4th year in law school is marked by one humbling experience: Office of Legal Aid. This four- unit course entails weekly duty wherein each student is handed tons of cases and is made to “pretend” to be lawyers. While I am not a fan of this mandatory course, I did discover something interesting with one of the cases assigned to my friend: service of pleading to the opposing counsel by email.
Considering that our Supreme Court has always been cautious in implementing new rules concerning technology, the fact that they have recognized a new means of service is surprising. Our courts have been so attached to having everything on paper (read: physical manifestation), that their recognition of the possibility of a paperless court is a welcome convenience.
The court, however, is always on the side of caution, when allowing for the use of technology in the court room. For example the A.M. on electronic document is technology specific. It does not allow for the change of the technology, requiring the use of a particular code for a document to be considered “electronic” within the contemplation of a paperless court. As such, when this required code becomes obsolete, so does the recognition of “electronic document”.
Despite this “innovation”, my workload in OLA does not change.
2 comments:
service by email is allowed for real? do you put that in the explanation part? how does the court know you've sent it to the opposing counsel? attach a confirmation email?
oh and is there an A.M. for this? sorry for bombarding you with questions. haha. i have no idea this can be done!
you know what my dream is? e-dockets! and maybe we can pay docket fees by credit card. :D
Hi, Joey! Yup,it's allowed; although such can only be done to civil cases involving intra-corporate controversies.
It is A.M. 01-2-04 :-)
To better satisfy your curiosity, here is a link to the said A.M.: http://www.lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_2_04_2001.html
Aside from the e-dockets that you mentioned, I hope we can also have an e-TSN someday :-)
Post a Comment