely to facilitate the complex activities of mankind, but to ensure that these activities are conducted in good faith and with due respect for the rights of others. As we bear witness to the evolution of law, we must observe fealty to the ethical values of the profession, remain grounded with our basic humanity and democratic ideals, and resist changes which seek to countermand the moral obligations of law.

You, the graduates of the Class of 2008, face the prospect of uncertain boundaries in the field of law. Inevitably, the face of law practice in the Philippines will be markedly different from what you have been exposed to in law school or what you will learn in your initial years of practice. I myself have been witness to these changes, and I can only take delight in such evolution as a sign of progress. I hope you take it upon yourselves to further your legal education. A life in the law offers a dynamically evolving curriculum that advances with the progress and successes achieved by the human race in furthering the eminent values of liberty, equality, freedom, prosperity and justice.

Clearly, through the years, law practice has undergone a grand transformation, characterized by phenomenal leaps and bounds. Filipino lawyers themselves have been assigned changing monickers. First, there was the provincial lawyer – the laidback type; then the city lawyer – the slick type; next the abogado de campanilla – the lawyer’s lawyer; and very soon, the Filipino lawyer will be known as the international lawyer or the transnational practitioner.

So, to the graduates of the Class of 2008, welcome to the emerging new world of law. Welcome to the new paradigms of legal practice. Thank you and good day to all.

Can anyone give me a copy of the Justice Tinga speech?

I've heard a lot about the speech supposedly made by Justice Tinga. But I can't seem to find a copy. If anyone has a copy, can you provide me with one? It will be of great help, and I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance!

J. Tinga Hearsay

I heard that Justice Tinga is going to be a tougher nut to crack than Justice Azcuna. I heard that bar takers will have to read a greater breadth than before. For example, if the Nachura book was enough for the past Poli bar exams, that's not the case for J. Tinga (allegedly). You have to study Nachura and Cruz and/or Bernas. I also heard that he was a former dean of UE. So get reacquainted with your UE law student-friends and ask for some tips.

But you know what they say about hearsay: "... [it] can not be given credence for it has no probative value."

Stated differently: don't take my word for it!

Justice Dante Tinga Decisions

Here is a list of some of Justice Tinga's ponencias from June 2003 to June 2006. The list is not complete, but I hope it can still help.


Criminal Law
People v. Pabillo /GR 122103 /November 4, 2003
People v. Escalante /GR 151111-112 /December 1, 2003
People v. De La Torre /GR 121213 /January 13, 2004
People v. Factao /GR 125966 /January 13, 2004
People v. Santos /GR 127492 /January 16, 2004
Nuñez v. People /GR 127962 /April 14, 2004
People v. Almendral /GR 126025 /July 6, 2004
People v. Minon /GR 148397-400 /July 7, 2004
Vicky Ty v. People /GR 149275 /September 27, 2004
Cabrera v. Marcelo /GR 157419 /December 13, 2004
Soplente v. People /GR 152715 /July 29, 2005
Brillante v. CA /GR 118757/121571 /November 11, 2005
Rabanal v. People /GR 160858 Feb 28, 2006
Zarraga v. People /GR 162064 /March 14, 2006

Political Law
People v. Tudtud /GR 144037 /September 26, 2003
Anwar v. COMELEC /GR 153991-92 /October 16, 2003
Prividec v. Capitol Steel Corp /GR 155692 /October 23,2003
Matugas v. COMELEC /GR 151944 /January 20, 2004
Sanlakas v. Reyes /GR 159085 /February 2, 2004
LDP v. COMELEC /GR 161265 /February 24, 2004
Salic v. COMELEC /GR 157007 /March 17, 2004
Dimaporo v. House of Reps /GR 158359 /March 23, 2004
Pamatong v. COMELEC /GR 161872 /April 13, 2004
Idulza v. COMELEC /GR 160130 /April 14, 2004
AKLAT v. COMELEC /GR 162203 /April 14, 2004
Quizon v. CA /GR 127819 /April 27, 2004
Freedom from Debt Coalition /GR 161113 /June 15, 2004
CSC v. Asensi /GR 160657 /June 30, 2004
Southern Cross v. Phil Cement /GR 158450 /July 8, 2004
Globe Telecom v. NTC /GR 143964 /July 26, 2004
Velasquez v. Hernandez /GR 150732 /August 31, 2004
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS v. COA /GR 150769 /August 31, 2004
National Liga ng mga Brgy v. Paredes /GR 130775 /September 27, 2004
Brillante v. CA /GR 118757 /October 19, 2004
PICOP v. Calo /GR 161798 /October 20, 2004
Disomangcop v. Datumanong /GR 149848 /November 25, 2004
CSC v. Asensi /GR 160657 /December 17, 2004
Sultan Camid v. Office of the President /GR 161414 /January 17, 2005
Tan v. Pereña /GR 149743 /February 18, 2005
Balajonda v. COMELEC /GR 166032 /February 28, 2005
Quiambao v. CA /GR 128305 /March 28, 2005
City of Manila v. Laguio /GR 118127 /April 12, 2005
DARAB v. Lubrica /GR 159145 /April 19, 2005
De Jesus v. COA /GR 127515 /May 10, 2005
Land Bank v. Natividad /GR 127198 /May 16, 2005
Davao New Town v. COSLAP /GR 141523 /June 8, 2005
Carlos F. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan /GR 165835 /June 22, 2005
Southern Cross v. Cement Manufacturers /GR 158540 /August 3, 2005
Spouses Ong v. Sandiganbayan /GR 126858 /September 16, 2005
Hospicio de San Jose v. /GR 140847 /September 23, 2005
Reyes v. Atienza /GR 143374 /September 23, 2005
Guingguing v. CA /GR 128959 /September 30, 2005
Atitiw v. Zamora /GR 143374 /September 30, 2005
Sps. Constantino v. Cuisia /GR 106064 /October 13, 2005
Danan v. CA /GR 132759/132866 /October 25, 2005
PPA v. Pier 8 Arrastre /GR 147861/155252 /November 18, 2005
Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan /GR 141675 – 96 /November 25, 2005
Antonio v. Geronimo /GR 124779 /November 29, 2005
Federated Realty Corp v. CA /GR 127967 /December 14, 2005
Republic v. Gingoyon /GR 166429 /December 19, 2005
Ingles v. Cantos /GR 125202 /January 31, 2006
Republic v. Gingoyon /GR 166429 /February 1, 2006
Nasecore v. ERC /GR 163935 /February 2, 2006
Santos Development Corporation v. Secretary /GR 159654 /February 28, 2006
MIAA v. Rodriguez /GR 161836 /February 28, 2006
CHED v. Mercado /GR 157877 /March 10, 2006
Senate v. Ermita /GR 169777 /July 14, 2006

Taxation
Commisioner of Customs v. Phil Phosphate /GR 144440 /September 1, 2004 Paseo Realty v. CA /GR 119286 /October 13, 2004
CDCP Mining v. CIR /GR 122213 /July 28, 2005
City of Davao v. RTC /GR 127383 /August 18, 2005
Yamane v. BA Lepanto /GR 154993 /October 25, 2005
CIR v Benguet /GR 134587 /July 8 2005
FEBTC v. CIR /GR 138919 /May 2, 2006
CIR v. BPI /GR 147375 /June 26, 2006

Commercial Law
Filipinas Textile Mills v. CA /GR 119800 /November 12, 2003
Pastor v. PNB /GR 141316 /November 20, 2003
Reyes v. Rural Bank of San Miguel /GR154499 /February 27, 2004
Samsung Construction v. FEBTC /GR 129015 /August 13, 2004
Transfield v. Luzon Hydro /GR 146717 /November 22, 2004
Lanuza v. CA /GR 131394 /March 28, 2005
PNB v. Sanao Mktg /GR 153951 /July29, 2005
Poliand Industrial v. NDC /GR 143866 /August 22, 2005
Prudential Bank v. Lim /GR 136371 /November 11, 2005

Labor Law
People v. Crispin Villaber /GR 114967 /January 26, 2004
People v. Gutierrez /GR 124439 /February 5, 2004
People v. Dujua /GR 199014-16 /February 5, 2004
Procter and Gamble v. Bondesto /GR 139847 /March 5, 2004
Gallera de Guison Hermanos v. Cruz /GR 159390 /June 10, 2004
Lazaro v. Social Security Comm /GR 138254 /July 30, 2004
Duncan v. Glaxo /GR 162994 /September 17, 2004
Maquiling v. Philippine Tuberculosis Soc /GR 143384 /February 4, 2005
Escareal v. PAL /GR 151922 /April 7, 2005
FF Marine Corp v. NLRC /GR 152039 /April 8, 2005
Benares v. Pancho /GR 155207 /April 29, 2005
Borja Estate v. Sps Basilio /GR 152550 /June 8, 2005
Computer Innovations Center v. NLRC /GR 152410 /June 29, 2005
Sameer Overseas Placement v. Levantino /GR 153942 /June 29, 2005
Lopez v. MWSS /GR 154472 /June 30, 2005
JPL Mktg v. CA /GR 151966 /July 8, 2005
Metromedia Times v. Pastorin /GR 154294 /July 29, 2005
SMC (MPPP) v. MPPP-SMAMRFU-FFW /GR 152956 /August 16, 2005
Oriental Petroleum v. Fuentes /GR 151818 /October 14, 2005
Cadiz v. CA /GR 153784 /October 25, 2005
MBTC v. Barrientos /GR 157028 /January 31, 2006
Maricalum Mining Corp v. Decorion /GR 158634 /April 12, 2006
Cainta Catholic School v. CCSEU /GR 151021 /May 4, 2006
Petition for the cancellation of the union reg. of HPFLHA v. BLR
/GR 155395 /June 22, 2006
Velasco v. NLRC /GR 161694 /June 26, 2006



Civil Law
Naguiat v. CA /GR 118375 /October 3, 2003
Valencia v. Locquiao /GR 122134 /October 3, 2003
Heirs of Franco v. CA /GR 123924 /December 11, 2003
Rioferio v. CA /GR 129008 /January 13, 2004
Anama v. CA /GR 128609 /January 29, 2004
Cayana v. CA /GR 125607 /March 18, 2004
DBP v. West Ne/GRos /GR 152359 /May 21, 2004
Philcomsat v. Globe /GR 147234 /May 25, 2004
Espinosa v. CA /GR 128686 /May 28, 2004
Milwaukee Industries v. Pampang III Electric /GR 152569 /May 31, 2004
Spouses de Robles v. CA /GR 128053 /June 10, 2004
Towne and City Dev. Corp v. CA /GR 135043 /July 14, 2004
Sumipat v. Banga /GR 155810 /August 13, 2004
Hi Tone Mktg v. Baikal Realty /GR 149992 /August 20, 2004
Heirs of Barredo v. Sps. Asis /August 27, 2004
Carpio v. Valmonte /GR 151866 /September 9, 2004
Abalos v. Macatangay /GR 155043 /September 30, 2004
Chua v. CA /GR 125837 /October 6, 2004
Gabriel v. CA /GR 128474 /October 6. 2004
Swedish Match v. CA /GR 128120 /October 20, 2004
Añonuevo v. CA /GR 130003 /October 20, 2004
Sps. Vazquez v. Ayala /GR 149734 /November 19, 2004
Encinas v. National Bookstore /GR 162704 /November 19, 2004
Manila Memorial v. Linsangan /GR 151319 /November 22, 2004
NPC v. Alonzo-Legasto /GR 148318 /November 22, 2004
Lim v. Saban /GR 163720 /December 16, 2004
Consolidated Rural Bank v. CA /GR 132161 /January 17, 2005
Republic v. CA /GR 144057 /January 17, 2005
YHT Realty v. CA /GR 126780 /February 17, 2005
Palanca v. Guides /GR 146365 /February 28, 2005
Gonzales v. Climax Mining /GR 161957 /February 28, 2005
JLT A/GRo Inc v. Balansag /GR 141882 /March 11, 2005
Homeowners Savings v. Dailo /GR 153802 /March 11, 2005
Sps. Lim v. Chuatoco /GR 161861 /March 11, 2005
Resuena v. CA /GR 128338 /March 28, 2005
Adoracion Cruz v. CA /GR 122904 /April 15, 2005
Heirs of Manlapat v. CA /GR 125585 /June 8, 2005
Sps. Torcuator v. Bernabe /GR 134219 /June 8, 2005
Prudential Bank v. Alviar /GR 150197 /July 28. 2005
Heirs of Juan Panganiban v. Dayrit /GR 151205 /July 28, 2005
David v. Cordova /GR 152992 /July 28, 2005
Sps. Santos v. Pizardo /GR 151452 /July 29, 2005
Mongao v. Pryce Prop /GR 156474 /August 16, 2005
Cabello v. Republic /GR 142810 /August 18, 2005
JN Dev’t Corp v. Phil Export /GR 151060 /August 31, 2005
Sps. Edrada v. Sps. Ramos /GR 154413 /August 31, 2005
Carlos v. Sandoval /GR 135830 /September 30, 2005
Sps. Carpo v. Chua /GR 150773 /September 30, 2005
Ilao-Quianay v. Mapile /GR 154807 /October 25, 2005
Trade and Investment Dev’t Corp v. Roblett /GR 139290 /November 11, 2005
Deloso v. Sps. Alonso /GR 144244 /November 11, 2005
Fabrigas v. San Francisco Del Monte /GR 152346 /November 25, 2005
Spouses Paray v. Rodriguez /GR 132287 /January 24, 2006
PCIB v. CA /GR 121989 /January 31, 2006
Gammon Phil v. MRTDC /GR 144792 /January 31, 2006
Francisco v. Roque /GR 151338 /January 31, 2006
Pan Pacific v. CA /GR 125283 /February 10, 2006
Cajayon v. Santiago /GR 149118 /February 16, 2006
Abrajano v. Heirs of Salas /GR 158895 /February 16, 2006
Mangubat v. Lamino AM P-06-2115 /February 23, 2006
Antonio v. Reyes /GR 155800 /March 10, 2006
Delfin v. Billones /GR 146550 /March 17, 2006
Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales /GR 139460 /March 31, 2006
Azuela v. CA /GR 122880 /April 12, 2006
Duran v. CA /GR 125256/126973 /May 2, 2006
Salonga, Hernandez and Allado v. Pascual /GR 127165 /May 2, 2006
Phil Agila Satellite Inc. v. Lychauco /GR 142362 /May 3, 2006
Balayan v. Acorda /GR 153537 /May 5, 2006
Trade and Investment Dev Corp v. Roblett /GR 139240 /May 19, 2006
Roliand Industrial v. NDC /GR 143866 /May 19, 2006
Heirs of Remelion v. Villaruel /GR 132357 /May 31, 2006
Alimbobuyoy v. CA /GR 163655 /June 16, 2006
De Jesus v. CA /GR 127857 /June 20, 2006
Suarez v. Villarama /GR 124512 /June 27, 2006
Banaga v. Majaducon /GR 149051 /June 30, 2006

The 2008 Bar Chairman

Justice Dante Tinga is reportedly the 2008 Bar Chairman. There are some who say that Justice Tinga's reputation is the same as that of Justice Azcuna's (this will probably send jitters to the 2008 bar takers). But there are also some who say that Justice Tinga will probably be more lenient, since the bar is cyclical: if the exam is hard this year, then the exam next year will probably easier, and vice versa. These are all rumors of course. I'll post more information when I get some.

Here is Justice Tinga's profile:

Justice Dante O. Tinga was appointed to the Supreme Court on July 4, 2003. Before his appointment to the High Court, he served as dean of the College of Law at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines and a managing partner at the Tinga & Corvera Law Firm. He also served as House Representative of the lone district of Taguig-Pateros for three consecutive terms from 1987 to 1998. As a Congressman, he served as House Majority Whip for Luzon from 1992 until 1998 and Speaker’s Deputy in the Committee on Rules from 1995 to 1998. He also chaired the House Committees on Energy (1992-1998) and on Corporations and Franchises (1987 to 1992). During his three-year term, he also became vice-chairman of the House Committee on Good Government and a ranking member of the House Committees on Natural Resources, Justice, Constitutional Amendments, Appropriations and Ways and Means. He was consistently chosen as an outstanding congressman by various publications and periodicals.

Justice Tinga received his Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the East College of Law in 1960. He graduated magna cum laude. He passed the 1960 Bar Examinations with an 87.7 % rating. He obtained his Masters of Laws degree from the University of California at Berkeley, U.S.A. in 1970, graduating with High Honors and among the top five percent. He also engaged in private law practice. He was senior attorney at the Araneta, Mendoza & Papa Law Offices from 1961 to 1977 and senior partner at the Santiago, Tinga & Associates from 1978 to 1984 and also a senior partner at the Pimentel Cuenco Fuentes Tinga Law Firm from 1984 to 1986. He was also dean of the University of the East College of Law from 1988 to 1992.

Born on May 11, 1939, Justice Tinga is a recipient of several honors including the Most Distinguished Alumnus in Education in 1991 and the Most Distinguished Alumnus in the Legal Profession in 1988, both conferred by the University of the East. A resident of Taguig, Justice Tinga also served as President of the Kilusang Diwa ng Taguig (KDT). Justice Tinga is a widower (married to the late Ma. Asuncion R. Tinga) with six children.

If you have any information regarding Justice Tinga or the upcoming bar exam, please feel free to comment or to email me. Thanks!