000 02259nab a22003017a 4500
001 555579
003 OSt
005 20220519135114.0
006 sqr|pdrw|||o00| 0
007 ta
008 220516c |||qr|pdrw|||o00| engod
022 _a0031-7721
040 _cUM Bansalan College LIC
082 _aBPer. 340
_bP538
100 _aBries, Avril R.
_914563
245 _aCommercializing Justice:
_bThe Legality of Lawyer's Professional Fee Schedules under the Philippine Cometition Act/
_cby Avril R. Bries
260 _aDiliman, Quezon City, Philippines:
_bUniversity of the Philippines College of Law
300 _a30 pages
310 _aQuarterly
362 _aAugust 2018
440 _aPhilippine Law Journal
_vVol.91, No.3 (August 2018)
_x0031-7721
_914528
490 _vVol.91, No.3 (August 2018)
_x0031-7721
520 _aBecause of its origin and nature as a safeguard against restraints of trade, antitrust legislation is largely focused on the regulation of business enterprises. To limit the application of competition law to the traditional sphere of commerce, however, is to disregard the reality that anti-competitive practices exist in areas outside the economic conditions that necessitated its creation. This Article examines the implications of the Philippine Competition Act ("PCA") on the rules and regulations concerning lawyers' fees, and explores the legality of prescribed fee schedules vis-a-vis the state of law and jurisprudence in the US and EU on price-fixing within professions, legal or otherwise. In conclusion, the authors posit that the PCA is sufficiently broad as to apply to the practice of law, but that a distinction be made as to the nature of the entity prescribing fee schedules: price-fixing done by a private entity stands to run afoul of the PCA, but should be taken outside the ambit of regulation by the Executive if sanctioned by a public entity (such as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines) in recognition of the separation of powers and the exclusive authority of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law.
650 0 _914570
_aCompetition - Law - Philippines
650 0 _aLawyers - Salaries, wages, etc
_914589
700 _aMarcelo, Pamela Marie T.
_914564
942 _2ddc
_cBPER.
999 _c9478
_d9478