Page |1

Resolution             March 18, 1954 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972

In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR
Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953;  EXAMINATIONS FROM NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-
ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL., petitioners. SIX UP TO AND INCLUDING NINETEEN HUNDRED AND
FIFTY-FIVE.
Jose M. Aruego, M.H. de Joya, Miguel R. Cornejo, and Antonio Enrile Inton
for petitioners. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag for respondent. of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

DIOKNO, J.: SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section fourteen, Rule

numbered one hundred twenty-seven of the Rules of Court, any bar
In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public candidate who obtained a general average of seventy per cent in
interest and concern as Republic Act No. 972, popularly known as the "Bar any bar examinations after July fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-
Flunkers' Act of 1953." Under the Rules of Court governing admission to the six up to the August nineteen hundred and fifty-one bar
bar, "in order that a candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to examinations; seventy-one per cent in the nineteen hundred and
have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general fifty-two bar examinations; seventy-two per cent in the in the
average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in nineteen hundred and fifty-three bar examinations; seventy-three
any subject." (Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court). Nevertheless, considering per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-four bar examinations;
the varying difficulties of the different bar examinations held since 1946 and seventy-four per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-five bar
the varying degree of strictness with which the examination papers were examinations without a candidate obtaining a grade below fifty per
graded, this court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had cent in any subject, shall be allowed to take and subscribe the
obtained an average of only 72 per cent in 1946, 69 per cent in 1947, 70 per corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine
cent in 1948, and 74 per cent in 1949. In 1950 to 1953, the 74 per cent was Bar: Provided, however, That for the purpose of this Act, any exact
raised to 75 per cent. one-half or more of a fraction, shall be considered as one and
included as part of the next whole number.
Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered
and passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having been discriminated SEC. 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of seventy-five per
against (See Explanatory Note to R.A. No. 972), unsuccessful candidates who cent in any subject in any bar examination after July fourth, nineteen
obtained averages of a few percentage lower than those admitted to the Bar hundred and forty-six shall be deemed to have passed in such
agitated in Congress for, and secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in
12 which, among others, reduced the passing general average in bar computing the passing general average that said candidate may
examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946. The President requested obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take.
the views of this court on the bill. Complying with that request, seven
members of the court subscribed to and submitted written comments SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
adverse thereto, and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did
not override the veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371, embodying Enacted on June 21, 1953, without the Executive approval.
substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. Although the members of this
court reiterated their unfavorable views on the matter, the President allowed After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed
the bill to become a law on June 21, 1953 without his signature. The law, petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while others whose
which incidentally was enacted in an election year, reads in full as follows: motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also
invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are
 Page |2
also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades (3) The total number of candidates to be benefited by this Republic Acts is
without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to therefore 1,094, of which only 604 have filed petitions. Of these 604
individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for petitioners, 33 who failed in 1946 to 1951 had individually presented motions
reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act for reconsideration which were denied, while 125 unsuccessful candidates of
No. 972. Unfortunately, the court has found no reason to revise their grades. 1952, and 56 of 1953, had presented similar motions, which are still pending
If they are to be admitted to the bar, it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. because they could be favorably affected by Republic Act No. 972, —
972 which, if declared valid, should be applied equally to all concerned although as has been already stated, this tribunal finds no sufficient reasons
whether they have filed petitions or not. A complete list of the petitioners, to reconsider their grades
properly classified, affected by this decision, as well as a more detailed
account of the history of Republic Act No. 972, are appended to this decision UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972
as Annexes I and II. And to realize more readily the effects of the law, the
following statistical data are set forth: Having been called upon to enforce a law of far-reaching effects on the
practice of the legal profession and the administration of justice, and
(1) The unsuccessful bar candidates who are to be benefited by section 1 of because some doubts have been expressed as to its validity, the court set
Republic Act No. 972 total 1,168, classified as follows: the hearing of the afore-mentioned petitions for admission on the sole
question of whether or not Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional.
1946     (August) 206 121 18
1946     (November) 477 228 43 We have been enlightened in the study of this question by the brilliant
assistance of the members of the bar who have amply argued, orally an in
1947 749 340 0 writing, on the various aspects in which the question may be gleaned. The
1948 899 409 11 valuable studies of Messrs. E. Voltaire Garcia, Vicente J. Francisco, Vicente
Pelaez and Buenaventura Evangelista, in favor of the validity of the law, and
1949 1,218 532 164
of the U.P. Women's Lawyers' Circle, the Solicitor General, Messrs. Arturo A.
1950 1,316 893 26 Alafriz, Enrique M. Fernando, Vicente Abad Santos, Carlos A. Barrios, Vicente
1951 2,068 879 196 del Rosario, Juan de Blancaflor, Mamerto V. Gonzales, and Roman Ozaeta
against it, aside from the memoranda of counsel for petitioners, Messrs. Jose
1952 2,738 1,033 426 M. Aruego, M.H. de Joya, Miguel R. Cornejo and Antonio Enrile Inton, and of
1953           284 petitioners Cabrera, Macasaet and Galema themselves, has greatly helped us
2,555 968 in this task. The legal researchers of the court have exhausted almost all
               TOTAL 12,23 5,421 1,168 Philippine and American jurisprudence on the matter. The question has been
0 the object of intense deliberation for a long time by the Tribunal, and finally,
after the voting, the preparation of the majority opinion was assigned to a
new member in order to place it as humanly as possible above all suspicion
Of the total 1,168 candidates, 92 have passed in subsequent examination, of prejudice or partiality.
and only 586 have filed either motions for admission to the bar pursuant to
said Republic Act, or mere motions for reconsideration.
Republic Act No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to
the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading
(2) In addition, some other 10 unsuccessful candidates are to be benefited materials and inadequate preparation. Quoting a portion of the Explanatory
by section 2 of said Republic Act. These candidates had each taken from two Note of the proposed bill, its author Honorable Senator Pablo Angeles David
to five different examinations, but failed to obtain a passing average in any stated:
of them. Consolidating, however, their highest grades in different subjects in
previous examinations, with their latest marks, they would be sufficient to
reach the passing average as provided for by Republic Act No. 972.
 Page |3
The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing grade is and which we have preserved and attempted to improve, or in our
the tremendous handicap which students during the years contemporaneous judicial history of more than half a century? From the
immediately after the Japanese occupation has to overcome such as citations of those defending the law, we can not find a case in which the
the insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the validity of a similar law had been sustained, while those against its validity
preparation of students who took up law soon after the liberation. cite, among others, the cases of Day (In re  Day, 54 NE 646), of Cannon
(State vs. Cannon, 240 NW, 441), the opinion of the Supreme Court of
Of the 9,675 candidates who took the examinations from 1946 to 1952, Massachusetts in 1932 (81 ALR 1061), of Guariña (24 Phil., 37), aside from
5,236 passed. And now it is claimed that in addition 604 candidates be the opinion of the President which is expressed in his vote of the original bill
admitted (which in reality total 1,094), because they suffered from and which the postponement of the contested law respects.
"insufficiency of reading materials" and of "inadequacy of preparation."
This law has no precedent in its favor. When similar laws in other countries
By its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it had been promulgated, the judiciary immediately declared them without
qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation force or effect. It is not within our power to offer a precedent to uphold the
for the practice of the profession, as was exactly found by this Tribunal in disputed law.
the aforesaid examinations. The public interest demands of legal profession
adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem To be exact, we ought to state here that we have examined carefully the
evolved by the times become more difficult. An adequate legal preparation is case that has been cited to us as a favorable precedent of the law — that of
one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be developed Cooper (22 NY, 81), where the Court of Appeals of New York revoked the
constantly and maintained firmly. To the legal profession is entrusted the decision of the Supreme court of that State, denying the petition of Cooper
protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve officially of to be admitted to the practice of law under the provisions of a statute
those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a concerning the school of law of Columbia College promulgated on April 7,
delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. Moreover, the statement 1860, which was declared by the Court of Appeals to be consistent with the
that there was an insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly Constitution of the state of New York.
exaggerated. There were abundant materials. Decisions of this court alone in
mimeographed copies were made available to the public during those years It appears that the Constitution of New York at that time provided:
and private enterprises had also published them in monthly magazines and
annual digests. The Official Gazette had been published continuously. Books They (i.e., the judges) shall not hold any other office of public trust.
and magazines published abroad have entered without restriction since All votes for either of them for any elective office except that of the
1945. Many law books, some even with revised and enlarged editions have Court of Appeals, given by the Legislature or the people, shall be
been printed locally during those periods. A new set of Philippine Reports void. They shall not exercise any power of appointment to public
began to be published since 1946, which continued to be supplemented by office. Any male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, of good
the addition of new volumes. Those are facts of public knowledge. moral character, and who possesses the requisite qualifications of
learning and ability, shall be entitled to admission to practice in all
Notwithstanding all these, if the law in question is valid, it has to be the courts of this State. (p. 93).
enforced.
According to the Court of Appeals, the object of the constitutional precept is
The question is not new in its fundamental aspect or from the point of view as follows:
of applicable principles, but the resolution of the question would have been
easier had an identical case of similar background been picked out from the Attorneys, solicitors, etc., were public officers; the power of
jurisprudence we daily consult. Is there any precedent in the long Anglo- appointing them had previously rested with the judges, and this was
Saxon legal history, from which has been directly derived the judicial system the principal appointing power which they possessed. The
established here with its lofty ideals by the Congress of the United States, convention was evidently dissatisfied with the manner in which this
 Page |4
power had been exercised, and with the restrictions which the The act was obviously passed with reference to the learning and
judges had imposed upon admission to practice before them. The ability of the applicant, and for the mere purpose of substituting the
prohibitory clause in the section quoted was aimed directly at this examination by the law committee of the college for that of the
power, and the insertion of the provision" expecting the admission of court. It could have had no other object, and hence no greater
attorneys, in this particular section of the Constitution, evidently scope should be given to its provisions. We cannot suppose that the
arose from its connection with the object of this prohibitory clause. Legislature designed entirely to dispense with the plain and explicit
There is nothing indicative of confidence in the courts or of a requirements of the Constitution; and the act contains nothing
disposition to preserve any portion of their power over this subject, whatever to indicate an intention that the authorities of the college
unless the Supreme Court is right in the inference it draws from the should inquire as to the age, citizenship, etc., of the students before
use of the word `admission' in the action referred to. It is urged that granting a diploma. The only rational interpretation of which the act
the admission spoken of must be by the court; that to admit means admits is, that it was intended to make the college diploma
to grant leave, and that the power of granting necessarily implies the competent evidence as to the legal attainments of the applicant, and
power of refusing, and of course the right of determining whether nothing else. To this extent alone it operates as a modification of
the applicant possesses the requisite qualifications to entitle him to pre-existing statutes, and it is to be read in connection with these
admission. statutes and with the Constitution itself in order to determine the
present condition of the law on the subject. (p.89)
These positions may all be conceded, without affecting the validity of
the act. (p. 93.) xxx     xxx     xxx

Now, with respect to the law of April 7, 1860, the decision seems to indicate The Legislature has not taken from the court its jurisdiction over the
that it provided that the possession of a diploma of the school of law of question of admission, that has simply prescribed what shall be
Columbia College conferring the degree of Bachelor of Laws was evidence of competent evidence in certain cases upon that question. (p.93)
the legal qualifications that the constitution required of applicants for
admission to the Bar. The decision does not however quote the text of the From the foregoing, the complete inapplicability of the case of Cooper with
law, which we cannot find in any public or accessible private library in the that at bar may be clearly seen. Please note only the following distinctions:
country.
(1) The law of New York does not require that any candidate of Columbia
In the case of Cooper, supra, to make the law consistent with the College who failed in the bar examinations be admitted to the practice of
Constitution of New York, the Court of Appeals said of the object of the law: law.

The motive for passing the act in question is apparent. Columbia (2) The law of New York according to the very decision of Cooper, has not
College being an institution of established reputation, and having a taken from the court its jurisdiction over the question of admission of
law department under the charge of able professors, the students in attorney at law; in effect, it does not decree the admission of any lawyer.
which department were not only subjected to a formal examination
by the law committee of the institution, but to a certain definite (3) The Constitution of New York at that time and that of the Philippines are
period of study before being entitled to a diploma of being entirely different on the matter of admission of the practice of law.
graduates, the Legislature evidently, and no doubt justly, considered
this examination, together with the preliminary study required by the
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission,
act, as fully equivalent as a test of legal requirements, to the
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice
ordinary examination by the court; and as rendering the latter
of the profession and their supervision have been disputably a judicial
examination, to which no definite period of preliminary study was
function and responsibility. Because of this attribute, its continuous and
essential, unnecessary and burdensome.
zealous possession and exercise by the judicial power have been
 Page |5
demonstrated during more than six centuries, which certainly "constitutes solicitude, is the power of the court to impose other and further
the most solid of titles." Even considering the power granted to Congress by exactions and qualifications foreclosed or exhausted? (p. 444)
our Constitution to repeal, alter supplement the rules promulgated by this
Court regarding the admission to the practice of law, to our judgment and Under our Constitution the judicial and legislative departments are
proposition that the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of distinct, independent, and coordinate branches of the government.
the attorneys at law is a legislative function, properly belonging to Congress, Neither branch enjoys all the powers of sovereignty which properly
is unacceptable. The function requires (1) previously established rules and belongs to its department. Neither department should so act as to
principles, (2) concrete facts, whether past or present, affecting determinate embarrass the other in the discharge of its respective functions. That
individuals. and (3) decision as to whether these facts are governed by the was the scheme and thought of the people setting upon the form of
rules and principles; in effect, a judicial function of the highest degree. And it government under which we exist. State vs. Hastings, 10 Wis., 525;
becomes more undisputably judicial, and not legislative, if previous judicial Attorney General ex rel. Bashford vs. Barstow, 4 Wis., 567. (p. 445)
resolutions on the petitions of these same individuals are attempted to be
revoked or modified. The judicial department of government is responsible for the plane
upon which the administration of justice is maintained. Its
We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, responsibility in this respect is exclusive. By committing a portion of
the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law the powers of sovereignty to the judicial department of our state
in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. A comprehensive and government, under 42a scheme which it was supposed rendered it
conscientious study of this matter had been undertaken in the case of immune from embarrassment or interference by any other
State vs. Cannon (1932) 240 NW 441, in which the validity of a legislative department of government, the courts cannot escape responsibility
enactment providing that Cannon be permitted to practice before the courts fir the manner in which the powers of sovereignty thus committed to
was discussed. From the text of this decision we quote the following the judicial department are exercised. (p. 445)
paragraphs:
The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and intimate
This statute presents an assertion of legislative power without relationship. The bar is an attache of the courts. The quality of
parallel in the history of the English speaking people so far as we justice dispense by the courts depends in no small degree upon the
have been able to ascertain. There has been much uncertainty as to integrity of its bar. An unfaithful bar may easily bring scandal and
the extent of the power of the Legislature to prescribe the ultimate reproach to the administration of justice and bring the courts
qualifications of attorney at law has been expressly committed to the themselves into disrepute. (p.445)
courts, and the act of admission has always been regarded as a
judicial function. This act purports to constitute Mr. Cannon an Through all time courts have exercised a direct and severe
attorney at law, and in this respect it stands alone as an assertion of supervision over their bars, at least in the English speaking
legislative power. (p. 444) countries. (p. 445)

Under the Constitution all legislative power is vested in a Senate and After explaining the history of the case, the Court ends thus:
Assembly. (Section 1, art. 4.) In so far as the prescribing of
qualifications for admission to the bar are legislative in character, the
Our conclusion may be epitomized as follows: For more than six
Legislature is acting within its constitutional authority when it sets up
centuries prior to the adoption of our Constitution, the courts of
and prescribes such qualifications. (p. 444)
England, concededly subordinate to Parliament since the Revolution
of 1688, had exercise the right of determining who should be
But when the Legislature has prescribed those qualifications which in admitted to the practice of law, which, as was said in Matter of the
its judgment will serve the purpose of legitimate legislative Sergeant's at Law, 6 Bingham's New Cases 235, "constitutes the
most solid of all titles." If the courts and judicial power be regarded
 Page |6
as an entity, the power to determine who should be admitted to How. 9,15 L. Ed. 565; Ex parteGarland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L. Ed. 366;
practice law is a constituent element of that entity. It may be difficult Randall vs. Brigham, 7 Wall. 53, 19 L. Ed. 285; Hanson vs. Grattan,
to isolate that element and say with assurance that it is either a part 48 Kan, 843, 115 P. 646, 34 L.R.A. 519; Danforth vs. Egan, 23 S. D.
of the inherent power of the court, or an essential element of the 43, 119 N.W. 1021, 130 Am. St. Rep. 1030, 20 Ann. Cas. 413.
judicial power exercised by the court, but that it is a power
belonging to the judicial entity and made of not only a sovereign The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been
institution, but made of it a separate independent, and coordinate perpetually exercised by the courts, it having been so generally held
branch of the government. They took this institution along with the that the act of the court in admitting an attorney to practice is the
power traditionally exercise to determine who should constitute its judgment of the court, and an attempt as this on the part of the
attorney at law. There is no express provision in the Constitution Legislature to confer such right upon any one being most
which indicates an intent that this traditional power of the judicial exceedingly uncommon, it seems clear that the licensing of an
department should in any manner be subject to legislative control. attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function, no matter
Perhaps the dominant thought of the framers of our constitution was where the power to determine the qualifications may reside. (p. 451)
to make the three great departments of government separate and
independent of one another. The idea that the Legislature might In that same year of 1932, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in
embarrass the judicial department by prescribing inadequate answering a consultation of the Senate of that State, 180 NE 725, said:
qualifications for attorneys at law is inconsistent with the dominant
purpose of making the judicial independent of the legislative
It is indispensible to the administration of justice and to
department, and such a purpose should not be inferred in the
interpretation of the laws that there be members of the bar of
absence of express constitutional provisions. While the legislature
sufficient ability, adequate learning and sound moral character. This
may legislate with respect to the qualifications of attorneys, but is
arises from the need of enlightened assistance to the honest, and
incidental merely to its general and unquestioned power to protect
restraining authority over the knavish, litigant. It is highly important,
the public interest. When it does legislate a fixing a standard of
also that the public be protected from incompetent and vicious
qualifications required of attorneys at law in order that public
practitioners, whose opportunity for doing mischief is wide. It was
interests may be protected, such qualifications do not constitute only
said by Cardoz, C.L., in People ex rel. Karlin vs. Culkin, 242 N.Y. 456,
a minimum standard and limit the class from which the court must
470, 471, 162 N.E. 487, 489, 60 A.L.R. 851: "Membership in the bar
make its selection. Such legislative qualifications do not constitute
is a privilege burden with conditions." One is admitted to the bar "for
the ultimate qualifications beyond which the court cannot go in fixing
something more than private gain." He becomes an "officer of the
additional qualifications deemed necessary by the course of the
court", and ,like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
proper administration of judicial functions. There is no legislative
the end of justice. His cooperation with the court is due "whenever
power to compel courts to admit to their bars persons deemed by
justice would be imperiled if cooperation was withheld." Without
them unfit to exercise the prerogatives of an attorney at law. (p.
such attorneys at law the judicial department of government would
450)
be hampered in the performance of its duties. That has been the
history of attorneys under the common law, both in this country and
Furthermore, it is an unlawful attempt to exercise the power of England. Admission to practice as an attorney at law is almost
appointment. It is quite likely true that the legislature may exercise without exception conceded to be a judicial function. Petition to that
the power of appointment when it is in pursuance of a legislative end is filed in courts, as are other proceedings invoking judicial
functions. However, the authorities are well-nigh unanimous that the action. Admission to the bar is accomplish and made open and
power to admit attorneys to the practice of law is a judicial function. notorious by a decision of the court entered upon its records. The
In all of the states, except New Jersey (In re Reisch, 83 N.J. Eq. 82, establishment by the Constitution of the judicial department
90 A. 12), so far as our investigation reveals, attorneys receive their conferred authority necessary to the exercise of its powers as a
formal license to practice law by their admission as members of the coordinate department of government. It is an inherent power of
bar of the court so admitting. Cor. Jur. 572; Ex parte Secombre, 19
 Page |7
such a department of government ultimately to determine the latter, in performing his duty, may very justly considered as engaged
qualifications of those to be admitted to practice in its courts, for in the exercise of their appropriate judicial functions." (pp. 650-651).
assisting in its work, and to protect itself in this respect from the
unfit, those lacking in sufficient learning, and those not possessing We quote from other cases, the following pertinent portions:
good moral character. Chief Justice Taney stated succinctly and with
finality in Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 13, 15 L. Ed. 565, "It has Admission to practice of law is almost without exception conceded
been well settled, by the rules and practice of common-law courts, everywhere to be the exercise of a judicial function, and this opinion
that it rests exclusively with the court to determine who is qualified need not be burdened with citations in this point. Admission to
to become one of its officers, as an attorney and counselor, and for practice have also been held to be the exercise of one of the
what cause he ought to be removed." (p.727) inherent powers of the court. — Re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472, 172 Pac.
906.
In the case of Day and others who collectively filed a petition to secure
license to practice the legal profession by virtue of a law of state (In re Day, Admission to the practice of law is the exercise of a judicial function,
54 NE 646), the court said in part: and is an inherent power of the court. — A.C. Brydonjack, vs. State
Bar of California, 281 Pac. 1018; See Annotation on Power of
In the case of Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall, 333, 18 L. Ed. 366, the Legislature respecting admission to bar, 65, A.L. R. 1512.
court, holding the test oath for attorneys to be unconstitutional,
explained the nature of the attorney's office as follows: "They are On this matter there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of
officers of the court, admitted as such by its order, upon evidence of the judicial and legislative departments of the government.
their possessing sufficient legal learning and fair private character. It
has always been the general practice in this country to obtain this
The distinction between the functions of the legislative and the
evidence by an examination of the parties. In this court the fact of
judicial departments is that it is the province of the legislature to
the admission of such officers in the highest court of the states to
establish rules that shall regulate and govern in matters of
which they, respectively, belong for, three years preceding their
transactions occurring subsequent to the legislative action, while the
application, is regarded as sufficient evidence of the possession of
judiciary determines rights and obligations with reference to
the requisite legal learning, and the statement of counsel moving
transactions that are past or conditions that exist at the time of the
their admission sufficient evidence that their private and professional
exercise of judicial power, and the distinction is a vital one and not
character is fair. The order of admission is the judgment of the court
subject to alteration or change either by legislative action or by
that the parties possess the requisite qualifications as attorneys and
judicial decree.
counselors, and are entitled to appear as such and conduct causes
therein. From its entry the parties become officers of the court, and
are responsible to it for professional misconduct. They hold their The judiciary cannot consent that its province shall be invaded by
office during good behavior, and can only be deprived of it for either of the other departments of the government. — 16 C.J.S.,
misconduct ascertained and declared by the judgment of the court Constitutional Law, p. 229.
after opportunity to be heard has been afforded. Ex parte Hoyfron,
admission or their exclusion is not the exercise of a mere ministerial If the legislature cannot thus indirectly control the action of the
power. It is the exercise of judicial power, and has been so held in courts by requiring of them construction of the law according to its
numerous cases. It was so held by the court of appeals of New York own views, it is very plain it cannot do so directly, by settling aside
in the matter of the application of Cooper for admission. Re Cooper their judgments, compelling them to grant new trials, ordering the
22 N. Y. 81. "Attorneys and Counselors", said that court, "are not discharge of offenders, or directing what particular steps shall be
only officers of the court, but officers whose duties relate almost taken in the progress of a judicial inquiry. — Cooley's Constitutional
exclusively to proceedings of a judicial nature; and hence their Limitations, 192.
appointment may, with propriety, be entrusted to the court, and the
 Page |8
In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of limited to repeal, modify or supplement the existing rules on the matter, if
1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per according to its judgment the need for a better service of the legal
cent in any subject, be admitted in mass to the practice of law, the disputed profession requires it. But this power does not relieve this Court of its
law is not a legislation; it is a judgment — a judgment revoking those responsibility to admit, suspend, disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and
promulgated by this Court during the aforecited year affecting the bar supervise the practice of the legal profession.
candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke these
judgments even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only Being coordinate and independent branches, the power to promulgate and
this Court, and not the legislative nor executive department, that may be so. enforce rules for the admission to the practice of law and the concurrent
Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear power to repeal, alter and supplement them may and should be exercised
usurpation of its functions, as is the case with the law in question. with the respect that each owes to the other, giving careful consideration to
the responsibility which the nature of each department requires. These
That the Constitution has conferred on Congress the power to repeal, alter powers have existed together for centuries without diminution on each part;
or supplement the rule promulgated by this Tribunal, concerning the the harmonious delimitation being found in that the legislature may and
admission to the practice of law, is no valid argument. Section 13, article VIII should examine if the existing rules on the admission to the Bar respond to
of the Constitution provides: the demands which public interest requires of a Bar endowed with high
virtues, culture, training and responsibility. The legislature may, by means of
Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate appeal, amendment or supplemental rules, fill up any deficiency that it may
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and find, and the judicial power, which has the inherent responsibility for a good
the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for and efficient administration of justice and the supervision of the practice of
all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase or the legal profession, should consider these reforms as the minimum
modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice standards for the elevation of the profession, and see to it that with these
and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared reforms the lofty objective that is desired in the exercise of its traditional
Rules of Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter duty of admitting, suspending, disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law is
and modify the same. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, realized. They are powers which, exercise within their proper constitutional
alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and limits, are not repugnant, but rather complementary to each other in
procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the attaining the establishment of a Bar that would respond to the increasing
Philippines. — Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VIII, sec. 13. and exacting necessities of the administration of justice.

It will be noted that the Constitution has not conferred on Congress and this The case of Guariña (1913) 24 Phil., 37, illustrates our criterion. Guariña took
Tribunal equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of examination and failed by a few points to obtain the general average. A
law. the primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes recently enacted law provided that one who had been appointed to the
continue to reside in this Court. Had Congress found that this Court has not position of Fiscal may be admitted to the practice of law without a previous
promulgated any rule on the matter, it would have nothing over which to examination. The Government appointed Guariña and he discharged the
exercise the power granted to it. Congress may repeal, alter and supplement duties of Fiscal in a remote province. This tribunal refused to give his license
the rules promulgated by this Court, but the authority and responsibility over without previous examinations. The court said:
the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law
and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. The power to Relying upon the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 1597, the
repeal, alter and supplement the rules does not signify nor permit that applicant in this case seeks admission to the bar, without taking the
Congress substitute or take the place of this Tribunal in the exercise of its prescribed examination, on the ground that he holds the office of
primary power on the matter. The Constitution does not say nor mean that provincial fiscal for the Province of Batanes.
Congress may admit, suspend, disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law,
or a determinate group of individuals to the practice of law. Its power is Section 2 of Act No. 1597, enacted February 28, 1907, is as follows:
 Page |9
Sec. 2. Paragraph one of section thirteen of Act Numbered One and now holds the office of provincial fiscal of the Province of
Hundred and ninety, entitled "An Act providing a Code of Procedure Batanes. It is urged that having in mind the object which the
in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the Philippine Islands," is legislator apparently sought to attain in enacting the above-cited
hereby amended to read as follows: amendment to the earlier statute, and in view of the context
generally and especially of the fact that the amendment was inserted
1. Those who have been duly licensed under the laws and orders of as a proviso in that section of the original Act which specifically
the Islands under the sovereignty of Spain or of the United States provides for the admission of certain candidates without
and are in good and regular standing as members of the bar of the examination. It is contented that this mandatory construction is
Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this code; Provided, imperatively required in order to give effect to the apparent intention
That any person who, prior to the passage of this act, or at any time of the legislator, and to the candidate's claim de jure to have the
thereafter, shall have held, under the authority of the United States, power exercised.
the position of justice of the Supreme Court, judge of the Court of
First Instance, or judge or associate judge of the Court of Land And after copying article 9 of Act of July 1, 1902 of the Congress of the
Registration, of the Philippine Islands, or the position of Attorney United States, articles 2, 16 and 17 of Act No. 136, and articles 13 to 16 of
General, Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney General, assistant Act 190, the Court continued:
attorney in the office of the Attorney General, prosecuting attorney
for the City of Manila, city attorney of Manila, assistant city attorney Manifestly, the jurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by the
of Manila, provincial fiscal, attorney for the Moro Province, or commission and confirmed to it by the Act of Congress would be
assistant attorney for the Moro Province, may be licensed to practice limited and restricted, and in a case such as that under consideration
law in the courts of the Philippine Islands without an examination, wholly destroyed, by giving the word "may," as used in the above
upon motion before the Supreme Court and establishing such fact to citation from Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, or of any Act of
the satisfaction of said court. Congress prescribing, defining or limiting the power conferred upon
the commission is to that extent invalid and void, as transcending its
The records of this court disclose that on a former occasion this rightful limits and authority.
appellant took, and failed to pass the prescribed examination. The
report of the examining board, dated March 23, 1907, shows that he Speaking on the application of the law to those who were appointed to the
received an average of only 71 per cent in the various branches of positions enumerated, and with particular emphasis in the case of Guariña,
legal learning upon which he was examined, thus falling four points the Court held:
short of the required percentage of 75. We would be delinquent in
the performance of our duty to the public and to the bar, if, in the In the various cases wherein applications for the admission to the
face of this affirmative indication of the deficiency of the applicant in bar under the provisions of this statute have been considered
the required qualifications of learning in the law at the time when he heretofore, we have accepted the fact that such appointments had
presented his former application for admission to the bar, we should been made as satisfactory evidence of the qualifications of the
grant him license to practice law in the courts of these Islands, applicant. But in all of those cases we had reason to believe that the
without first satisfying ourselves that despite his failure to pass the applicants had been practicing attorneys prior to the date of their
examination on that occasion, he now "possesses the necessary appointment.
qualifications of learning and ability."
In the case under consideration, however, it affirmatively appears
But it is contented that under the provisions of the above-cited that the applicant was not and never had been practicing attorney in
statute the applicant is entitled as of right to be admitted to the bar this or any other jurisdiction prior to the date of his appointment as
without taking the prescribed examination "upon motion before the provincial fiscal, and it further affirmatively appears that he was
Supreme Court" accompanied by satisfactory proof that he has held
 P a g e | 10
deficient in the required qualifications at the time when he last their studies after the aforementioned date. The Supreme Court declared
applied for admission to the bar. that this law was unconstitutional being, among others, a class legislation.
The Court said:
In the light of this affirmative proof of his defieciency on that
occasion, we do not think that his appointment to the office of This is an application to this court for admission to the bar of this
provincial fiscal is in itself satisfactory proof if his possession of the state by virtue of diplomas from law schools issued to the applicants.
necessary qualifications of learning and ability. We conclude The act of the general assembly passed in 1899, under which the
therefore that this application for license to practice in the courts of application is made, is entitled "An act to amend section 1 of an act
the Philippines, should be denied. entitled "An act to revise the law in relation to attorneys and
counselors," approved March 28, 1884, in force July 1, 1874." The
In view, however, of the fact that when he took the examination he amendment, so far as it appears in the enacting clause, consists in
fell only four points short of the necessary grade to entitle him to a the addition to the section of the following: "And every application
license to practice; and in view also of the fact that since that time for a license who shall comply with the rules of the supreme court in
he has held the responsible office of the governor of the Province of regard to admission to the bar in force at the time such applicant
Sorsogon and presumably gave evidence of such marked ability in commend the study of law, either in a law or office or a law school
the performance of the duties of that office that the Chief Executive, or college, shall be granted a license under this act notwithstanding
with the consent and approval of the Philippine Commission, sought any subsequent changes in said rules". — In re  Day et al, 54 N.Y., p.
to retain him in the Government service by appointing him to the 646.
office of provincial fiscal, we think we would be justified under the
above-cited provisions of Act No. 1597 in waiving in his case the . . . After said provision there is a double proviso, one branch of
ordinary examination prescribed by general rule, provided he offers which is that up to December 31, 1899, this court shall grant a
satisfactory evidence of his proficiency in a special examination license of admittance to the bar to the holder of every diploma
which will be given him by a committee of the court upon his regularly issued by any law school regularly organized under the
application therefor, without prejudice to his right, if he desires so to laws of this state, whose regular course of law studies is two years,
do, to present himself at any of the ordinary examinations prescribed and requiring an attendance by the student of at least 36 weeks in
by general rule. — (In re  Guariña, pp. 48-49.) each of such years, and showing that the student began the study of
law prior to November 4, 1897, and accompanied with the usual
It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the proofs of good moral character. The other branch of the proviso is
practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by that any student who has studied law for two years in a law office,
Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities or part of such time in a law office, "and part in the aforesaid law
say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. school," and whose course of study began prior to November 4,
1897, shall be admitted upon a satisfactory examination by the
The law in question, like those in the case of Day and Cannon, has been examining board in the branches now required by the rules of this
found also to suffer from the fatal defect of being a class legislation, and that court. If the right to admission exists at all, it is by virtue of the
if it has intended to make a classification, it is arbitrary and unreasonable. proviso, which, it is claimed, confers substantial rights and privileges
upon the persons named therein, and establishes rules of legislative
creation for their admission to the bar. (p. 647.)
In the case of Day, a law enacted on February 21, 1899 required of the
Supreme Court, until December 31 of that year, to grant license for the
practice of law to those students who began studying before November 4, Considering the proviso, however, as an enactment, it is clearly a
1897, and had studied for two years and presented a diploma issued by a special legislation, prohibited by the constitution, and invalid as such.
school of law, or to those who had studied in a law office and would pass an If the legislature had any right to admit attorneys to practice in the
examination, or to those who had studied for three years if they commenced courts and take part in the administration of justice, and could
 P a g e | 11
prescribe the character of evidence which should be received by the classification. Plainly not. Those who began the study of law
court as conclusive of the requisite learning and ability of persons to November 4th could qualify themselves to practice in two years as
practice law, it could only be done by a general law, persons or well as those who began on the 3rd. The classes named in the
classes of persons. Const. art 4, section 2. The right to practice law proviso need spend only two years in study, while those who
is a privilege, and a license for that purpose makes the holder an commenced the next day must spend three years, although they
officer of the court, and confers upon him the right to appear for would complete two years before the time limit. The one who
litigants, to argue causes, and to collect fees therefor, and creates commenced on the 3rd. If possessed of a diploma, is to be admitted
certain exemptions, such as from jury services and arrest on civil without examination before December 31, 1899, and without any
process while attending court. The law conferring such privileges prescribed course of study, while as to the other the prescribed
must be general in its operation. No doubt the legislature, in framing course must be pursued, and the diploma is utterly useless. Such
an enactment for that purpose, may classify persons so long as the classification cannot rest upon any natural reason, or bear any just
law establishing classes in general, and has some reasonable relation relation to the subject sought, and none is suggested. The proviso is
to the end sought. There must be some difference which furnishes a for the sole purpose of bestowing privileges upon certain defined
reasonable basis for different one, having no just relation to the persons. (pp. 647-648.)
subject of the legislation. Braceville Coal Co. vs. People, 147 Ill. 66,
35 N.E. 62; Ritchie vs. People, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N.E. 454; Railroad Co. In the case of Cannon above cited, State vs. Cannon, 240 N.W. 441, where
vs. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 255. the legislature attempted by law to reinstate Cannon to the practice of law,
the court also held with regards to its aspect of being a class legislation:
The length of time a physician has practiced, and the skill acquired
by experience, may furnish a basis for classification (Williams vs. But the statute is invalid for another reason. If it be granted that the
People 121 Ill. 48, II N.E. 881); but the place where such physician legislature has power to prescribe ultimately and definitely the
has resided and practiced his profession cannot furnish such basis, qualifications upon which courts must admit and license those
and is an arbitrary discrimination, making an enactment based upon applying as attorneys at law, that power can not be exercised in the
it void (State vs. Pennyeor, 65 N.E. 113, 18 Atl. 878). Here the manner here attempted. That power must be exercised through
legislature undertakes to say what shall serve as a test of fitness for general laws which will apply to all alike and accord equal
the profession of the law, and plainly, any classification must have opportunity to all. Speaking of the right of the Legislature to exact
some reference to learning, character, or ability to engage in such qualifications of those desiring to pursue chosen callings, Mr. Justice
practice. The proviso is limited, first, to a class of persons who Field in the case of Dent. vs. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 121, 9 S.
began the study of law prior to November 4, 1897. This class is Ct. 232, 233, 32 L. Ed. 626, said: "It is undoubtedly the right of
subdivided into two classes — First, those presenting diplomas every citizen of the United States to follow any lawful calling,
issued by any law school of this state before December 31, 1899; business or profession he may choose, subject only to such
and, second, those who studied law for the period of two years in a restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of like age, sex, and
law office, or part of the time in a law school and part in a law office, condition." This right may in many respects be considered as a
who are to be admitted upon examination in the subjects specified in distinguishing feature of our republican institutions. Here all
the present rules of this court, and as to this latter subdivision there vocations are all open to every one on like conditions. All may be
seems to be no limit of time for making application for admission. As pursued as sources of livelihood, some requiring years of study and
to both classes, the conditions of the rules are dispensed with, and great learning for their successful prosecution. The interest, or, as it
as between the two different conditions and limits of time are fixed. is sometimes termed, the "estate" acquired in them — that is, the
No course of study is prescribed for the law school, but a diploma right to continue their prosecution — is often of great value to the
granted upon the completion of any sort of course its managers may possessors and cannot be arbitrarily taken from them, any more
prescribe is made all-sufficient. Can there be anything with relation than their real or personal property can be thus taken. It is
to the qualifications or fitness of persons to practice law resting upon fundamental under our system of government that all similarly
the mere date of November 4, 1897, which will furnish a basis of situated and possessing equal qualifications shall enjoy equal
 P a g e | 12
opportunities. Even statutes regulating the practice of medicine, artificial ones. Therefore, any law that is made applicable to one
requiring medications to establish the possession on the part of the class of citizens only must be based on some substantial difference
application of his proper qualifications before he may be licensed to between the situation of that class and other individuals to which it
practice, have been challenged, and courts have seriously considered does not apply and must rest on some reason on which it can be
whether the exemption from such examinations of those practicing defended. In other words, there must be such a difference between
in the state at the time of the enactment of the law rendered such the situation and circumstances of all the members of the class and
law unconstitutional because of infringement upon this general the situation and circumstances of all other members of the state in
principle. State vs. Thomas Call, 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517; see, relation to the subjects of the discriminatory legislation as presents a
also, The State ex rel. Winkler vs. Rosenberg, 101 Wis. 172, 76 N.W. just and natural cause for the difference made in their liabilities and
345; State vs. Whitcom, 122 Wis. 110, 99 N.W. 468. burdens and in their rights and privileges. A law is not general
because it operates on all within a clause unless there is a
This law singles out Mr. Cannon and assumes to confer upon him the substantial reason why it is made to operate on that class only, and
right to practice law and to constitute him an officer of this Court as not generally on all. (12 Am. Jur. pp. 151-153.)
a mere matter of legislative grace or favor. It is not material that he
had once established his right to practice law and that one time he Pursuant to the law in question, those who, without a grade below 50 per
possessed the requisite learning and other qualifications to entitle cent in any subject, have obtained a general average of 69.5 per cent in the
him to that right. That fact in no matter affect the power of the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951, 70.5 per cent in 1952, 71.5 per cent in
Legislature to select from the great body of the public an individual 1953, and those will obtain 72.5 per cent in 1954, and 73.5 per cent in 1955,
upon whom it would confer its favors. will be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as
members of the Bar, notwithstanding that the rules require a minimum
A statute of the state of Minnesota (Laws 1929, c. 424) commanded general average of 75 per cent, which has been invariably followed since
the Supreme Court to admit to the practice of law without 1950. Is there any motive of the nature indicated by the abovementioned
examination, all who had served in the military or naval forces of the authorities, for this classification ? If there is none, and none has been given,
United States during the World War and received a honorable then the classification is fatally defective.
discharge therefrom and who (were disabled therein or thereby
within the purview of the Act of Congress approved June 7th, 1924, It was indicated that those who failed in 1944, 1941 or the years before,
known as "World War Veteran's Act, 1924 and whose disability is with the general average indicated, were not included because the Tribunal
rated at least ten per cent thereunder at the time of the passage of has no record of the unsuccessful candidates of those years. This fact does
this Act." This Act was held |unconstitutional on the ground that it not justify the unexplained classification of unsuccessful candidates by years,
clearly violated the quality clauses of the constitution of that from 1946-1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955. Neither is the exclusion of those
state. In re Application of George W. Humphrey, 178 Minn. 331, 227 who failed before said years under the same conditions justified. The fact
N.W. 179. that this Court has no record of examinations prior to 1946 does not signify
that no one concerned may prove by some other means his right to an equal
A good summary of a classification constitutionally acceptable is explained in consideration.
12 Am. Jur. 151-153 as follows:
To defend the disputed law from being declared unconstitutional on account
The general rule is well settled by unanimity of the authorities that a of its retroactivity, it is argued that it is curative, and that in such form it is
classification to be valid must rest upon material differences between constitutional. What does Rep. Act 972 intend to cure ? Only from 1946 to
the person included in it and those excluded and, furthermore, must 1949 were there cases in which the Tribunal permitted admission to the bar
be based upon substantial distinctions. As the rule has sometimes of candidates who did not obtain the general average of 75 per cent: in 1946
avoided the constitutional prohibition, must be founded upon those who obtained only 72 per cent; in the 1947 and those who had 69 per
pertinent and real differences, as distinguished from irrelevant and cent or more; in 1948, 70 per cent and in 1949, 74 per cent; and in 1950 to
 P a g e | 13
1953, those who obtained 74 per cent, which was considered by the Court as their purposes or effects violate the Constitution or its basic principles. As
equivalent to 75 per cent as prescribed by the Rules, by reason of has already been seen, the contested law suffers from these fatal defects.
circumstances deemed to be sufficiently justifiable. These changes in the
passing averages during those years were all that could be objected to or Summarizing, we are of the opinion and hereby declare that Republic Act No.
criticized. Now, it is desired to undo what had been done — cancel the 972 is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without any force nor effect
license that was issued to those who did not obtain the prescribed 75 per for the following reasons, to wit:
cent ? Certainly not. The disputed law clearly does not propose to do so.
Concededly, it approves what has been done by this Tribunal. What 1. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the
Congress lamented is that the Court did not consider 69.5 per cent obtained bar examinations of 1946-1952, and who, it admits, are certainly
by those candidates who failed in 1946 to 1952 as sufficient to qualify them inadequately prepared to practice law, as was exactly found by this Court in
to practice law. Hence, it is the lack of will or defect of judgment of the Court the aforesaid years. It decrees the admission to the Bar of these candidates,
that is being cured, and to complete the cure of this infirmity, the effectivity depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if they are at present
of the disputed law is being extended up to the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, already prepared to become members of the Bar. It obliges the Tribunal to
increasing each year the general average by one per cent, with the order perform something contrary to reason and in an arbitrary manner. This is a
that said candidates be admitted to the Bar. This purpose, manifest in the manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme
said law, is the best proof that what the law attempts to amend and correct Court.
are not the rules promulgated, but the will or judgment of the Court, by
means of simply taking its place. This is doing directly what the Tribunal
2. Because it is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on
should have done during those years according to the judgment of Congress.
the petitions of these 810 candidates, without having examined their
In other words, the power exercised was not to repeal, alter or supplement
respective examination papers, and although it is admitted that this Tribunal
the rules, which continue in force. What was done was to stop or suspend
may reconsider said resolution at any time for justifiable reasons, only this
them. And this power is not included in what the Constitution has granted to
Court and no other may revise and alter them. In attempting to do it directly
Congress, because it falls within the power to apply the rules. This power
Republic Act No. 972 violated the Constitution.
corresponds to the judiciary, to which such duty been confided.
3. By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative power to
Article 2 of the law in question permits partial passing of examinations, at
repeal, alter and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. Such
indefinite intervals. The grave defect of this system is that it does not take
additional or amendatory rules are, as they ought to be, intended to regulate
into account that the laws and jurisprudence are not stationary, and when a
acts subsequent to its promulgation and should tend to improve and elevate
candidate finally receives his certificate, it may happen that the existing laws
the practice of law, and this Tribunal shall consider these rules as minimum
and jurisprudence are already different, seriously affecting in this manner his
norms towards that end in the admission, suspension, disbarment and
usefulness. The system that the said law prescribes was used in the first bar
reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar, inasmuch as a good bar assists
examinations of this country, but was abandoned for this and other
immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential to a
disadvantages. In this case, however, the fatal defect is that the article is not
worthy administration of justice. It is therefore the primary and inherent
expressed in the title will have temporary effect only from 1946 to 1955, the
prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision on who
text of article 2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. This is
may be admitted and may continue in the practice of law according to
contrary to Section 21 (1), article VI of the Constitution, which vitiates and
existing rules.
annuls article 2 completely; and because it is inseparable from article 1, it is
obvious that its nullity affect the entire law.
4. The reason advanced for the pretended classification of candidates, which
the law makes, is contrary to facts which are of general knowledge and does
Laws are unconstitutional on the following grounds: first, because they are
not justify the admission to the Bar of law students inadequately prepared.
not within the legislative powers of Congress to enact, or Congress has
The pretended classification is arbitrary. It is undoubtedly a class legislation.
exceeded its powers; second, because they create or establish arbitrary
methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles; and third, because
 P a g e | 14
5. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, As will be observed from Annex I, this Court reduced to 72 per cent the
contrary to what the Constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the passing general average in the bar examination of august and November of
provisions of article 1, the entire law is void. 1946; 69 per cent in 1947; 70 per cent in 1948; 74 per cent in 1949;
maintaining the prescribed 75 per cent since 1950, but raising to 75 per cent
6. Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 those who obtained 74 per cent since 1950. This caused the introduction in
referring to the examinations of 1953 to 1955, said part of article 1, insofar 1951, in the Senate of the Philippines of Bill No. 12 which was intended to
as it concerns the examinations in those years, shall continue in force. amend Sections 5, 9, 12, 14 and 16 of Rule 127 of the Rules of Court,
concerning the admission of attorneys-at-law to the practice of the
RESOLUTION profession. The amendments embrace many interesting matters, but those
referring to sections 14 and 16 immediately concern us. The proposed
amendment is as follows:
Upon mature deliberation by this Court, after hearing and availing of the
magnificent and impassioned discussion of the contested law by our Chief
Justice at the opening and close of the debate among the members of the SEC. 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be
Court, and after hearing the judicious observations of two of our beloved deemed to have passed the examinations successfully, he must have
colleagues who since the beginning have announced their decision not to obtained a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50
take part in voting, we, the eight members of the Court who subscribed to per cent in any subject. In determining the average, the foregoing
this decision have voted and resolved, and have decided for the Court, and subjects shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 20
under the authority of the same: per cent; Land Registration and Mortgages, 5 per cent; Mercantile
Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law, 10 per cent; Political Law, 10 per
cent; International Law, 5 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent;
1. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. 972 referring to the
Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent; Social Legislation, 5
examinations of 1946 to 1952, and (b) all of article 2 of said law are
per cent; Taxation, 5 per cent. Unsuccessful candidates shall not be
unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without force and effect.
required to take another examination in any subject in which they
have obtained a rating of 70 per cent or higher and such rating shall
2. That, for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of article 1 be taken into account in determining their general average in any
which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law, that subsequent examinations: Provided, however, That if the candidate
is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in fails to get a general average of 70 per cent in his third examination,
conformity with section 10, article VII of the Constitution. he shall lose the benefit of having already passed some subjects and
shall be required to the examination in all the subjects.
Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who
failed in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and (2) all SEC. 16. Admission and oath of successful applicants. — Any
candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of applicant who has obtained a general average of 70 per cent in all
71.5 per cent or more, without having a grade below 50 per cent in any subjects without falling below 50 per cent in any examination held
subject, are considered as having passed, whether they have filed petitions after the 4th day of July, 1946, or who has been otherwise found to
for admission or not. After this decision has become final, they shall be be entitled to admission to the bar, shall be allowed to take and
permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of
of the Bar on the date or dates that the chief Justice may set. So ordered. office. (Arts. 4 and 5, 8, No. 12).

Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Labrador, Pablo, Padilla, and Reyes, With the bill was an Explanatory Note, the portion pertinent to the matter
JJ., concur. before us being:

The Enactment of Republic Act No. 972

 P a g e | 15
It seems to be unfair that unsuccessful candidates at bar subjects the present year. We believe that the present system of
examinations should be compelled to repeat even those subjects requiring a candidate to obtain a passing general average with no
which they have previously passed. This is not the case in any other grade in any subject below 50 per cent is more desirable and
government examination. The Rules of Court have therefore been satisfactory. It requires one to be all around, and prepared in all
amended in this measure to give a candidate due credit for any required legal subjects at the time of admission to the practice of
subject which he has previously passed with a rating of 75 per cent law.
or higher."
xxx     xxx     xxx
Senate Bill No. 12 having been approved by Congress on May 3, 1951, the
President requested the comments of this Tribunal before acting on the We now come to the last amendment, that of section 16 of Rule
same. The comment was signed by seven Justices while three chose to 127. This amendment provides that any application who has
refrain from making any and one took no part. With regards to the matter obtained a general average of 70 per cent in all subjects without
that interests us, the Court said: failing below 50 per cent in any subject in any examination held after
the 4th day of July, 1946, shall be allowed to take and subscribe the
The next amendment is of section 14 of Rule 127. One part of this corresponding oath of office. In other words, Bar candidates who
amendment provides that if a bar candidate obtains 70 per cent or obtained not less than 70 per cent in any examination since the year
higher in any subject, although failing to pass the examination, he 1946 without failing below 50 per cent in any subject, despite their
need not be examined in said subject in his next examination. This is non-admission to the Bar by the Supreme Court because they failed
a sort of passing the Bar Examination on the installment plan, one or to obtain a passing general average in any of those years, will be
two or three subjects at a time. The trouble with this proposed admitted to the Bar. This provision is not only prospective but
system is that although it makes it easier and more convenient for retroactive in its effects.
the candidate because he may in an examination prepare himself on
only one or two subjects so as to insure passing them, by the time We have already stated in our comment on the next preceding
that he has passed the last required subjects, which may be several amendment that we are not exactly in favor of reducing the passing
years away from the time that he reviewed and passed the firs general average from 75 per cent to 70 per cent to govern even in
subjects, he shall have forgotten the principles and theories the future. As to the validity of making such reduction retroactive,
contained in those subjects and remembers only those of the one or we have serious legal doubts. We should not lose sight of the fact
two subjects that he had last reviewed and passed. This is highly that after every bar examinations, the Supreme Court passes the
possible because there is nothing in the law which requires a corresponding resolution not only admitting to the Bar those who
candidate to continue taking the Bar examinations every year in have obtained a passing general average grade, but also rejecting
succession. The only condition imposed is that a candidate, on this and denying the petitions for reconsideration of those who have
plan, must pass the examination in no more that three installments; failed. The present amendment would have the effect of repudiating,
but there is no limitation as to the time or number of years reversing and revoking the Supreme Court's resolution denying and
intervening between each examination taken. This would defeat the rejecting the petitions of those who may have obtained an average
object and the requirements of the law and the Court in admitting of 70 per cent or more but less than the general passing average
persons to the practice of law. When a person is so admitted, it is to fixed for that year. It is clear that this question involves legal
be presumed and presupposed that he possesses the knowledge and implications, and this phase of the amendment if finally enacted into
proficiency in the law and the knowledge of all law subjects required law might have to go thru a legal test. As one member of the Court
in bar examinations, so as presently to be able to practice the legal remarked during the discussion, when a court renders a decision or
profession and adequately render the legal service required by promulgate a resolution or order on the basis of and in accordance
prospective clients. But this would not hold true of the candidates with a certain law or rule then in force, the subsequent amendment
who may have obtained a passing grade on any five subjects eight or even repeal of said law or rule may not affect the final decision,
years ago, another three subjects one year later, and the last two
 P a g e | 16
order, or resolution already promulgated, in the sense of revoking or then in force. It should be noted that after every bar examination
rendering it void and of no effect. the Supreme Court passes the corresponding resolution not only
admitting to the Bar those who have obtained a passing general
Another aspect of this question to be considered is the fact that average but also rejecting and denying the petitions for
members of the bar are officers of the courts, including the Supreme reconsideration of those who have failed. The provision under
Court. When a Bar candidate is admitted to the Bar, the Supreme consideration would have the effect of revoking the Supreme Court's
Court impliedly regards him as a person fit, competent and qualified resolution denying and rejecting the petitions of those who may
to be its officer. Conversely, when it refused and denied admission have failed to obtain the passing average fixed for that year. Said
to the Bar to a candidate who in any year since 1946 may have provision also sets a bad precedent in that the Government would be
obtained a general average of 70 per cent but less than that morally obliged to grant a similar privilege to those who have failed
required for that year in order to pass, the Supreme Court equally in the examinations for admission to other professions such as
and impliedly considered and declared that he was not prepared, medicine, engineering, architecture and certified public accountancy.
ready, competent and qualified to be its officer. The present
amendment giving retroactivity to the reduction of the passing Consequently, the bill was returned to the Congress of the Philippines, but it
general average runs counter to all these acts and resolutions of the was not repassed by 2/3 vote of each House as prescribed by section 20,
Supreme Court and practically and in effect says that a candidate not article VI of the Constitution. Instead Bill No. 371 was presented in the
accepted, and even rejected by the Court to be its officer because he Senate. It reads as follows:
was unprepared, undeserving and unqualified, nevertheless and in
spite of all, must be admitted and allowed by this Court to serve as AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR
its officer. We repeat, that this is another important aspect of the EXAMINATIONS FROM 1946 UP TO AND INCLUDING 1953
question to be carefully and seriously considered.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
The President vetoed the bill on June 16, 1951, stating the following: Philippines in Congress assembled:

I am fully in accord with the avowed objection of the bill, namely, to SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14, Rule 127
elevate the standard of the legal profession and maintain it on a high of the Rules of Court, any bar candidate who obtained a general
level. This is not achieved, however, by admitting to practice average of 70 per cent in any bar examinations after July 4, 1946 up
precisely a special class who have failed in the bar examination, to the August 1951 Bar examinations; 71 per cent in the 1952 bar
Moreover, the bill contains provisions to which I find serious examinations; 72 per cent in the 1953 bar examinations; 73 per cent
fundamental objections. in the 1954 bar examinations; 74 per cent in 1955 bar examinations
without a candidate obtaining a grade below 50 per cent in any
Section 5 provides that any applicant who has obtained a general subject, shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding
average of 70 per cent in all subjects without failing below 50 per oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar; Provided, however,
cent in any subject in any examination held after the 4th day of July, That 75 per cent passing general average shall be restored in all
1946, shall be allowed to take and subscribed the corresponding succeeding examinations; and Provided, finally, That for the purpose
oath of office. This provision constitutes class legislation, benefiting of this Act, any exact one-half or more of a fraction, shall be
as it does specifically one group of persons, namely, the considered as one and included as part of the next whole number.
unsuccessful candidates in the 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 bar
examinations. SEC. 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in
any subject in any bar examination after July 4, 1945 shall be
The same provision undertakes to revoke or set aside final deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade
resolutions of the Supreme Court made in accordance with the law or grades shall be included in computing the passing general
 P a g e | 17
average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent the Supreme Court have already established as precedent by making
examinations that he may take. as low as 69 per cent the passing mark of those who took the Bar
examination in 1947. These bar candidates for who this bill should
SEC. 3. This bill shall take effect upon its approval. be enacted, considered themselves as having passed the bar
examination on the strength of the established precedent of our
With the following explanatory note: Supreme Court and were fully aware of the insurmountable
difficulties and handicaps which they were unavoidably placed. We
believe that such precedent cannot or could not have been altered,
This is a revised Bar bill to meet the objections of the President and
constitutionally, by the Supreme Court, without giving due
to afford another opportunity to those who feel themselves
consideration to the rights already accrued or vested in the bar
discriminated by the Supreme Court from 1946 to 1951 when those
candidates who took the examination when the precedent was not
who would otherwise have passed the bar examination but were
yet altered, or in effect, was still enforced and without being
arbitrarily not so considered by altering its previous decisions of the
inconsistent with the principles of their previous resolutions.
passing mark. The Supreme Court has been altering the passing
mark from 69 in 1947 to 74 in 1951. In order to cure the apparent
arbitrary fixing of passing grades and to give satisfaction to all If this bill would be enacted, it shall be considered as a simple
parties concerned, it is proposed in this bill a gradual increase in the curative act or corrective statute which Congress has the power to
general averages for passing the bar examinations as follows; For enact. The requirement of a "valid classification" as against class
1946 to 1951 bar examinations, 70 per cent; for 1952 bar legislation, is very expressed in the following American
examination, 71 per cent; for 1953 bar examination, 72 per cent; for Jurisprudence:
1954 bar examination, 73 percent; and for 1955 bar examination, 74
per cent. Thus in 1956 the passing mark will be restored with the A valid classification must include all who naturally belong to the
condition that the candidate shall not obtain in any subject a grade class, all who possess a common disability, attribute, or
of below 50 per cent. The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per classification, and there must be a "natural" and substantial
cent passing grade, is the tremendous handicap which students differentiation between those included in the class and those it
during the years immediately after the Japanese occupation has to leaves untouched. When a class is accepted by the Court as
overcome such as the insufficiency of reading materials and the "natural" it cannot be again split and then have the dissevered
inadequacy of the preparation of students who took up law soon factions of the original unit designated with different rules
after the liberation. It is believed that by 1956 the preparation of our established for each. (Fountain Park Co. vs. Rensier, 199 Ind. 95, N.
students as well as the available reading materials will be under E. 465 (1926).
normal conditions, if not improved from those years preceding the
last world war. Another case penned by Justice Cardozo: "Time with its tides brings
new conditions which must be cared for by new laws. Sometimes the
In this will we eliminated altogether the idea of having our Supreme new conditions affect the members of a class. If so, the correcting
Court assumed the supervision as well as the administration of the statute must apply to all alike. Sometimes the condition affect only a
study of law which was objected to by the President in the Bar Bill of few. If so, the correcting statute may be as narrow as the mischief.
1951. The constitution does not prohibit special laws inflexibly and always.
It permits them when there are special evils with which the general
The President in vetoing the Bar Bill last year stated among his laws are incompetent to cope. The special public purpose will sustain
objections that the bill would admit to the practice of law "a special the special form. . . . The problem in the last analysis is one of
class who failed in the bar examination". He considered the bill a legislative policy, with a wide margin of discretion conceded to the
class legislation. This contention, however, is not, in good lawmakers. Only in the case of plain abuse will there be revision by
conscience, correct because Congress is merely supplementing what
 P a g e | 18
the court. (In Williams vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 286
U. S. 36, 77 L. Ed. 1015, 53 Sup. Ct. 431). (1932)

This bill has all the earmarks of a corrective statute which always
retroacts to the extent of the care of correction only as in this case
from 1946 when the Supreme Court first deviated from the rule of
75 per cent in the Rules of Court.

For the foregoing purposes the approval of this bill is earnestly

recommended.

(Sgd.) PABLO ANGELES DAVID

Senator

Without much debate, the revised bill was passed by Congress as above
transcribed. The President again asked the comments of this Court, which
endorsed the following:

Respectfully returned to the Honorable, the Acting Executive

Secretary, Manila, with the information that, with respect to Senate
Bill No. 371, the members of the Court are taking the same views
they expressed on Senate Bill No. 12 passed by Congress in May,
1951, contained in the first indorsement of the undersigned dated
June 5, 1951, to the Assistant Executive Secretary.

(Sgd.) RICARDO PARAS

The President allowed the period within which the bill should be signed to
pass without vetoing it, by virtue of which it became a law on June 21, 1953
(Sec. 20, Art. VI, Constitution) numbered 972 (many times erroneously cited
as No. 974).

It may be mentioned in passing that 1953 was an election year, and that
both the President and the author of the Bill were candidates for re-election,
together, however, they lost in the polls.
 P a g e | 19
In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there had grown a strong
nationwide sentiment in favor of Bar integration, the Court created the
Commission on Bar Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the
advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar.

In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled "An Act
Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds
Therefor." The measure was signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on
September 17, 1971 and took effect on the same day as Rep. Act 6397. This
law provides as follows:

SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act,

January 9, 1973 the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the
integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal
PHILIPPINES. profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable
the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
RESOLUTION
SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby
PER CURIAM: appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this
On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration1 submitted its Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the
Report dated November 30, 1972, with the "earnest recommendation" — on same purpose shall be included in the annual appropriations
the basis of the said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case for the Supreme Court.
No. 5262 of the Court, and "consistently with the views and counsel received
from its [the Commission's] Board of Consultants, as well as the SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar" —
that "this Honorable Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as The Report of the Commission abounds with argument on the
soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate constitutionality of Bar integration and contains all necessary factual data
Court Rule." bearing on the advisability (practicability and necessity) of Bar integration.
Also embodied therein are the views, opinions, sentiments, comments and
The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the observations of the rank and file of the Philippine lawyer population relative
integration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far to Bar integration, as well as a proposed integration Court Rule drafted by
as possible and practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar the Commission and presented to them by that body in a national Bar
associations. On August 16, 1962, arguments in favor of as well as in plebiscite. There is thus sufficient basis as well as ample material upon which
opposition to the petition were orally expounded before the Court. Written the Court may decide whether or not to integrate the Philippine Bar at this
oppositions were admitted,3 and all parties were thereafter granted leave to time.
file written memoranda.4
The following are the pertinent issues:
Since then, the Court has closely observed and followed significant
developments relative to the matter of the integration of the Bar in this (1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the
jurisdiction. Philippine Bar?
 P a g e | 20
(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional? (2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high
ideals of integrity, learning, professional competence, public
(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this service and conduct;
time?
(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
A resolution of these issues requires, at the outset, a statement of the
meaning of Bar integration. It will suffice, for this purpose, to adopt the (4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and
concept given by the Commission on Bar Integration on pages 3 to 5 of brotherhood;
its Report, thus:
(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence,
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official law reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the
unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and
This requires membership and financial support (in publish information relating thereto;
reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua
non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in (6) Encourage and foster legal education;
the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in
The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose substantive and adjective law, and make reports and
names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or recommendations thereon; and
Unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.
(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by effectively.
an entity with power to do so: the State. Bar integration,
therefore, signifies the setting up by Government authority Integration of the Bar will, among other things, make it
of a national organization of the legal profession based on possible for the legal profession to:
the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of the court.
(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule
Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an of Law;
instrumentality of justice and the Rule of Law, integration
fosters cohesion among lawyers, and ensures, through their
(2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of
own organized action and participation, the promotion of the
tyrannical judges and prosecuting officers;
objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the principle
of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and
regulation by the Supreme Court. (3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the
disciplining and/or removal of incompetent and unworthy
judges and prosecuting officers;
The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:
(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend
(1) Assist in the administration of justice;
itself except within its own forum, from the assaults that
politics and self-interest may level at it, and assist it to
maintain its integrity, impartiality and independence;
 P a g e | 21
(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional
prosecuting officers; authority over the Bar. In providing that "the Supreme Court may adopt rules
of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar," Republic Act 6397
(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break up neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent power, but is a
any monopoly of local practice maintained through influence mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will promote
or position; public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the standards of the legal
profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and discharge its public responsibility more effectively."
deceased lawyers;
Resolution of the second issue — whether the unification of the Bar would be
(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid constitutional — hinges on the effects of Bar integration on the lawyer's
offices and set up lawyer reference services throughout the constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech, and
country so that the poor may not lack competent legal on the nature of the dues exacted from him.
service;
The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent discussion made by the
(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that Commission on Bar Integration pages 44 to 49 of its Report:
are difficult to obtain in many of our provinces;
Constitutionality of Bar Integration
(10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal
education for practising attorneys in order to elevate the Judicial Pronouncements.
standards of the profession throughout the country;
In all cases where the validity of Bar integration measures
(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate has been put in issue, the Courts have upheld their
minimum fees schedules; constitutionality.

(12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:
research;
— Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the
(13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal practice of law.
rights and obligations, on the importance of preventive legal
advice, and on the functions and duties of the Filipino — The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a
lawyer; and privilege, moreover, clothed with public interest, because a
lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but also to his
(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation;
country-wide involvement of the lawyer population in the and takes part in one of the most important functions of the
solution of the multifarious problems that afflict the nation. State, the administration of justice, as an officer of the
court.
Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may integrate the
Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the — Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public
Constitution, "to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and interest, it is far and just that the exercise of that privilege
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law." Indeed,
 P a g e | 22
be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public available to the people. The Supreme Court, in order to
responsibilities. further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality
of professional services, may require that the cost of
— These public responsibilities can best be discharged improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the
through collective action; but there can be no collective subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the
action without an organized body; no organized body can lawyers.
operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it
is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to Assuming that Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be a
the support of such organized body; and, given existing Bar member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified
conditions, the most efficient means of doing so is by as an exercise of the police power of the State. The legal
integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all profession has long been regarded as a proper subject of
lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar. legislative regulation and control. Moreover, the inherent
power of the Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the
1. Freedom of Association. authority to integrate the Bar.

To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is 2. Regulatory Fee.

not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate (or
the corollary right not to associate). For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members
does not mean that the Court levies a tax.
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group
of which he is not already a member. He became a member A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for
of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that regulation, while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the
integration actually does is to provide an official national Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership
incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to push
member. through an Integrated Bar program without means to defray
the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied powers
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.
anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of
his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the
elections as he chooses. The body compulsion to which he is Bar is that the regulation does not impose an
subjected is the payment of annual dues. unconstitutional burden. The public interest promoted by the
integration of the Bar far outweighs the inconsequential
Otherwise stated, membership in the Unified Bar imposes inconvenience to a member that might result from his
only the duty to pay dues in reasonable amount. The issue required payment of annual dues.
therefore, is a question of compelled financial support of
group activities, not involuntary membership in any other 3. Freedom of Speech.
aspect.
A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views
The greater part of Unified Bar activities serves the function on any subject in any manner he wishes, even though such
of elevating the educational and ethical standards of the Bar views be opposed to positions taken by the Unified Bar.
to the end of improving the quality of the legal service
 P a g e | 23
For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the United
measures to which said member is opposed, would not States, Bar integration has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved
nullify or adversely affect his freedom of speech. discipline among the members of the Bar; (2) greater influence and
ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better and more meaningful participation of the
Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to individual lawyer in the activities of the Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar
practice law upon membership in the Integrated Bar, it is facilities and services; (5) elimination of unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance
difficult to understand why it should become unconstitutional of costly membership campaigns; (7) establishment of an official status for
for the Bar to use the member's dues to fulfill the very the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession; and (9) better and more effective
purposes for which it was established. discharge by the Bar of its obligations and responsibilities to its members, to
the courts, and to the public. No less than these salutary consequences are
The objection would make every Governmental exaction the envisioned and in fact expected from the unification of the Philippine Bar.
material of a "free speech" issue. Even the income tax would
be suspect. The objection would carry us to lengths that Upon the other hand, it has been variously argued that in the event of
have never been dreamed of. The conscientious objector, if integration, Government authority will dominate the Bar; local Bar
his liberties were to be thus extended, might refuse to associations will be weakened; cliquism will be the inevitable result; effective
contribute taxes in furtherance of war or of any other end lobbying will not be possible; the Bar will become an impersonal Bar; and
condemned by his conscience as irreligious or immoral. The politics will intrude into its affairs.
right of private judgment has never yet been exalted above
the powers and the compulsion of the agencies of It is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils prophesied by
Government. opponents of Bar integration have failed to materialize in over fifty years of
Bar integration experience in England, Canada and the United States. In all
4. Fair to All Lawyers. the jurisdictions where the Integrated Bar has been tried, none of the abuses
or evils feared has arisen; on the other hand, it has restored public
Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional consciousness, energized the
because although the requirement to pay annual dues is a Bar's responsibilities to the public, and vastly improved the administration of
new regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new justice.
system which they hitherto have not had and through which,
by proper work, they will receive benefits they have not How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar integration? The official
heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their public statistics compiled by the Commission on Bar integration show that in
responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have the national poll recently conducted by the Commission in the matter of the
been able to do in the past. Because the requirement to pay integration of the Philippine Bar, of a total of 15,090 lawyers from all over
dues is a valid exercise of regulatory power by the Court, the archipelago who have turned in their individual responses, 14,555 (or
because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young and old, at 96.45 per cent) voted in favor of Bar integration, while only 378 (or 2.51 per
the time Bar integration takes effect, and because it is a new cent) voted against it, and 157 (or 1.04 per cent) are non-commital. In
regulation in exchange for new benefits, it is not retroactive, addition, a total of eighty (80) local Bar association and lawyers' groups all
it is not unequal, it is not unfair. over the Philippines have submitted resolutions and other expressions of
unqualified endorsement and/or support for Bar integration, while not a
To resolve the third and final issue — whether the Court should ordain the single local Bar association or lawyers' group has expressed opposed position
integration of the Bar at this time — requires a careful overview of the thereto. Finally, of the 13,802 individual lawyers who cast their  plebiscite
practicability and necessity as well as the advantages and disadvantages of ballots on the proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission,
Bar integration. 12,855 (or 93.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof, 662 (or 4.80 per cent)
vote against it, and 285 (or 2.06 per cent) are non-committal.5 All these
 P a g e | 24
clearly indicate an overwhelming nationwide demand for Bar integration at
this time. The petitioner is a former Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman of Barangay
Singcang Airport, Bacolod City.On September 18, 1999, an Information for
The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all Usurpation of Authority or Official Function under Article 177 of the Revised
the arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative
Penal Code[1]cralaw was filed against him which read:
materials and the mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of
the Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar
is "perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable," within the context of That on or about the 18th day of September, 1999, in the City of Bacolod,
contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative means Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of accused, not being the President of the Bacolod City Sangguniang Kabataan
justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and Federation, a government agency, did then and there under pretense of
effectively. official position and without being lawfully entitled to do so, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously preside over the special session of the said
ACCORDINGLY, the Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13
Federation, in violation of the aforestated law.[2]cralaw
of Article VIII of the Constitution, hereby ordains the integration of the Bar
of the Philippines in accordance with the attached COURT RULE, effective on
January 16, 1973. The petitioner was conditionally allowed to take the 2001 Bar
Examinations[3]cralaw and passed the same.He could not, however, take the
Lawyer's Oath nor sign in the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the
above-mentioned case.

On August 2, 2002, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a

[B.M. No. 1209. July 1, 2003]
letter[4]cralaw from a certain Mr. Benjie Montinola informing the said office
that there were other cases filed against the petitioner which were not duly
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE BAR MATTER NO. 1209 LAWYER'S
disclosed in the latter's petition to take the bar examinations, to wit:
OATH

1.Two counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P.) 22 filed sometime

EN BANC
in 1999, docketed as B.C.I.S. 99-6735 and 99-6736, before the City
Prosecutor's Office of Bacolod;
Gentlemen:

2.Civil Case No. 27447 for "Sum of Money" filed on July 26, 2001, before the
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated
MTCC, Bacolod, in which an adverse decision dated April 1, 2002 was
JUL 1 2003.
rendered;

RESOLUTION. B.M. No. 1209(In Re: Petition to Take the Bar Matter No.
3.Civil Case No. 27447 for "Sum of Money" filed on March 15, 2002, before
1209 Lawyer's Oath, Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner.)
MTCC, Bacolod.

Before the court is a Petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign in the Roll
Mr. Montinola also alleged in his letter that the petitioner took his oath as an
of Attorneys dated April 22, 2002 filed by Caesar Z. Distrito, a successful
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) member, knowing fully well that he
2001 Bar Examinee.
 P a g e | 25
had not yet taken his oath as a lawyer before the Supreme Court nor signed lodged in MTCC branch 4, Bacolod City for Usurpation of Power charge
in the Roll of Attorneys Mr. Montinola further averred: against him by the undersigned.

The fact that CAESAR Z. DISTRITO have (sic)not disclosed the above- Ms. Espinosa attached a copy of an attendance sheet of a Sangguniang
mentioned criminal and civil case filed against him in his application form Panglungsod committee hearing dated June 21, 2002 where the petitioner's
despite his personal knowledge of the same when he applied for the Bar name appeared to have been signed, along with the word "Atty."
Exams sometime in 2001, is tantamount to PERJURY and that should be
acted upon by your respectable office to protect the integrity of our present On April 23, 2003, the petitioner filed his Petition to take the Lawyer's Oath
lawyers who will be our future Prosecutors, Judges, Justices or even High and to sign the Roll of Attorneys alleging that on April 4, 2003, the Municipal
Ranking Cabinet or Government Officials or even President of our country. Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod, rendered a decision acquitting him in
Criminal Case No. 99609.[5]cralaw Attached thereto was a certified true copy
The unethical act of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO when he took his oath as a of the decision in the said criminal case and a certificate of finality of
lawyer/member before a testimonial dinner tendered by the IBP-Negros judgment.[6]cralaw The OBC informed the petitioner of the above-
Occidental Chapter and witnessed not only by it's Officials, present members mentioned charges and required him to comment on the same.
and honored guests but by thousands of Television viewers not only in
Bacolod City but the whole of Western Visayas if not the whole country, In his Comment dated May 12, 2003, the petitioner avers that when he filed
despite also of his personal knowledge that he is not qualified to do so for his petition to take the 2001 bar exams, the criminal case for usurpation of
the same reason above-stated, is tantamount to IMPERSONATION that authority or official function was the only pending case against him at the
should be properly acted upon by the said body who will be furnished a copy time.He did not mention I.S.B.C. Case Nos. 99-6735 and 6736 for Violation
of this information and to also protect their integrity and to avoid similar of B.P. Blg. 22 in his petition because he was of the honest belief that it was
incident that may happen in the future for lack of proper screening. no longer necessary for him to do so, considering that the cases had long
been settled and dismissed without even reaching the arraignment stage.
Mr. Montinola attached to his letter copies of the complaint as well as a copy [7]cralaw The said criminal cases apparently stemmed from the debts of
of the decision in Civil Case No. 26837. some 50 fish vendors at Magsungay Village.The petitioner's father, as the
punong barangay, had guaranteed the same in order to help the
On August 15, 2002, the OBC received another letter from a certain Ms. fishermen.But as the drawer of the two checks, the complainant filed the
Christine Angelie M. Espinosa, then SK Federation President of Bacolod City, action against the petitioner when the debts remained unpaid.
which read:
As regards the civil cases, the petitioner avers that the same stemmed from
Your Honor: salary loans that he, along with other barangay officials and employees,
obtained from Fil-Global Credit and Asset Management Inc. and SWIP
May I inquire from your good office, whether a bar passer who has not taken Lending Corporation on January 13, 2000 and August 22, 2000, respectively,
his oath in view of the pending criminal case filed against him can attached when he was Barangay SK Chairman.The barangay treasurer regularly
(sic) to his name the nomenclature atty.?Such is the case of Mr. Caesar Z. deducted from his salary the payment for the said loans until such time when
Distrito , SK Federation, Bacolod City Vice-President whopassed the bar last he completed the payment to Fil-Global on January 31, 2001 and for SWIUP
May 2002, but has not taken his oath due to the pending criminal case Lending on April 30, 2001.The barangay treasurer thereafter issued a
certification of complete payment.[8]cralaw When the petitioner came back
 P a g e | 26
to Bacolod after the bar exams, he was surprised to learn that their barangay Sangguniang Panglungsod of Bacolod City.He reasoned that he was of the
officials and employees were facing cases for sum of money filed by Fil- notion that a bar passer can be called "Attorney," and that what is only
Global and SWIP Lending because apparently, their payments were not duly prohibited is to practice law, such as appearing in court and notarizing
remitted.He received summons only on October 22, 2001 and April 4, 2002 docunments without the requisite oath-taking before the Supreme Court and
from the MTCC, Bacolod City.The finance officer and the treasurer promised signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
to settle everything, but they failed to do so until their term expired on
August 15, 2002.After the decision was rendered by the MTCC, the petitioner The petitioner averred that the complainant in this case, Ms. Matus Espinosa,
paid the plaintiffs in the said cases, as evidenced by official receipt nos. had in fact executed an affidavit of desistance[17]cralaw to attest that there
8169[9]cralaw and 9019[10]cralaw issued by Fil-Global and SWIP Lending was indeed no misrepresentation on his part.
respectively dated May 7, 2003.Thereafter, an order of satisfaction of
judgment[11]cralaw was correspondingly issued by the court in civil cases The petitioner manifested his sincere apology to the Court for any mistake
26837[12]cralaw and 27447.[13]cralaw he may have committed.

Anent the IBP incident, the petitioner stated that an invitation[14]cralaw was On May 22, 2003, the OBC made the following recommendation:
sent to him by the IBP Negros Occidental Chapter to attend the testimonial
dinner and the annual judicial excellence awarding ceremonies, but that Considering that there is no more pending civil, criminal or administrative
there was no mention of any induction ceremony.Considering the he in fact cases against herein petitioner, he may now be admitted as a member of the
successfully passed the bar examinations and was being recognized Bar.
therefore he was inspired to attend the occasion.He admitted that during the
occasion, all those who just passed the bar exams were called for the Foregoing considered, it is respectfully recommended that Mr. CAESAR Z.
induction of new members, and that he was left with no choice but to join DISTRITO be now allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of
the others onstage when his name was called.However, the petitioner did Attorneys upon payment of the required fees.[18]cralaw
not intend to deceive or to keep the IBP in the dark, as he in fact informed
them of his status.To prove the absence of malice on his part, he did not There are thus three important matters raised before this Court, the
sign any document that night. determination of which would materially affect the fate of the present
petition:
The petitioner also stated that after some verification as to the identity of the
complainant in the Letter-complaint dated August 22, 2002, he found out First.The petitioner's non-disclosure of a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22
that Benjie Montinola awas a non-existing person who cannot claim to be a and of two other civil cases filed against him, albeit already dismissed at the
"guardian of proper civi[c] responsibility" considering that he is not even a time of the filing of his petition to take the 2001 bar examinations.
registered voter of Bacolod City and that he could not be located in the
address given, as indicated in a Certification issued by the Commission on Second.The petitioner's attendance and participation in an IBP testimonial
Elections, Bacolod City[15]cralaw and the Office of the Barangay Council of dinner for new lawyers, when he had not yet taken his oath as a lawyer nor
Barangay Singcang Airport.[16]cralaw signed in the Roll of Attorneys.

Regarding the use of the appellation "Atty.", The petitioner admitted writing Third.The petitioner's admitted use of the appellation "Atty." When he had
the same in the attendance sheet in a committee hearing of the no authority to do so as yet.
 P a g e | 27
Whether or not the petitioner shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to
The Court sees fit to discuss each one, to serve as reminder to law students a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court.An applicant must satisfy
and prospective applicants to the bar. the Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to
practice law.[21]cralaw The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or
The petitioner's non-disclosure of a Criminal case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it.Rather, it is a
and two other civil cases filed against him, albeit already dismissed at the high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with
time of the filing of his petition to take the 2001 bar examinations. special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.[22]cralaw

The petitioner insists that he had not read any requirement in the petition to It has been held that moral character is what a person really is, as
include cases that had already been dismissed.[19]cralaw This, the Court distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained
cannot quite fathom.As stated by Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he
Ma. Cristina B. Layusa:[20]cralaw is known.Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds
to objective reality.The standard of personal and professional integrity is not
The petitioner's contention is quite hard to accept.In the ready-made petition satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty
form to take the Bar Examination, the following is written clearly: of criminal law.Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
[23]cralaw
"Note: Indicate any pending or dismissed civil, criminal or administrative
case against you and attach pertinent Admittedly, the petitioner was less than honest when he failed to disclose
documents:____________________________." the two other cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and the civil cases involving
sums of money which were filed against him, in his petition to take the bar
If petitioner had not read the notation, as what he claimed, why did he examinations.He should have known that the said petitionis not to be taken
disclose his pending case for Usurpation of authority or Official lightly as it is made under oath.The petitioner, in so doing, violated Rule 7.02
Function.Moreover, the said instruction is written in the middle of the form, of the Code of Professional Responsibility,[24]cralaw which requires of every
so if petitioner had not really read the same, he was not mindful of what he applicant candor and truthfulness.Every applicant is duty bound to lay before
was doing which should not be the case of a Bar applicant. the Court all his involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise
terminated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain or determine the
Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates the applicant's moral character.[25]cralaw The petitioner should have realized
requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar, to wit: the implication of any omission on his part, even if inadvertently made.

Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of In the case of People v. Tuanda,[26]cralaw the Court held that "violation of
the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, B.P. Blg. 22 is a serious criminal offense which deleteriously affects public
and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme interest and public order," and considered the same an offense involving
Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges moral turpitude.The erring lawyer was consequently suspended from the
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any practice of law.
court in the Philippines.
In this case, the fact that the criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
did not even reach the arraignment stage is of no moment; it was the
 P a g e | 28
petitioner's duty to disclose the same as it was a material fact which could
affect his application for admission to the bar. Your presence on this occasion will be highly appreciated.

It has also been held that an applicant for the admission to the bar who The Court can only conclude that the petitioner did not take his petition to
made a false statement in his application is not of good moral character. take the Lawyer's Oath and to sign in the Roll of Attorneys seriously.He
[27]cralaw The concealment or withholding from the court of the fact that an would have us believe that he attended an affair, believing in good faith that
applicant has been charged with or indicated for an alleged crime is a ground it was meant for those who recently passed the bar, when the invitation he
for disqualification of the applicant to take the bar examination, or for himself attached to his petition states otherwise.The petitioner's
revocation of the license to practice, if he has already been admitted to the forthrightness and candor with the Court leave much to be desired.
bar.If what the applicant concealed is a crime which does not involve moral
turpitude, it is the fact of concealment and not the commission of the crime The petitioner's admitted use of the Appellation "Atty." When he had no
itself that makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer.It should be noted Authority to do so as yet.
that the application was made under oath, which he lightly took when he
made the concealment.[28]cralaw The petitioner's erroneous belief that a person who passed the bar
examinations may allow himself to be called an attorney should be
The petitioner's attendance and participation in an IBP testimonial dinner for corrected.An applicant who has passed the required examination or has been
new lawyers, when he had not yet taken his oath as a lawyer nor signed in otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and
the Roll of Attorneys. subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.
[31]cralaw The Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of
As to the IBP incident, the petitioner claims that he though the occasion was the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be
just a plain and simple testimonial dinner for successful bar examinees that entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such record
included an awarding ceremony for judges.It was only later when he be given to him by the clerk of court, which certificates shall be his authority
discovered that the program was actually a testimonial for new lawyers. to practice.[32]cralaw The clerk of the Supreme Court shall keep a Roll of
[29]cralaw However, a perusal of the invitation[30]cralaw sent by the IBP to Attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the person
the petitioner reveals that there was an express mention that the affair was admitted when he receives his certificate..[33]cralaw
for new lawyers, to wit:
The Oath is thus a prerequisite to the admission to the practice of law, while
Dear Atty. Distrito: the signing in the Roll is the last act that finally signifies membership in the
bar, giving the applicant the right to call himself "attorney".Continued
The IBP-Negros Occidental Chapter will hold its Chapter's Judicial Award of membership in the IBP and regular payment of membership dues and other
Excellence to Outstanding Judges and Proscutors and Testimonial Dinner for lawful assessments that it may levy are conditions sine qua non to the
new lawyers on June 28, 2002, 7:00 P.M., at the Ballroom-A, Business Inn, privilege to practice law and to the retention of his name in the Roll of
Lacson Street, Bacolod City. Attorneys.[34]cralaw

In behalf of the Officers and members of the IBP-Negros Occidental Chapter, The unauthorized use of the said appellation may render a person liable for
I am inviting you to attend said after being one of the new members of the indirect contempt of court.[35]cralawThe Court may deny the applicant's
Bar.Please come in formal attire. petition to take the Lawyer's Oath for grave misconduct, such as calling
 P a g e | 29
himself and "attorney" and appearing as counsel for clients in courts even was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but he failed
before being admitted to the bar.[36]cralaw Although the evidence in this to do so on his scheduled date, allegedly because he had misplaced the
case does not include that the petitioner actually engaged in the practice of Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went
law, the fact is that he signed in an attendance sheet as "Atty. Caesar home to his province for a vacation.
Distrito."He called himself "attorney" knowing fully well that he was not yet
admitted to the bar.[37]cralaw Several years later, while rummaging through his old college files, Medado
found the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he realized
Thus, we disagree with the findings of the OBC, and find that the petitioner that he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the
is unfit to become a member of the bar.The petitioner must show this Court entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record.
that he has satisfied the moral requirements before he can be admitted to
the practice of law. By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working. He stated
that he was mainly doing corporate and taxation work, and that he was not
ACCORDINGLY, the petition of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO to be allowed to take actively involved in litigation practice. Thus, he operated under the mistaken
the oath as member of the Philippine Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys in belief [that] since he ha[d] already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of
accordance with Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court is hereby DENIED. Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer; and the
matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion,
and was subsequently forgotten.

In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013 (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number in order for his
MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys,
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL he was unable to provide his roll number.
A. MEDADO, Petitioner.
About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant
RESOLUTION Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.

SERENO, C.J.: The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a clarificatory conference
on the matter on 21 September 201212 and submitted a Report and
We resolve the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys filed by Recommendation to this Court on 4 February 2013. The OBC recommended
petitioner Michael A. Medado (Medado). that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross
misconduct and utter lack of merit. It explained that, based on his answers
Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of during the clarificatory conference, petitioner could offer no valid justification
Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and passed the same year’s bar examinations with for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
a general weighted average of 82.7.
After a judicious review of the records, we grant Medado’s prayer in the
On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Philippine International instant petition, subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition of a
Convention Center (PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. He penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.
 P a g e | 30
have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the
At the outset, we note that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of profession.
Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of
disbarment, a penalty that we have reserved for the most serious ethical That said, however, we cannot fully exculpate petitioner Medado from all
transgressions of members of the Bar. liability for his years of inaction.

In this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted. Petitioner has been engaged in the practice of law since 1980, a period
spanning more than 30 years, without having signed in the Roll of Attorneys.
For one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when He justifies this behavior by characterizing his acts as neither willful nor
he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. We note intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment.
that it was not a third party who called this Court’s attention to petitioner’s
omission; rather, it was Medado himself who acknowledged his own lapse, We disagree.
albeit after the passage of more than 30 years. When asked by the Bar
Confidant why it took him this long to file the instant petition, Medado very While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the
candidly replied: legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake
of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is
Mahirap hong i-explain yan pero, yun bang at the time, what can you say? presumed to know the law and its consequences. Ignorantia facti excusat;
Takot ka kung anong mangyayari sa ‘yo, you don’t know what’s gonna ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
happen. At the same time, it’s a combination of apprehension and anxiety of
what’s gonna happen. And, finally it’s the right thing to do. I have to come Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at first
here sign the roll and take the oath as necessary. operated under an honest mistake of fact when he thought that what he had
For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of
from the practice of law, which is more than what we can say of other Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that what he had signed was
individuals who were successfully admitted as members of the Philippine Bar. merely an attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of
For this Court, this fact demonstrates that petitioner strove to adhere to the fact as a valid justification. At that point, Medado should have known that he
strict requirements of the ethics of the profession, and that he has prima was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to
facie shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as it was the act of signing therein that would
Philippine Bar. have made him so. When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue
practicing law without taking the necessary steps to complete all the
Finally, Medado appears to have been a competent and able legal requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully engaged in the
practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office,18 Petron, unauthorized practice of law.
Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy
Development Corporation.19cralaw virtualaw library Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one’s
assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such
All these demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-fledged member of without authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court, which is
the Philippine Bar. While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege,20 punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Such a finding, however, is in
this Court will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who the nature of criminal contempt and must be reached after the filing of
 P a g e | 31
charges and the conduct of hearings. In this case, while it appears quite before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by
clearly that petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly this Court.
engaging in unauthorized practice of law, we refrain from making any finding
of liability for indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
been filed against him. Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator
for circulation to all courts in the country.
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: SO ORDERED.

CANON 9 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized

practice of law.
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting
in the unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the
lawyer himself is subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of
Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of
law. This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As
aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in
accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.

Turning now to the applicable penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have

warranted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. As Medado is
not yet a full-fledged lawyer, we cannot suspend him from the practice of
law. However, we see it fit to impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension
by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of
this Resolution. For his transgression of the prohibition against the
unauthorized practice of law, we likewise see it fit to fine him in the amount
of P32,000. During the one year period, petitioner is warned that he is not
allowed to engage in the practice of law, and is sternly warned that doing
any act that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of
Attorneys will be dealt with severely by this Court.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is hereby

GRANTED. Petitioner Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner is likewise
ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law.
During the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and
is STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that constitutes practice of law
 P a g e | 32
1
citizenship.  On that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen
before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he
returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.
There is a question, however, whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost
his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine
citizenship in May 2004. Thus, this petition.

In a report dated October 16, 2007, the Office of the Bar Confidant cites
Section 2, Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar) of the Rules of Court:

SECTION 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar.

– Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a
citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of
good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must
produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good
moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines.

Applying the provision, the Office of the Bar Confidant opines that, by virtue
of his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006, petitioner has again met
B.M. No. 1678             December 17, 2007 all the qualifications and has none of the disqualifications for membership in
the bar. It recommends that he be allowed to resume the practice of law in
the Philippines, conditioned on his retaking the lawyer’s oath to remind him
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, 
of his duties and responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner.
We approve the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant with
RESOLUTION
certain modifications.

CORONA, J.:
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.2 It is so delicately
affected with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State
This bar matter concerns the petition of petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay for (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and
leave to resume the practice of law. promote the public welfare.3

Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest
until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for degree of morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession,
his ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and
Canada’s free medical aid program. His application was approved and he payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004. are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and
for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the
and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine
 P a g e | 33
courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the
privilege.4 privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino
citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.16

SECTION 1. Who may practice law. – Any person heretofore duly The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization
admitted as a member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as such in as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA
accordance with the provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and 9225. This is because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
regular standing, is entitled to practice law. country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under
the conditions of [RA 9225]."17Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a
Pursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member of the Philippine bar in citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine
accordance with the statutory requirements and who is in good and regular citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he
standing is entitled to practice law. is also deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine
bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.
Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The Rules of Court
mandates that an applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of the Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character and a Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions
resident of the Philippines.5 He must also produce before this Court "(he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage
satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against in such practice."18 Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino
him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first
the Philippines.6 secure from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:

Moreover, admission to the bar involves various phases such as furnishing (a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues
satisfactory proof of educational, moral and other qualifications;7 passing the in the IBP;
bar examinations;8 taking the lawyer’s oath9 and signing the roll of attorneys
and receiving from the clerk of court of this Court a certificate of the license (b) the payment of professional tax;
to practice.10
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory
The second requisite for the practice of law ― membership in good standing continuing legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the
― is a continuing requirement. This means continued membership and, applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him
concomitantly, payment of annual membership dues in the IBP;11 payment of of legal developments and
the annual professional tax;12 compliance with the mandatory continuing
legal education requirement;13 faithful observance of the rules and ethics of (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind
the legal profession and being continually subject to judicial disciplinary him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of
control.14 the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
Given the foregoing, may a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still
practice law in the Philippines? No. Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member
of the Philippine bar.
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is
law.15 Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss hereby GRANTED, subject to compliance with the conditions stated above
 P a g e | 34
and submission of proof of such compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which
he may retake his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.

SO ORDERED.