Overall Satisfaction

Recommendation

Evaluation of Quality of Apprenticeship Program

In our deliberation as a team, we echoed one sentiment. For an apprenticeship program

that is still flourishing as the one provided by this University, we are of the opinion that the
training is highly satisfactory even at its current form. As court legal researchers, the
apprentices gained valuable hours of experience in doing legal research, in establishing
connections with the people involved in the field, and in getting familiar with how litigation and
other relevant court processes are conducted in real life. But apart from honing one’s legal
knowledge, it also opened the eyes of the apprentices to appreciate the roles that court
personnel play in our justice system.

Branch 9 of the La Trinidad Regional Trial Court, which is a family court, was an excellent
training provider filled with people who are competent in their respective fields. Their
knowledge on the happenings in the court, both of the theoretical and practical nature,
bolstered the quality of the input we were receiving from the court as a whole. The court
stenographers were very open to questions concerning decided cases of recent vintage that
they have encountered which were relevant to our research. The branch clerk of court did not
hesitate to give her insights regarding the research we were conducting. Judge Brawner-Cualing
was also very approachable and her take on the subject of our research was so valuable in
molding the outcomes of our research and in enriching our knowledge in the law. All the
employees of the said branch created an atmosphere where we felt like real court employees
but at the same time feel an atmosphere of competence founded upon cooperation and
teamwork and without the needless intimidation. They encouraged us to take part in hearings
and arraignments either to observe or to assist them in little ways as getting the signatures of
the parties. By taking part in these, we got a first row seat on how direct and cross
examinations were conducted, how evidence were marked, how objections, motions, and
manifestations were made in open court, and how the judge and the lawyers conduct
themselves within its auspices. Our cups were filled with priceless experience, the kind that
money cannot buy or reward.

Our belief is also in consensus that the duration of 240 hours divided in two summers is
sufficient. The fact that we will be assigned in a different office twice means that we will learn
to adapt to different office environments. 120 hours per summer, which is divided into 4 hours
per working day, is beneficial to the Juris Doctor students. Given the ratio between the number
of the apprentices and the courts willing to take in apprentices under their supervision, the
students may be divided between the morning and afternoon shifts. Doing so will prevent a
situation where the students and the court employees cramp in an office, thereby producing an
effect in which students hinder the work of the court personnel instead of hasten it. Another
added benefit is showered upon those who are working part-time. They can still contribute in
their day jobs while enrolled in the program due to its semi-flexi-time nature. But the sentiment
drastically shifts when talking about student working in a post which requires 8 hours of work.
Such a situation would require them to go on an indefinite leave or request their employer to
allow the students to do 4 hours of work a day for the duration of the apprenticeship program.

As an additional support need, we have noted that there must be an added support of
the school and the Legal Education Board in court awareness about the program, and
assistance on the application of the apprentices with the Office of the Court Administrator. But
all of these may be solved by the presence of communication. One of the problems that the
apprentices encountered was the lack of awareness of some courts towards the offering of
apprenticeship programs geared towards helping Juris Doctor students improve their craft. We
opine that schools should start to create partnership programs with the courts. This way, the
schools and the court may communicate clearly on the apprenticeship programs and its
specifics like the hours of training, number of apprentices, and a clearly defined grading system.
This may also solve the problem on the application of the apprentices, which require the
recommendation of the judge or the head of the office before the approval of the Office of the
Court Administrator in Manila. As for the Legal Education Board’s participation, we suggest that
the honorable institution should schedule awareness programs or seminars in Regions where
there are schools offering apprenticeship programs with the court. That way, the program will
flourish because judges and court personnel may give their suggestions on how to improve the
program. When all the actors in the apprenticeship program cooperate solidly, we all foresee
that the program will truly reach a penultimate state.