You are on page 1of 43

Resolution

March 18, 1954

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972 AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR EXAMINATIONS FROM NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX UP TO AND INCLUDING NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section fourteen, Rule numbered one hundred twenty-seven of the Rules of Court, any bar candidate who obtained a general average of seventy per cent in any bar examinations after July fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-six up to the August nineteen hundred and fifty-one bar examinations; seventyone per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-two bar examinations; seventy-two per cent in the in the nineteen hundred and fifty-three bar examinations; seventy-three per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-four bar examinations; seventy-four per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-five bar examinations without a candidate obtaining a grade below fifty per cent in any subject, shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar: Provided, however, That for the purpose of this Act, any exact one-half or more of a fraction, shall be considered as one and included as part of the next whole number. SEC. 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of seventyfive per cent in any subject in any bar examination after July fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-six shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing general average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take. SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Enacted on June 21, 1953, without the Executive approval. Page 1 of 43 

In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO CUNANAN DIOKNO, J.: In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as Republic Act No. 972, popularly known as the "Bar Flunkers' Act of 1953." Under the Rules of Court governing admission to the bar, "in order that a candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subject." (Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court). Nevertheless, considering the varying difficulties of the different bar examinations held since 1946 and the varying degree of strictness with which the examination papers were graded, this court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of only 72 per cent in 1946, 69 per cent in 1947, 70 per cent in 1948, and 74 per cent in 1949. In 1950 to 1953, the 74 per cent was raised to 75 per cent. Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having been discriminated against (See Explanatory Note to R.A. No. 972), unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentage lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress for, and secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12 which, among others, reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946. The President requested the views of this court on the bill. Complying with that request, seven members of the court subscribed to and submitted written comments adverse thereto, and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did not override the veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371, embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. Although the members of this court reiterated their unfavorable views on the matter, the President allowed the bill to become a law on June 21, 1953 without his signature. The law, which incidentally was enacted in an election year, reads in full as follows:

 

After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while others whose motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972. Unfortunately, the court has found no reason to revise their grades. If they are to be admitted to the bar, it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. 972 which, if declared valid, should be applied equally to all concerned whether they have filed petitions or not. A complete list of the petitioners, 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 as Annexes I and II. And to realize more readily the effects of the law, the following statistical data are set forth: (1) The unsuccessful bar candidates who are to be benefited by section 1 of Republic Act No. 972 total 1,168, classified as follows: 1946 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 TOTAL (August) (November) 206 477 749 899 1,218 1,316 2,068 2,738 2,555 121 228 340 409 532 893 879 18 43 0 11 164 26 196

(2) In addition, some other 10 unsuccessful candidates are to be benefited by section 2 of said Republic Act. These candidates had each taken from two to five different examinations, but failed to obtain a passing average in any 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. (3) The total number of candidates to be benefited by this Republic Acts is therefore 1,094, of which only 604 have filed petitions. Of these 604 petitioners, 33 who failed in 1946 to 1951 had individually presented motions for reconsideration which were denied, while 125 unsuccessful candidates of 1952, and 56 of 1953, had presented similar motions, which are still pending because they could be favorably affected by Republic Act No. 972, — although as has been already stated, this tribunal finds no sufficient reasons to reconsider their grades UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972 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 because some doubts have been expressed as to its validity, the court set the hearing of the afore-mentioned petitions for admission on the sole question of whether or not Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional. 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 writing, on the various aspects in which the question may be gleaned. The valuable studies of Messrs. E. Voltaire Garcia, Vicente J. Francisco, Vicente Pelaez and Buenaventura Evangelista, in favor of the validity of the law, and of the U.P. Women's Lawyers' Circle, the Solicitor General, Messrs. Arturo A. Alafriz, Enrique M. Fernando, Vicente Abad Santos, Carlos A. Barrios, Vicente del Rosario, Juan de Blancaflor, Mamerto V. Gonzales, and Roman Ozaeta against it, aside from the memoranda of counsel for petitioners, Messrs. Jose M. Aruego, M.H. de Joya, Miguel R. Cornejo and Antonio Enrile Inton, and of petitioners Cabrera, Macasaet and Galema themselves, has greatly helped us in this task. The legal researchers of the court have exhausted almost all Philippine and American jurisprudence on the matter. The question has been the Page 2 of 43 

1,033 426 968 284

12,230 5,421 1,168

Of the total 1,168 candidates, 92 have passed in subsequent examination, and only 586 have filed either motions for admission to the bar pursuant to said Republic Act, or mere motions for reconsideration.

 

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 prejudice or partiality. 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 materials and inadequate preparation. Quoting a portion of the Explanatory Note of the proposed bill, its author Honorable Senator Pablo Angeles David stated: The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing grade is the tremendous handicap which students during the years immediately after the Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of students who took up law soon after the liberation. Of the 9,675 candidates who took the examinations from 1946 to 1952, 5,236 passed. And now it is claimed that in addition 604 candidates be admitted (which in reality total 1,094), because they suffered from "insufficiency of reading materials" and of "inadequacy of preparation." By its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession, as was exactly found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations. The public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. To the legal profession is entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve officially of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. Moreover, the statement that there was an insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly exaggerated. There were abundant materials. Decisions of this court alone in mimeographed copies were made available to the public during those years and private enterprises had also published them in monthly magazines and annual digests. The Official Gazette had

been published continuously. Books and magazines published abroad have entered without restriction since 1945. Many law books, some even with revised and enlarged editions have been printed locally during those periods. A new set of Philippine Reports began to be published since 1946, which continued to be supplemented by the addition of new volumes. Those are facts of public knowledge. Notwithstanding all these, if the law in question is valid, it has to be enforced. The question is not new in its fundamental aspect or from the point of view 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 jurisprudence we daily consult. Is there any precedent in the long Anglo-Saxon legal history, from which has been directly derived the judicial system established here with its lofty ideals by the Congress of the United States, and which we have preserved and attempted to improve, or in our contemporaneous judicial history of more than half a century? From the citations of those defending the law, we can not find a case in which the validity of a similar law had been sustained, while those against its validity 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 Massachusetts in 1932 (81 ALR 1061), of Guariña (24 Phil., 37), aside from the opinion of the President which is expressed in his vote of the original bill and which the postponement of the contested law respects. This law has no precedent in its favor. When similar laws in other countries had been promulgated, the judiciary immediately declared them without force or effect. It is not within our power to offer a precedent to uphold the disputed law. To be exact, we ought to state here that we have examined carefully the case that has been cited to us as a favorable precedent of the law — that of Cooper (22 NY, 81), where the Court of Appeals of New York revoked the decision of the Supreme court of that State, denying the petition of Cooper to be admitted to the practice of law under the provisions of a statute concerning the school of law of Columbia College promulgated on April 7, 1860, which was declared by the Court of Appeals to be consistent with the Constitution of the state of New York. Page 3 of 43 

 

It appears that the Constitution of New York at that time provided: They (i.e., the judges) shall not hold any other office of public trust. All votes for either of them for any elective office except that of the Court of Appeals, given by the Legislature or the people, shall be void. They shall not exercise any power of appointment to public office. Any male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, of good moral character, and who possesses the requisite qualifications of learning and ability, shall be entitled to admission to practice in all the courts of this State. (p. 93). According to the Court of Appeals, the object of the constitutional precept is as follows: Attorneys, solicitors, etc., were public officers; the power of appointing them had previously rested with the judges, and this was the principal appointing power which they possessed. The convention was evidently dissatisfied with the manner in which this power had been exercised, and with the restrictions which the judges had imposed upon admission to practice before them. The prohibitory clause in the section quoted was aimed directly at this power, and the insertion of the provision" expecting the admission of attorneys, in this particular section of the Constitution, evidently arose from its connection with the object of this prohibitory clause. There is nothing indicative of confidence in the courts or of a disposition to preserve any portion of their power over this subject, unless the Supreme Court is right in the inference it draws from the use of the word `admission' in the action referred to. It is urged that the admission spoken of must be by the court; that to admit means to grant leave, and that the power of granting necessarily implies the power of refusing, and of course the right of determining whether the applicant possesses the requisite qualifications to entitle him to admission. These positions may all be conceded, without affecting the validity of the act. (p. 93.)

Now, with respect to the law of April 7, 1860, the decision seems to indicate that it provided that the possession of a diploma of the school of law of Columbia College conferring the degree of Bachelor of Laws was evidence of the legal qualifications that the constitution required of applicants for admission to the Bar. The decision does not however quote the text of the law, which we cannot find in any public or accessible private library in the country. In the case of Cooper, supra, to make the law consistent with the Constitution of New York, the Court of Appeals said of the object of the law: The motive for passing the act in question is apparent. Columbia College being an institution of established reputation, and having a law department under the charge of able professors, the students in which department were not only subjected to a formal examination by the law committee of the institution, but to a certain definite period of study before being entitled to a diploma of being graduates, the Legislature evidently, and no doubt justly, considered this examination, together with the preliminary study required by the act, as fully equivalent as a test of legal requirements, to the ordinary examination by the court; and as rendering the latter examination, to which no definite period of preliminary study was essential, unnecessary and burdensome. The act was obviously passed with reference to the learning and ability of the applicant, and for the mere purpose of substituting the examination by the law committee of the college for that of the court. It could have had no other object, and hence no greater scope should be given to its provisions. We cannot suppose that the Legislature designed entirely to dispense with the plain and explicit requirements of the Constitution; and the act contains nothing whatever to indicate an intention that the authorities of the college should inquire as to the age, citizenship, etc., of the students before granting a diploma. The only rational interpretation of which the act admits is, that it was intended to make the college diploma competent evidence as to the legal attainments of the applicant, and nothing else. To this extent alone it operates as a modification of pre-existing statutes, and it is to be read in connection with these statutes and with the Page 4 of 43 

 

in effect. its continuous and zealous possession and exercise by the judicial power have been demonstrated during more than six centuries. the act of admitting. There has been much uncertainty as to the extent of the power of the Legislature to prescribe the ultimate qualifications of attorney at law has been expressly committed to the courts. the complete inapplicability of the case of Cooper with that at bar may be clearly seen." Even considering the power granted to Congress by our Constitution to repeal. suspension. A comprehensive and conscientious study of this matter had been undertaken in the case of State vs. properly belonging to Congress. and (3) decision as to whether these facts are governed by the rules and principles. disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. Because of this attribute. whether past or present. it does not decree the admission of any lawyer. (p. 444) Under the Constitution all legislative power is vested in a Senate and Assembly. Cannon (1932) 240 NW 441. the admission. affecting determinate individuals. (3) The Constitution of New York at that time and that of the Philippines are entirely different on the matter of admission of the practice of law. (Section 1. suspending. a judicial function of the highest degree. has not taken from the court its jurisdiction over the question of admission of attorney at law. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been disputably a judicial function and responsibility. From the text of this decision we quote the following paragraphs: This statute presents an assertion of legislative power without parallel in the history of the English speaking people so far as we have been able to ascertain. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived.) In so far as the prescribing of qualifications for admission to the bar are legislative in character. in effect. which certainly "constitutes the most solid of titles.93) From the foregoing. (p. This act purports to constitute Mr. and the act of admission has always been regarded as a judicial function. disbarment and reinstatement of the attorneys at law is a legislative function. (2) concrete facts. in which the validity of a legislative enactment providing that Cannon be permitted to practice before the courts was discussed. And it becomes more undisputably judicial. (2) The law of New York according to the very decision of Cooper. that has simply prescribed what shall be competent evidence in certain cases upon that question. 444) But when the Legislature has prescribed those qualifications which in its judgment will serve the purpose of legitimate legislative solicitude. Cannon an attorney at law. suspension. (p. to our judgment and proposition that the admission. if previous judicial resolutions on the petitions of these same individuals are attempted to be revoked or modified. 444) Page 5 of 43    . 4. (p. alter supplement the rules promulgated by this Court regarding the admission to the practice of law. the Legislature is acting within its constitutional authority when it sets up and prescribes such qualifications. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved. Please note only the following distinctions: (1) The law of New York does not require that any candidate of Columbia College who failed in the bar examinations be admitted to the practice of law. and in this respect it stands alone as an assertion of legislative power.Constitution itself in order to determine the present condition of the law on the subject. and not legislative. is the power of the court to impose other and further exactions and qualifications foreclosed or exhausted? (p. art. is unacceptable. The function requires (1) previously established rules and principles.89) xxx xxx xxx The Legislature has not taken from the court its jurisdiction over the question of admission.

445) The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and intimate relationship. the courts cannot escape responsibility fir the manner in which the powers of sovereignty thus committed to the judicial department are exercised. (p. the courts of England. (p. The bar is an attache of the courts. and coordinate branch of the government. had exercise the right of determining who should be admitted to the practice of law. (p. but made of it a separate independent. Its responsibility in this respect is exclusive. An unfaithful bar may easily bring scandal and reproach to the administration of justice and bring the courts themselves into disrepute. independent. 445) The judicial department of government is responsible for the plane upon which the administration of justice is maintained. 525. at least in the English speaking countries. When it does legislate a fixing a standard of qualifications required of attorneys at law in order that public interests may be protected. and coordinate branches of the government. 4 Wis. Perhaps the dominant thought of the framers of our constitution was to make the three great departments of government separate and independent of one another. The idea that the Legislature might embarrass the judicial department by prescribing inadequate qualifications for attorneys at law is inconsistent with the dominant purpose of making the judicial independent of the legislative department. By committing a portion of the powers of sovereignty to the judicial department of our state government.. That was the scheme and thought of the people setting upon the form of government under which we exist. 567. 445) After explaining the history of the case. and such a purpose should not be inferred in the absence of express constitutional provisions. 10 Wis.445) Through all time courts have exercised a direct and severe supervision over their bars. (p. Neither department should so act as to embarrass the other in the discharge of its respective functions. It is quite likely true that the legislature may Page 6 of 43    . the power to determine who should be admitted to practice law is a constituent element of that entity. Barstow. as was said in Matter of the Sergeant's at Law. such qualifications do not constitute only a minimum standard and limit the class from which the court must make its selection. concededly subordinate to Parliament since the Revolution of 1688. or an essential element of the judicial power exercised by the court. 450) Furthermore." If the courts and judicial power be regarded as an entity. State vs. It may be difficult to isolate that element and say with assurance that it is either a part of the inherent power of the court. They took this institution along with the power traditionally exercise to determine who should constitute its attorney at law. Attorney General ex rel. While the legislature may legislate with respect to the qualifications of attorneys. but that it is a power belonging to the judicial entity and made of not only a sovereign institution. under 42a scheme which it was supposed rendered it immune from embarrassment or interference by any other department of government. 6 Bingham's New Cases 235. Such legislative qualifications do not constitute the ultimate qualifications beyond which the court cannot go in fixing additional qualifications deemed necessary by the course of the proper administration of judicial functions.Under our Constitution the judicial and legislative departments are distinct. which.. The quality of justice dispense by the courts depends in no small degree upon the integrity of its bar. Bashford vs. the Court ends thus: Our conclusion may be epitomized as follows: For more than six centuries prior to the adoption of our Constitution. "constitutes the most solid of all titles. it is an unlawful attempt to exercise the power of appointment. but is incidental merely to its general and unquestioned power to protect the public interest. There is no express provision in the Constitution which indicates an intent that this traditional power of the judicial department should in any manner be subject to legislative control. There is no legislative power to compel courts to admit to their bars persons deemed by them unfit to exercise the prerogatives of an attorney at law. Hastings. (p. Neither branch enjoys all the powers of sovereignty which properly belongs to its department.

Ex parte Secombre. also that the public be protected from incompetent and vicious practitioners. 843. and . 285. 565. those lacking in sufficient learning. the court said in part: In the case of Ex parte Garland. Ed. Grattan." Without such attorneys at law the judicial department of government would be hampered in the performance of its duties. so far as our investigation reveals. 18 L. the authorities are well-nigh unanimous that the power to admit attorneys to the practice of law is a judicial function. Cas. St. Ex parte Garland.W. and the statement Page 7 of 43    . adequate learning and sound moral character. admitted as such by its order. 162 N. 13." He becomes an "officer of the court". 180 NE 725. 19 L.E. Rep. It has always been the general practice in this country to obtain this evidence by an examination of the parties. This arises from the need of enlightened assistance to the honest. Ed. 19 How. 519. 565. 470. However. 53. Ed. It is an inherent power of such a department of government ultimately to determine the qualifications of those to be admitted to practice in its courts. for assisting in its work. 15 L. Hanson vs. the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. in People ex rel.R. is regarded as sufficient evidence of the possession of the requisite legal learning. 115 P. 572. 18 L. 90 A. 9. that it rests exclusively with the court to determine who is qualified to become one of its officers. Jur. as are other proceedings invoking judicial action. 82. both in this country and England. and to protect itself in this respect from the unfit. In this court the fact of the admission of such officers in the highest court of the states to which they.exercise the power of appointment when it is in pursuance of a legislative functions. The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been perpetually exercised by the courts. 4 Wall. Randall vs. C.15 L. Ed. 1021. whose opportunity for doing mischief is wide.like the court itself. as an attorney and counselor. 646. It was said by Cardoz. Ed. 83 N. belong for. 4 Wall. It is highly important." One is admitted to the bar "for something more than private gain. 60 A. 242 N. and restraining authority over the knavish. Admission to the bar is accomplish and made open and notorious by a decision of the court entered upon its records. no matter where the power to determine the qualifications may reside. and for what cause he ought to be removed. attorneys receive their formal license to practice law by their admission as members of the bar of the court so admitting.R. except New Jersey (In re Reisch. "It has been well settled. 333. Admission to practice as an attorney at law is almost without exception conceded to be a judicial function. 366. 20 Ann. In all of the states. Karlin vs. 130 Am. 471. 413. Danforth vs. Petition to that end is filed in courts. litigant.A. upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning and fair private character. 34 L. respectively. 456. 54 NE 646). and those not possessing good moral character. in answering a consultation of the Senate of that State. holding the test oath for attorneys to be unconstitutional. Chief Justice Taney stated succinctly and with finality in Ex parte Secombe.L. and an attempt as this on the part of the Legislature to confer such right upon any one being most exceedingly uncommon. 451) In that same year of 1932. 7 Wall. 23 S. by the rules and practice of common-law courts. Brigham. 851: "Membership in the bar is a privilege burden with conditions. explained the nature of the attorney's office as follows: "They are officers of the court. an instrument or agency to advance the end of justice. Culkin. three years preceding their application. 487. (p. 333. That has been the history of attorneys under the common law. 9. D. 489. it seems clear that the licensing of an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function. 366.727) 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.Y. it having been so generally held that the act of the court in admitting an attorney to practice is the judgment of the court. 12). 43.L. said: It is indispensible to the administration of justice and to interpretation of the laws that there be members of the bar of sufficient ability. the court. 19 How.J. The establishment by the Constitution of the judicial department conferred authority necessary to the exercise of its powers as a coordinate department of government." (p. 119 N. Egan. Eq.. Cor. 1030. His cooperation with the court is due "whenever justice would be imperiled if cooperation was withheld. 48 Kan.

said that court. and the latter. 229. and is an inherent power of the court. concerning the admission to the practice of law. The judiciary cannot consent that its province shall be invaded by either of the other departments of the government. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its functions. See Annotation on Power of Legislature respecting admission to bar. Re Cooper 22 N. be admitted in mass to the practice of law. Brydonjack. The distinction between the functions of the legislative and the judicial departments is that it is the province of the legislature to establish rules that shall regulate and govern in matters of transactions occurring subsequent to the legislative action. 650-651). 102 Wash. it is a judgment — a judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court during the aforecited year affecting the bar candidates concerned. State Bar of California. "are not only officers of the court.L. and are entitled to appear as such and conduct causes therein.S. Y. R.C. vs. is no valid argument. a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. The order of admission is the judgment of the court that the parties possess the requisite qualifications as attorneys and counselors. that may be so. and this opinion need not be burdened with citations in this point. That the Constitution has conferred on Congress the power to repeal. It was so held by the court of appeals of New York in the matter of the application of Cooper for admission. article VIII of the Constitution provides: Page 8 of 43    . and has been so held in numerous cases. admission or their exclusion is not the exercise of a mere ministerial power. 472. alter or supplement the rule promulgated by this Tribunal. It is the exercise of judicial power. 192. Constitutional Law. 1018. Admission to the practice of law is the exercise of a judicial function. with propriety. They hold their office during good behavior. the disputed law is not a legislation. p. and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by the judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded. for justifiable reasons. On this matter there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government. it is no less certain that only this Court. 81.. but officers whose duties relate almost exclusively to proceedings of a judicial nature. and are responsible to it for professional misconduct. 65.of counsel moving their admission sufficient evidence that their private and professional character is fair. be entrusted to the court. — Re Bruen. A. while the judiciary determines rights and obligations with reference to transactions that are past or conditions that exist at the time of the exercise of judicial power. ordering the discharge of offenders. "Attorneys and Counselors".J. From its entry the parties become officers of the court. the following pertinent portions: Admission to practice of law is almost without exception conceded everywhere to be the exercise of a judicial function. If the legislature cannot thus indirectly control the action of the courts by requiring of them construction of the law according to its own views. and hence their appointment may. 172 Pac. We quote from other cases. or directing what particular steps shall be taken in the progress of a judicial inquiry. Section 13." (pp. 906. it is very plain it cannot do so directly. as is the case with the law in question. In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952. Admission to practice have also been held to be the exercise of one of the inherent powers of the court. by settling aside their judgments. in performing his duty. Ex parte Hoyfron. 1512. may very justly considered as engaged in the exercise of their appropriate judicial functions. — 16 C. — Cooley's Constitutional Limitations. and the distinction is a vital one and not subject to alteration or change either by legislative action or by judicial decree. 281 Pac. and although this Court certainly can revoke these judgments even now. and not the legislative nor executive department. compelling them to grant new trials. — A.

13. alter and supplement the rules does not signify nor permit that Congress substitute or take the place of this Tribunal in the exercise of its primary power on the matter. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. Paragraph one of section thirteen of Act Numbered One Hundred and ninety. or supplement the rules concerning pleading. should consider these reforms as the minimum standards for the elevation of the profession. sec.Section 13. 1907. and see to it that with these reforms the lofty objective that is desired in the exercise of its traditional duty of admitting. practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes. Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading. disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law. if according to its judgment the need for a better service of the legal profession requires it. illustrates our criterion. The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit. the applicant in this case seeks admission to the bar. suspending. the harmonious delimitation being found in that the legislature may and should examine if the existing rules on the admission to the Bar respond to the demands which public interest requires of a Bar endowed with high virtues. alter. 37. or a determinate group of individuals to the practice of law. giving careful consideration to the responsibility which the nature of each department requires. This tribunal refused to give his license without previous examinations. alter and supplement them may and should be exercised with the respect that each owes to the other. 1597. A recently enacted law provided that one who had been appointed to the position of Fiscal may be admitted to the practice of law without a previous examination. which has the inherent responsibility for a good and efficient administration of justice and the supervision of the practice of the legal profession. modify or supplement the existing rules on the matter. are not repugnant. The power to repeal. The Congress shall have the power to repeal. disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the legal profession. and procedure. entitled "An Act providing a Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the Philippine Islands. amendment or supplemental rules. 1597. it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it. but rather complementary to each other in attaining the establishment of a Bar that would respond to the increasing and exacting necessities of the administration of justice. But this power does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to admit. and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines." is hereby amended to read as follows: Page 9 of 43    . is as follows: Sec. They are powers which. the power to promulgate and enforce rules for the admission to the practice of law and the concurrent power to repeal. Being coordinate and independent branches. the primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in this Court. Congress may repeal. — Constitution of the Philippines. The case of Guariña (1913) 24 Phil. practice. fill up any deficiency that it may find. and the judicial power. increase or modify substantive rights. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish.. 2. alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this Court. and procedure in all courts. Guariña took examination and failed by a few points to obtain the general average. but the authority and responsibility over the admission. disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law is realized. culture. VIII. suspend. exercise within their proper constitutional limits. suspend. subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. and are declared Rules of Court. It will be noted that the Constitution has not conferred on Congress and this Tribunal equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. The legislature may. These powers have existed together for centuries without diminution on each part. The court said: Relying upon the provisions of section 2 of Act No. by means of appeal. and the admission to the practice of law. without taking the prescribed examination. Section 2 of Act No. practice. on the ground that he holds the office of provincial fiscal for the Province of Batanes. The existing laws on pleading. Art. The Government appointed Guariña and he discharged the duties of Fiscal in a remote province. training and responsibility. suspension. Its power is limited to repeal. enacted February 28.

we should grant him license to practice law in the courts of these Islands. or judge or associate judge of the Court of Land Registration. But in all of those cases we had reason to believe that the applicants had been practicing attorneys prior to the date of their appointment. It is contented that this mandatory construction is imperatively required in order to give effect to the apparent intention of the legislator. we have accepted the fact that such appointments had been made as satisfactory evidence of the qualifications of the applicant. if. And after copying article 9 of Act of July 1. and with particular emphasis in the case of Guariña. the jurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by the commission and confirmed to it by the Act of Congress would be limited and restricted. and in a case such as that under consideration wholly destroyed. 1902 of the Congress of the United States. in the face of this affirmative indication of the deficiency of the applicant in the required qualifications of learning in the law at the time when he presented his former application for admission to the bar. Speaking on the application of the law to those who were appointed to the positions enumerated. and to the candidate's claim de jure to have the power exercised. We would be delinquent in the performance of our duty to the public and to the bar. or the position of Attorney General. attorney for the Moro Province. it affirmatively appears that the applicant was not and never had been practicing attorney in this or any other jurisdiction prior to Page 10 of 43    . he now "possesses the necessary qualifications of learning and ability. 136. The report of the examining board. as transcending its rightful limits and authority. It is urged that having in mind the object which the legislator apparently sought to attain in enacting the above-cited amendment to the earlier statute. Those who have been duly licensed under the laws and orders of the Islands under the sovereignty of Spain or of the United States and are in good and regular standing as members of the bar of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this code. and failed to pass the prescribed examination. or assistant attorney for the Moro Province. may be licensed to practice law in the courts of the Philippine Islands without an examination. of the Philippine Islands." as used in the above citation from Act of Congress of July 1. without first satisfying ourselves that despite his failure to pass the examination on that occasion. 1907. Solicitor General." But it is contented that under the provisions of the abovecited statute the applicant is entitled as of right to be admitted to the bar without taking the prescribed examination "upon motion before the Supreme Court" accompanied by satisfactory proof that he has held and now holds the office of provincial fiscal of the Province of Batanes. under the authority of the United States. prosecuting attorney for the City of Manila. prior to the passage of this act. provincial fiscal. In the case under consideration. shall have held. 16 and 17 of Act No.1. upon motion before the Supreme Court and establishing such fact to the satisfaction of said court. assistant attorney in the office of the Attorney General. assistant city attorney of Manila. The records of this court disclose that on a former occasion this appellant took. however. and in view of the context generally and especially of the fact that the amendment was inserted as a proviso in that section of the original Act which specifically provides for the admission of certain candidates without examination. 1902. Assistant Attorney General. thus falling four points short of the required percentage of 75. by giving the word "may. and articles 13 to 16 of Act 190. Provided. shows that he received an average of only 71 per cent in the various branches of legal learning upon which he was examined. articles 2. judge of the Court of First Instance. or at any time thereafter. the Court held: In the various cases wherein applications for the admission to the bar under the provisions of this statute have been considered heretofore. the Court continued: Manifestly. defining or limiting the power conferred upon the commission is to that extent invalid and void. dated March 23. or of any Act of Congress prescribing. That any person who. the position of justice of the Supreme Court. city attorney of Manila.

"and part in the aforesaid law school. The Supreme Court declared that this law was unconstitutional being. or to those who had studied for three years if they commenced their studies after the aforementioned date. pp. therefore. and it further affirmatively appears that he was deficient in the required qualifications at the time when he last applied for admission to the bar. sought to retain him in the Government service by appointing him to the office of provincial fiscal. 54 N. should be denied. and requiring an attendance by the student of at least 36 weeks in each of such years. shall be granted a license under this act notwithstanding any subsequent changes in said rules". shall be admitted upon a satisfactory examination by the examining board in the branches now Page 11 of 43    . so far as it appears in the enacting clause.. until December 31 of that year. The act of the general assembly passed in 1899. In the light of this affirmative proof of his defieciency on that occasion. either in a law or office or a law school or college. The Court said: This is an application to this court for admission to the bar of this state by virtue of diplomas from law schools issued to the applicants. 1897. 1899 required of the Supreme Court. under which the application is made. or as other authorities say. In the case of Day. we think we would be justified under the above-cited provisions of Act No. and had studied for two years and presented a diploma issued by a school of law. provided he offers satisfactory evidence of his proficiency in a special examination which will be given him by a committee of the court upon his application therefor. 1899. . merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. however.the date of his appointment as provincial fiscal. or part of such time in a law office. it is arbitrary and unreasonable." and whose course of study began prior to November 4. p.Y. in force July 1. 48-49. . we do not think that his appointment to the office of provincial fiscal is in itself satisfactory proof if his possession of the necessary qualifications of learning and ability. 1897. a law enacted on February 21. . to grant license for the practice of law to those students who began studying before November 4. The law in question. to present himself at any of the ordinary examinations prescribed by general rule. a class legislation. and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character. The other branch of the proviso is that any student who has studied law for two years in a law office. 1874. is entitled "An act to amend section 1 of an act entitled "An act to revise the law in relation to attorneys and counselors. After said provision there is a double proviso. 1597 in waiving in his case the ordinary examination prescribed by general rule. like those in the case of Day and Cannon. or to those who had studied in a law office and would pass an examination. this court shall grant a license of admittance to the bar to the holder of every diploma regularly issued by any law school regularly organized under the laws of this state. consists in the addition to the section of the following: "And every application for a license who shall comply with the rules of the supreme court in regard to admission to the bar in force at the time such applicant commend the study of law. and accompanied with the usual proofs of good moral character. 1884." The amendment. — (In re Guariña. and in view also of the fact that since that time he has held the responsible office of the governor of the Province of Sorsogon and presumably gave evidence of such marked ability in the performance of the duties of that office that the Chief Executive. — In re Day et al. In view. of the fact that when he took the examination he fell only four points short of the necessary grade to entitle him to a license to practice. We conclude therefore that this application for license to practice in the courts of the Philippines. and showing that the student began the study of law prior to November 4. that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court.) It is obvious. without prejudice to his right. among others." approved March 28. has been found also to suffer from the fatal defect of being a class legislation. if he desires so to do. 1897. and that if it has intended to make a classification. one branch of which is that up to December 31. with the consent and approval of the Philippine Commission. 646. whose regular course of law studies is two years.

where the legislature attempted by law to reinstate Cannon to the practice of law. and the diploma is utterly useless. such as from jury services and arrest on civil process while attending court. Ellis. 40 N. The one who commenced on the 3rd.) In the case of Cannon above cited. 18 Atl. The classes named in the proviso need spend only two years in study. is to be admitted without examination before December 31. having no just relation to the subject of the legislation. If the legislature had any right to admit attorneys to practice in the courts and take part in the administration of justice. People. while those who commenced the next day must spend three years. If the right to admission exists at all. making an enactment based upon it void (State vs. Railroad Co. The length of time a physician has practiced. Ritchie vs. 66.required by the rules of this court. 441. 454. The law conferring such privileges must be general in its operation. No course of study is prescribed for the law school. 155 Ill. Such classification cannot rest upon any natural reason. first. and invalid as such. (pp. Here the legislature undertakes to say what shall serve as a test of fitness for the profession of the law. and as between the two different conditions and limits of time are fixed. 878).E. but a diploma granted upon the completion of any sort of course its managers may prescribe is made all-sufficient. those presenting diplomas issued by any law school of this state before December 31. This class is subdivided into two classes — First.E. and none is suggested. 113. vs. 1897. and establishes rules of legislative creation for their admission to the bar. it is clearly a special legislation. to argue causes. 647-648. 240 N. or part of the time in a law school and part in a law office. Ct.S. however. but the place where such physician has resided and practiced his profession cannot furnish such basis. Can there be anything with relation to the qualifications or fitness of persons to practice law resting upon the mere date of November 4. As to both classes. II N. who are to be admitted upon examination in the subjects specified in the present rules of this court. 150. persons or classes of persons. Those who began the study of law November 4th could qualify themselves to practice in two years as well as those who began on the 3rd. 1899. and has some reasonable relation to the end sought. 255. 1897. Const.E. 62. and creates certain exemptions. Braceville Coal Co. and could prescribe the character of evidence which should be received by the court as conclusive of the requisite learning and ability of persons to practice law. 35 N. 1899. may classify persons so long as the law establishing classes in general. 165 U. and is an arbitrary discrimination. to a class of persons who began the study of law prior to November 4. it is by virtue of the proviso. or ability to engage in such practice. and plainly. 65 N. it could only be done by a general law. The proviso is for the sole purpose of bestowing privileges upon certain defined persons. vs. People 121 Ill. second. character. art 4. People. and confers upon him the right to appear for litigants. Cannon. or bear any just relation to the subject sought. If it be granted that the legislature has power to prescribe ultimately and definitely the qualifications upon which courts must admit Page 12 of 43    . 881). while as to the other the prescribed course must be pursued. and. which. and as to this latter subdivision there seems to be no limit of time for making application for admission. and to collect fees therefor. those who studied law for the period of two years in a law office. The proviso is limited. confers substantial rights and privileges upon the persons named therein. prohibited by the constitution. 17 Sup. and without any prescribed course of study. 147 Ill. section 2.) Considering the proviso. although they would complete two years before the time limit. in framing an enactment for that purpose. There must be some difference which furnishes a reasonable basis for different one. 647. which will furnish a basis of classification. any classification must have some reference to learning. as an enactment. and a license for that purpose makes the holder an officer of the court. the court also held with regards to its aspect of being a class legislation: But the statute is invalid for another reason. the conditions of the rules are dispensed with. may furnish a basis for classification (Williams vs. No doubt the legislature. 98.W. it is claimed. and the skill acquired by experience. The right to practice law is a privilege. If possessed of a diploma. State vs. (p. Pennyeor. Plainly not.E. 48.

121 N.W. 424) commanded the Supreme Court to admit to the practice of law without examination. subject only to such restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of like age. In other words. Ed. All may be pursued as sources of livelihood. 331. 345. Whitcom. also. This law singles out Mr. 9 S. the right to continue their prosecution — is often of great value to the possessors and cannot be arbitrarily taken from them. all who had served in the military or naval forces of the United States during the World War and received a honorable discharge therefrom and who (were disabled therein or thereby within the purview of the Act of Congress approved June 7th. Speaking of the right of the Legislature to exact qualifications of those desiring to pursue chosen callings. Rosenberg. 227 N. business or profession he may choose. must be founded upon pertinent and real differences. State vs. 99 N. said: "It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen of the United States to follow any lawful calling. That power must be exercised through general laws which will apply to all alike and accord equal opportunity to all.and license those applying as attorneys at law. 517. 643.E. Mr. As the rule has sometimes avoided the constitutional prohibition.C. that power can not be exercised in the manner here attempted.W.W. Justice Field in the case of Dent. c. 76 N. Ct. 32 L. Humphrey. 233. must be based upon substantial distinctions.S. 172. 114. Even statutes regulating the practice of medicine. have been challenged. West Virginia. It is fundamental under our system of government that all similarly situated and possessing equal qualifications shall enjoy equal opportunities. Cannon and assumes to confer upon him the right to practice law and to constitute him an officer of this Court as a mere matter of legislative grace or favor. 468. Jur. 1924 and whose disability is rated at least ten per cent thereunder at the time of the passage of this Act. as distinguished from irrelevant and artificial ones. vs. 232. the "estate" acquired in them — that is. 178 Minn. see. 151-153 as follows: The general rule is well settled by unanimity of the authorities that a classification to be valid must rest upon material differences between the person included in it and those excluded and. 122 Wis. A good summary of a classification constitutionally acceptable is explained in 12 Am. 101 Wis. Therefore. sex. some requiring years of study and great learning for their successful prosecution. furthermore. requiring medications to establish the possession on the part of the application of his proper qualifications before he may be licensed to practice." This right may in many respects be considered as a distinguishing feature of our republican institutions. Winkler vs. 129 U. That fact in no matter affect the power of the Legislature to select from the great body of the public an individual upon whom it would confer its favors. any law that is made applicable to one class of citizens only must be based on some substantial difference between the situation of that class and other individuals to which it does not apply and must rest on some reason on which it can be defended. In re Application of George W. 626. A law is not general because it operates on all within a clause unless there is a substantial reason why Page 13 of 43    . It is not material that he had once established his right to practice law and that one time he possessed the requisite learning and other qualifications to entitle him to that right. Thomas Call. as it is sometimes termed. 110." This Act was held |unconstitutional on the ground that it clearly violated the quality clauses of the constitution of that state. The interest. or. 1924. and condition. known as "World War Veteran's Act. A statute of the state of Minnesota (Laws 1929. 179. Here all vocations are all open to every one on like conditions. The State ex rel. State vs. any more than their real or personal property can be thus taken. there must be such a difference between the situation and circumstances of all the members of the class and the situation and circumstances of all other members of the state in relation to the subjects of the discriminatory legislation as presents a just and natural cause for the difference made in their liabilities and burdens and in their rights and privileges. 28 S. 121. and courts have seriously considered whether the exemption from such examinations of those practicing in the state at the time of the enactment of the law rendered such law unconstitutional because of infringement upon this general principle.

the effectivity of the disputed law is being extended up to the years 1953. In this case. will be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar. because they are not within the legislative powers of Congress to enact. notwithstanding that the rules require a minimum general average of 75 per cent. and those will obtain 72. These changes in the passing averages during those years were all that could be objected to or criticized. Concededly. 1941 or the years before. 74 per cent. Is there any motive of the nature indicated by the abovementioned authorities. it is desired to undo what had been done — cancel the license that was issued to those who did not obtain the prescribed 75 per cent ? Certainly not. 70 per cent and in 1949. those who obtained 74 per cent. it approves what has been done by this Tribunal.5 per cent obtained by those candidates who failed in 1946 to 1952 as sufficient to qualify them to practice law. The fact 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 consideration. To defend the disputed law from being declared unconstitutional on account of its retroactivity. have obtained a general average of 69. however. And this power is not included in what the Constitution has granted to Congress. This is contrary to Section 21 (1). The grave defect of this system is that it does not take into account that the laws and jurisprudence are not stationary. because it falls within the power to apply the rules. with the general average indicated. alter or supplement the rules. by means of simply taking its place. and none has been given. were not included because the Tribunal has no record of the unsuccessful candidates of those years. second. In other words.5 per cent in 1952. This purpose. 1955. with the order that said candidates be admitted to the Bar. 151-153. pp. for this classification ? If there is none. but the will or judgment of the Court. It was indicated that those who failed in 1944. (12 Am. the power exercised was not to repeal. in the 1947 and those who had 69 per cent or more. Neither is the exclusion of those who failed before said years under the same conditions justified. it is argued that it is curative. which was considered by the Court as equivalent to 75 per cent as prescribed by the Rules. What was done was to stop or suspend them. it is the lack of will or defect of judgment of the Court that is being cured. because their purposes or effects violate the Page 14 of 43    . which has been invariably followed since 1950. from 1946-1951. and because it is inseparable from article 1. What does Rep. article VI of the Constitution. 1953. Now. This power corresponds to the judiciary. 1954. manifest in the said law. This is doing directly what the Tribunal should have done during those years according to the judgment of Congress. Act 972 intend to cure ? Only from 1946 to 1949 were there cases in which the Tribunal permitted admission to the bar of candidates who did not obtain the general average of 75 per cent: in 1946 those who obtained only 72 per cent. to which such duty been confided.5 per cent in 1955. those who. Jur. the fatal defect is that the article is not expressed in the title will have temporary effect only from 1946 to 1955. and not generally on all. which vitiates and annuls article 2 completely. This fact does not justify the unexplained classification of unsuccessful candidates by years. What Congress lamented is that the Court did not consider 69. The disputed law clearly does not propose to do so. it may happen that the existing laws and jurisprudence are already different. the text of article 2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. The system that the said law prescribes was used in the first bar examinations of this country. at indefinite intervals. seriously affecting in this manner his usefulness. 70.it is made to operate on that class only. and third. Laws are unconstitutional on the following grounds: first. then the classification is fatally defective. Article 2 of the law in question permits partial passing of examinations. without a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. in 1948. 71. and that in such form it is constitutional. Hence.5 per cent in 1954.) Pursuant to the law in question.5 per cent in the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951. increasing each year the general average by one per cent.5 per cent in 1953. is the best proof that what the law attempts to amend and correct are not the rules promulgated. and in 1950 to 1953. 1954 and 1955. and when a candidate finally receives his certificate. which continue in force. and 73. it is obvious that its nullity affect the entire law. by reason of circumstances deemed to be sufficiently justifiable. but was abandoned for this and other disadvantages. 1952. or Congress has exceeded its powers. because they create or establish arbitrary methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles. and to complete the cure of this infirmity.

972 violated the Constitution. the entire law is void. Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal. is contrary to facts which are general knowledge and does not justify the admission to the Bar law students inadequately prepared. it admits. It is undoubtedly a class legislation. and without any force nor effect for the following reasons. is valid and shall continue to be in force. alter and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court. Such additional or amendatory rules are. 2. and this Tribunal shall consider these rules as minimum norms towards that end in the admission. contrary to what the Constitution enjoins. 972 is unconstitutional and therefore. inasmuch as a good bar assists immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential to a worthy administration of justice. said part of article 1. RESOLUTION Upon mature deliberation by this Court. 2. Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 referring to the examinations of 1953 to 1955. that is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive. and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional and. and have decided for the Court. suspension. we. 4. Article 2 of Republic Act No. Page 15 of 43    . By the disputed law. of of of is 5. without having examined their respective examination papers. we are of the opinion and hereby declare that Republic Act No. void. which the law makes. and under the authority of the same: 1. in conformity with section 10. As has already been seen. 3. the contested law suffers from these fatal defects. 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 Court.Constitution or its basic principles. insofar as it concerns the examinations in those years. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952. are certainly inadequately prepared to practice law. article VII of the Constitution. to wit: 1. It is therefore the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may continue in the practice of law according to existing rules. intended to regulate acts subsequent to its promulgation and should tend to improve and elevate the practice of law. in effect. void and without force and effect. Summarizing. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of 1946-1952. that part of article 1 which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law. as was exactly found by this Court in the aforesaid years. and although it is admitted that this Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at any time for justifiable reasons. depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if they are at present already prepared to become members of the Bar. The reason advanced for the pretended classification candidates. as they ought to be. the eight members of the Court who subscribed to this decision have voted and resolved. In attempting to do it directly Republic Act No. for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices. and who. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law. a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the petitions of these 810 candidates. That. The pretended classification arbitrary. 6. therefore. only this Court and no other may revise and alter them. and being inseparable from the provisions of article 1. It obliges the Tribunal to perform something contrary to reason and in an arbitrary manner. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. and after hearing the judicious observations of two of our beloved colleagues who since the beginning have announced their decision not to take part in voting. shall continue in force. It decrees the admission to the Bar of these candidates. Because it is.

1946. Celso B. Atty. Number of candidates Number raised of candidates whose grades were 6 6 85 121 18 (per cent) 41. and Reyes. Atty. Carlos B. members. So ordered. Labrador. Federico Agrava. Crispin Oben. October. and (2) all candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71. Bernardino Guerrero. 972 A resume‚ of pertinent facts concerning the bar examinations of 1946 to 1953 inclusive follows: August. 1947) ANNEX I PETITIONERS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. Jamora. Tan. Guevara. JJ. Atty. Montemayor. Number of candidates Number raised of candidates whose grades were 481 19 (72 per cent and above 73 per cent --Minutes of March 31. Percentage of failure Passing grade November. Pedro Tuason.5 per cent or more. Simon Cruz.80 72 73'S 72'S Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. without having a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. Antonio Araneta. Members.62 206 12 Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. 19461 Board of Examiners: Hon. they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the chief Justice may set. Atty. After this decision has become final. Sixto de la Costa. are considered as having passed. Prof. Hon. Chairman. Chairman. Atty. and Hon. Jose Teodoro.20 47. Guillermo B. Bienvenido A. Cesar Bengzon. (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied. Number of candidates Number raised of candidates whose grades were 749 43 (per cent) (per cent) grade (per cent) 249 228 43 52. Joaquin Ramirez. Hon. Jose Teodoro who was substituted by Atty.Consequently. 1947 Board of Examiners: Hon. 1946 (per cent) (per cent) 58. Hon.55 per cent with 2 subject below 50 1 per cent 69 per cent 68 per cent 40 2 Page 16 of 43    . whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. Gerardo Florendo. Bausan. Hon. Atty. concur. Pablo. 972 Percentage of success 70. Hilado. Jugo.74 72 Board of Examiners: The same as that of August. Atty. Emilio Peña. Padilla. Federico Agrava. Atty. Jose Perez Cardenas.. Atty. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing (By resolution of the Court). Bengzon. Atty. except Hon. Honesto K.

60 70 899 64 71's 70's Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No.95 per cent and 68. Guevara. Endencia. Atty. Francisco Delgado). 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade Board of Examiners: Hon. Fernando Jugo.. Hon. Enrique V. 1950 Note. Number of candidates Number of candidates raised (74's) whose grades were 1. Marcial P. Hon. Alfonso Ponce Enrile. Federico Agrava. Salvador Araneta. Hon. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade (by resolution of the Court). 1948 Board of Examiners: Hon. Chairman. Filamor. Emeterio Barcelon. de Joya. Atty. Number of candidates Number raised of candidates whose grades were 29 35 490 409 11 (per cent) (per cent) (per 62. Lichauco. Montemayor. Hon. Members. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade (by resolution of the Court).41 69 (by resolution of the Court). Hon. Members. Antonio Horrilleno.--In passing the 2 whose grades were 68. Felipe Natividad. Jesus G. Pastor M. Felipe Natividad.59 45. Members. Enrique Altavas. Atty. Hon. Hon. Atty. August. Atty. Hon.28 43.2 Chairman. Hon. August. Atty. Delgado. Francisco A. the Court found out that they were not benefited at all by the bonus of 12 points given by the Examiner in Civil Law. Hon. Torres. Sabino Padilla. Luis P.218 55 686 532 164 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 56.Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Hon. Atty. Enrique Filamor. Hon. Atty.1 per cent respectively. Number of candidates Number raised of candidates whose grades were 1. Mariano H.72 74 Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. August. Fernando Jugo. Carlos B. Rafael Amparo. Atty. Macario Peralta. Sr. Number of candidates who passed 432 Page 17 of 43    . Barrera. Marceliano R.. Atty. Antonio Araneta. Sr. Hon.316 38 (The grade of 74 was raised to 75 per cent by recommendation and authority of the examiner in Remedial Law. Atty. Hilado. J. Chairman Hon. Federico Agrava. Guillermo B. Jose Teodoro. (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 409 340 972 54.40 37. 1949 cent) Board of Examiners: Hon.

1953 Board of Examiners: Hon. Jose S.033 426 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 62. de la Cruz.068 112 1. Emilio P. Atty. Manuel Lim. Felipe Natividad. Hon. Arturo Alafriz. Hon.96 75 Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade August. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade August. Pastor M. Members. Felipe Natividad. Sabino Padilla. Atty. Number of candidates 2. Francisco Ortigas. Virata. Hon. Emilio Peña. Hon. Filamor. Atty.51 75 Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade Board of Examiners: Hon. Atty. Hon.189 879 196 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 57. Hon. Hon. Chairman. Members. Mariano L. Number of candidates Number of candidates raised (74's) whose grades were 2. Vicente Albert. Hon.49 42. Endencia. Alfonso Felix..Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Francisco Ortigas. Emilio Peña. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade August. Alfonso Felix.738 Page 18 of 43    . Enrique V.04 38.27 37. Atty.555 100 1.570 986 284 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 61. Number of candidates Number of candidates raised (74's) whose grades were 2. Guillermo F. Pablo.705 1. Alfonso Felix. Endencia. Hon. Pastor M. Hon. Atty. Hon. Atty.86 75 Number of candidates raised (74's) whose grades were 163 1. Enrique V. Felipe Natividad. Hon. Filamor. 1951 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 894 26 32. Enrique Altavas.14 67. Sr. Fernando Jugo. Hon. Enrique Altavas. Hon. Hon.73 75 Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. de la Rosa. 1952 Board of Examiners: Hon. Hon. Members. Pastor M. Atty.. Jr. Chairman. Macario Peralta. Endencia. Chairman.

Antonio V. 32. 29. Asinas.95 Garcia. 20. 72. Banawa. Leg. Bandon. 71. Balintona. Odon R. Condevillamar.A list of petitioners for admission to the Bar under Republic Act No. Amog.8 36. 18. 75 42. Irineo E. with annotations as to who had presented motions for reconsideration which were denied (MRD).45 Cerezo. 63 Alacar.65 Gonzales. Corona. Clarin. Pol. 78 66 74 76 75 70 80 79 79 75 71 72 86 81 76 82 62 65 75 76 86 77 88 82 79 80 77 86 82 91 83 71 76 70 66 69 64 70 72 75 67 81 76 76 78 74 69 73 69 70 69 76 67 66 68 71 73 79 70 71 66 75 81 71 93 77 91 77 85 75 77 78 67 82 76 88 75 79 72 79 71 81 73 77 73 80 85 82 83 81 81 83 75 81 81 75 76 75 81 77 76 75 72 82 89 80 60 81 74 75 72 78 87 75 86 81 74 83 72 73 72 76 82 77 69 73 80 69 72 75 79 72 74 77 77 84 75 70 77 82 83 75 76 75 76 60 55 60 65 60 60 65 70 65 55 70 60 60 65 60 65 65 65 65 60 60 65 65 60 65 55 60 60 60 70 80 75 90 75 75 85 70 80 75 70 75 80 75 80 80 75 75 65 75 75 75 85 80 80 75 75 72 69 73 72 72 Victoriano 75 75 77 75 69 75 76 68 72 68 76 75 80 78 76 64 77 76 62 75 75 77 70 MRD1. Alfredo L. 69. Candido D. Enriquez. David D. 1948 MRD4. Maximo G. 73. grouped by the years in which they took the bar examinations. Gregorio O. Rem. which are still pending. Leon Mo. 70 7 7 73 Orlina. Antonio Lu. Pascual C. Alawadin L. 80 27. 65 70. 16. 34. and who filed mere motions for reconsideration without invoking said law.85 28. Jesus A. MRD6. 85 40. Soledad R. Agustin P.05 Garcia. Bernardo 61 75 75 82 75 75 75 Garcia. MRD2. 73 73 73 72 26. Albino Mejia. Conrado O. 72. Macario J. Baquero. Agunod. Benjamin S. Pedro 85 43. 76 64 72 64 74 65 75 70 68 83 70 74 65 68 Canda. Advincula. Angel L. 63 72 70 69 7 7 Agraviador. Bandala. 10. Flaviano V. 11. Crim. 73 7 50 73 73 73 Abaya. Filemon L. Julian L. 72. Crisanto R. 69. 80 69. Cunanan. 15. Baldivino. Gallardo. Gatchalian. 19. Amando C. 80 44. Salud 71 75 72 68 73 66 66 73 71 75 63 65 63 75 78 75 66 68 70 65 65 88 69. T. 69 76 79 80 85 63 66 84 77 83 65 80 75 62 70 83 76 78 71 69 72 64 75 71 86 81 77 80 79 71 78 81 78 70 77 76 80 81 82 82 78 74 89 72 81 85 74 70 77 83 69 67 55 60 65 65 55 60 60 55 60 65 75 35. Anacleto A.15 Genoves. Miguel S. 71. Apolinario. follows: PETITIONER UNDER THE BAR FLUNKERS' LAW 17. Benjamin Blanco. de 70 70 72 73 72 72 70 Page 19 of 43    . Pedro V. 22.5 37. 14. Manuel L. Jose B. Pedro M. Int. Av. Claudo.4 25. 80 39. Dizon. 71. 21. 80 38. Jose Buenaluz.65 33. MRD5. Amado P. Aquino. Garcia. 71.8 Fernandez.2 Garcia. 13. 972. 9.95 Guia. Land Merc. Vivero. 24. MRD8.9 MRDCornejo. Espiritu. Santiago C. Olvido D. 75 41. Canon. Guillermo Carlos. 12. Freidrich M. 23. Marcial C. 70. 66 71 61 76 80 83 73 75 71.95 31. 1949 7. Gen. 30. Estela S. MRD3. Civ.

Nicolas Kalalang.6 Plantilla. Mariano I. de Jocom. Padua. Pareja.6 98. Cuadrato Pañganiban. Benito B. 47. 70. Nicanor S. 72. 67. Lopez. Casimiro P. 80 72. 71. 54. 59.85 Pimentel. Felipe D.45. 80 89. Torre. Simeon Jakosalem.95 92. Fernandez. Eriberto Paulin.95 Tesorero. 75 100. 60. 70 85 80.1 Hechanova. Palma. Villacarlos. 57. Gaudencio 70 Miranda. 71. Clarencio J.25 Foronda. 56. Jose V. de 65 91. Remigio Layumas. Porfirio D.55 Semilia. Veyra.75 99. 68 75 68 77 75 85 78 70 67 73 73 76 70 71 60 59 69 72 7 73 75 88. 75 101. Jose E. Crispulo P. Viado. 73. 76 80 90. Pablo S. Jacobo M. 52. 1948 66. 77 72 72 62 68 78 75 75 78 80 77 69 75 75 75 79 84 68 69 80 85 79 71 81 71 75 70 87 81 70 71 78 78 76 76 68 64 74 70 69 66 72 74 72 68 76 69 55 70 63 71 72 71 74 71 76 67 78 55 68 75 81 76 89 79 80 75 73 68 81 76 80 72 77 76 81 69 78 69 77 70 76 75 71 77 79 77 83 89 75 70 75 82 76 69 81 61 79 65 75 75 82 69 86 86 75 76 81 76 76 85 79 84 75 69 68 81 81 80 75 80 83 77 65 82 85 82 82 79 75 62 65 84 80 90 70 73 76 72 69 88 68 55 65 55 70 65 65 65 60 65 60 55 65 65 65 60 65 55 55 65 55 75 55 60 64 65 62 75 80 85 80 80 75 80 75 75 70 75 75 75 75 80 75 63 70 85 80 80 85 85 75 96 93 93 96 7 73 69 70 70 Rodriguez. 73. Vicente 80 72. 70. Andres B.15 Saez. 70 76. Linao. 69. Cruz. 72. Pido. 73. 70. 71 87. Ananias G.7 Santos. 74. Seludo. Mancao. 85 79. Jose F. Serafin C. Rodrigo C. Palang. Benjamin G. 65. 72.95 Telan. Eliezar M.75 Saliguma. 55. Orosco. 68.05 70 7 7 Page 20 of 43    . 69. Felipe Patalinjug.65 Robis. 71.15 94. 64. Proceso D. Ariston L. 61.5 MRD70. 68. Fortunato A. 71. Faustina C. Arsenio N. 51.3 Rodil. 71. Amando A. 80 73 7 7 7 72 75 82. Leonor S. 80 86. Vicente L.75 Santos. Basilio S. Zosimo C. 85 83.9 96. 70. de 75 71. 70. 75 77. 71. 71. Zabala.3 80 81.55 93. Romero. Manera. Leyson. 62 82 75 77 77 65 67 69 71 77 70 66 67 77 72 72 67 75 67 77 72 76 71 62 67 66 73 66 72 68 83 83 77 84 75 84 83 83 77 75 84 81 75 71 70 64 78 64 81 75 84 76 75 75 83 71 77 69 78 71 73 67 74 56 74 65 75 61 72 62 76 75 60 70 65 71 75 71 67 68 69 68 82 69 61 75 78 71 63 80 74 82 61 79 78 77 74 76 73 80 70 75 89 76 81 77 80 76 72 83 80 78 80 72 79 75 77 78 77 78 81 83 76 75 68 83 76 82 74 82 69 81 70 80 79 71 55 93 80 81 91 81 67 73 78 77 83 80 71 90 87 85 64 82 70 66 75 81 64 71 75 81 85 84 90 76 79 76 77 72 82 79 87 79 74 74 71 82 85 65 65 60 55 60 65 60 65 65 65 65 60 55 60 60 60 65 60 65 65 65 65 50 55 55 60 60 55 65 70 75 75. Mercado. Marcelino Lim. Valentin S.15 D. Libanan.6 1950 69. 75 70. Villamil. 85 78. Crisogono 79 80 84. Amancio F.1 97. Lopez. Mariano M. Casto P. Manoleto. Jose C. 58. Josefina R. 50. Leocadio T. Alfredo P. 75 71 75 85. Delfin A. Angelo P.4 Samano. 70. Luis P. Manuel C. 70. Juares. 70 71. Lim. 49. 63. 70. 62. 53. Mariano A. Jose 75 75 75 80 75 70 95. Filoteo Jesus.45 Regalario. 71 la 80 70. Rafael I. 46. Francisco C. 48. Filomeno de la 69 70 70 70 70 73 73 70 73 Española. Lopez. Manad. Torres.

Federico S. Manuel G.7 Campos. Biason.. 72. Cacacho. Calilung.MRD102. Torre.95 Gastardo.4 148. Sarmiento.25 Bienvenido 76 133. Salvador G. Vicente Z. 64 70 72 144. 124. 114.35 Casuga. MRD117. Pablo S. Guinald M. Alfonso Balacuit.4 Castro. 76 138. 69.15 Calimlim. 72. Castillo. Sixto F. 79 MRD72.65 Ibarra. Antiola. 77 71. Fernan. 145. 132. Felisberto 80 71. 64 66 70 71 78 73 82 77 88 78 61 86 72 67 74 73 62 79 63 78 71 88 58 69 57 60 69 74 75 78 73 69 63 70 70 72 72 72 61 75 62 72 63 58 66 75 66 66 68 73 75 67 75 74 75 80 73 60 69 65 75 75 64 60 79 75 74 75 65 70 69 80 73 75 68 75 72 75 70 75 73 70 70 75 81 65 70 85 73 65 76 75 78 65 67 65 74 60 78 75 71 70 74 75 72 57 52 66 69 67 71 75 61 59 65 69 62 75 67 72 58 68 70 66 54 67 52 69 70 56 75 83 84 71 69 67 76 75 83 76 85 83 81 87 62 75 78 89 86 78 75 83 75 80 82 59 75 64 62 76 66 71 60 76 70 71 62 59 63 73 69 75 75 72 56 77 61 71 75 77 69 72 127.2 80 MRDFarol. 116. 1951 106. Praxedes P. Jesus B. Jeremias L. Ungson. 66 73. Conrado S. Daniel G. D. 122.25 79 72 70 72 7 72 70 73 7 Barinaga. 107. Eufemio P. Jr. 79 71. 79 147. Catalino P. 70. 70. MRD110. Cabilao. 121. Avanceña. Genson. 112. 123. Angelo B. Aquino. Arcadio P. Fernando S. Deysolong.25 Camello. 71. 72. MRD104. 73 Page 21 of 43    . Cabrera. Anastacio R. 70. 105.05 135. Leonardo S. Soledad C. Emilio V. 74 60 72 73 7 59 149. 71. Rey A. 62 140. 150. 73. 129. Domingo L. Osias R.25 Guina. Sotero H. Camilo N. 109. Imperial. Floro A. Romulo Adeva. 108.8 MRDDimaano. 75 71. Briñas.2 142.2 126. 71. 75 73.75 Guiani. B. 69. 71 67 72 Benitez. 72 73 7 69 69 Homeres. 80 65 75 61 77 75 73 75 76 68 70 71 71 75 78 86 85 87 70 59 63 76 78 76 71 78 71 73 69 60 75 82 69 77 50 66 73 61 63 68 75 64 74 68 66 63 75 71 68 65 75 73 67 75 67 74 61 75 70 73 76 61 82 89 78 69 70 57 65 76 65 69 75 70 75 76 75 74 70 71 60 74 80 86 75 70 70 72 70 74 55 74 60 73 65 66 70 76 70 71 75 75 65 72 80 73 77 72 67 85 70 51 69 60 61 70 62 51 72 65 50 63 72 72 52 58 60 81 57 66 60 65 83 76 78 75 77 75 81 76 82 78 75 80 77 75 77 79 79 71 70 75 85 MRD70. Ad. 125. Pablo L. MRD118. Pedro B. Monico L. 70 7 70 7 72 Dominador 75 72 75 77 69 70 66 78 67 MRD70. 103.1 136.85 137. 119. Ireneo M. Atienza. Tomas P. Peñalosa. Añosa.6 134. 69 128. MRD115. Santiago B. MRD120. 82 130. Abasolo. Cabangbang. Aguilar. Cruz. Jose N. Buela.8 MRD64 131. Amodia. Evencia C. Antonio del Castillo. 75 68 66 71 146. Graciano P.25 Gandioco. Calimlim. 68 Barrientos. 71.25 78 141. Juan T. 113. 111. Espinosa. Juan A. Venancio M. Jose B. Crispin B. Dacanay. Isagani A. Felix. Ambrosio 76 67 73 71 72 73 75 64 139. 70 72 68 143. S. 78 71.

Florencio C. 72. MRD162.5 Tado. Meynardo R. 179. Alberto M. 70 69 Navallo. 70. Jr. Valeriano V. Domingo A. Santos. 72. 159. del Vicente 70 D. 164. MRD- Ibasco. Causin O.75 Santos. 75 72 75 Tapayan. Samuel 69 193. 73 72 7 69 197.05 Manuela 69 178. 73. 152. Foz. Prisco del Rosario. 72. Demetrio 70 67 72 66 68 72 72 Manio.3 70 75 73 62 76 67 66 73 76 77 74 78 72 64 91 80 72 81 72 69 66 72 79 68 76 72 60 71 72 72 65 62 68 73 68 61 62 70 65 63 73 72 75 65 69 75 72 66 67 69 71 71 75 75 70 75 65 78 75 74 75 69 65 65 80 71 60 88 70 72 75 68 75 76 75 67 65 73 75 65 75 81 65 68 75 68 75 71 80 66 65 76 70 76 75 79 70 70 60 69 75 71 64 59 68 64 65 77 66 73 68 73 68 60 70 75 70 62 59 59 72 73 67 63 54 67 75 75 80 76 88 79 67 85 79 68 77 76 76 70 81 76 84 79 76 82 84 82 78 78 70 66 53 69 75 65 79 57 62 62 69 75 64 75 71 79 65 67 53 79 60 71 66 76 69 70 72 70 Regis. 75 73. MRD167. Capistrano C. Carlos P. Teodorico 79 194. 72. Cesar V. MRD168. MRD161. Benjamin S. 185. Fortunato C. Leon. MRD173. Aquilino Leodegario 73 70 73 75 191. Tria. 70 72. 70.95 Recinto. Camilo Z.95 70 Olaviar. Florentino P.05 Suson.5 Ramos-Balmori. 77 Jimenez. Miguel V. Felipe Salazar. Ana. 73 73 Monzon. 192. Martin.05 187. 73. Deogracias A. Montero. 70. 69 72. C.35 MRD75 182.15 188. Candido T. 73. Estela 70 Rosario. 78 70. Francisco U. 70 Nisce. 70. 160. Emiliano 71 M. Pogado. Monterroyo.75 51 75 184. 70. 153. Hipolito 75 199. Gregorio Puzon. 70 70 77 70 83 71 89 70 73 68 59 66 61 67 82 75 72 80 67 72 79 72 66 81 70 76 63 67 70 72 63 75 65 60 60 78 70 75 69 60 74 63 75 66 74 68 68 75 76 69 66 85 71 53 73 75 72 65 76 85 70 55 73 60 72 85 75 65 76 70 67 70 76 65 75 80 71 60 69 70 75 75 69 80 76 80 81 75 67 65 73 85 81 65 79 65 74 55 66 80 72 60 75 61 73 61 63 65 75 67 57 71 50 67 70 67 63 66 65 70 69 66 68 67 70 63 85 79 75 75 85 75 92 90 84 75 75 91 75 68 81 84 82 81 77 75 71 85 75 77 82 53 175.95 190. 70 70 73 72 73 7 Catalina 70 73. 158. Julita A.5 Velasco. Jose O. Avelino A. 166. S. Santa T. 78 72. 62 189. Cesar L.2 74 195. Woodrow M. 172. de Llanto. Priscilla Machachor. 154. Suico. Inandan. Francisco K. Cesario Z. Estelita C.. Ocampo. Encarnacion 77 Maligaya. 57 177.85 176. 163. 72.1 51 Saavedra. 72 62. Alfredo N. 198. 72 Page 22 of 43    . Marcial. de Antonio 66 F.75 181. Natividad. M. 79 MRD70.1 MRD62 196. Eduardo S. Languido. 73 70 Rimorin-Gordo. 174. MRD171. 156. Salem.15 61 183. 69 Tiausas. Lavilles. Rigor. 72. Romulo R. MRD165. Ireneo I. Llenos. 169. 157.55 75 MRD71. 68 71.55 Redor. Perez. 72. 155.65 186. Marcelo D.75 180. 170.MRD151.75 Torres. 75 73 66 77 75 Candido 77 72 76 73 74 64 67 68 69 65 70 Magsino. Oscar 75 63 61 64 63 72 68 Kintanar.

219. Gervasio M. Pablo Abad. Nehemias C. Villa. MRP220. Ceferino D. 75 66 76 75 75 76 72 73 75 71 Ambrosio 76 66 70 71 76 76 79 72 70 7 7 75 235.55 Bautista. 73. 70 228. 72 72 72 65 MRP70. Isaac M. Inocencio C. Andrada.200. Victor B.65 Banta.75 Bejec. Jose Y. 224. Baclig. 60 231. 62 237.9 230. 73 73 Benaojan. 72. Abinguna. 70 75 72 7 73 Page 23 of 43    . Oscar C.4 242. Aquino. 71. Doroteo R. Filomeno D. Pedro Abacon. Felino A. Bautista. Antonio. 75 Abenojar. Agapito Abella. S. Almeda. 214. 73. Juan T. 209. MRPBeltran. Felicidad Amodia.7 227.7 229. Bihis. Agustin Ag. Robustiano 74 O. Jose M.9 Azucena. Ramos B. 236. 78 MRP71. Jr. MRP213. 65 MRP71. Alano. 73 Arcangel. Ludovico B. 202. MRP207.8 D. 55 225. 77 73. MRP218.45 Añonuevo. Marcelo M. Jose 62 MRP72. Serafin V. Fabian T. Agapito N. Balcita. 71. 211. MRP221. MRP210. 201.2 70 232. MRP205. Roger C. Atilano C. Adrias. 70 MRP73. Atienza. 1952 203. 239. Cayetano S. 216. Job R. Dionisio N. 65 78 75 75 73 70 80 67 74 72 76 81 79 72 83 83 79 85 81 85 86 83 83 85 72 71 79 76 73 74 75 78 73 76 79 78 93 61 80 71 78 80 78 61 73 66 75 72 68 81 75 68 65 72 55 75 81 78 85 75 81 70 87 76 84 70 91 68 83 72 81 73 73 76 87 56 84 75 77 66 88 76 88 72 87 63 81 61 91 75 85 62 83 79 79 51 66 72 63 66 51 75 59 87 70 65 65 58 78 67 62 77 67 67 64 52 65 69 67 64 62 77 63 69 60 72 72 68 77 76 69 79 72 75 73 65 75 72 75 MRP70. 75 238. 73. Alcantara. Ricardo Balacuit. Villarama. 233. Camilo N.25 75 71 67 78 75 72 72 75 77 75 75 92 87 77 83 78 67 87 78 84 77 67 80 70 76 82 68 81 77 80 75 84 80 86 90 78 57 50 70 78 70 89 83 79 82 77 67 78 84 63 76 64 73 81 77 79 65 68 65 81 64 78 69 89 76 81 73 89 72 79 66 75 70 80 69 90 64 77 64 81 75 80 67 88 62 85 58 87 80 92 70 73 75 82 63 73 75 84 75 79 68 92 64 64 63 70 77 70 67 55 54 70 60 61 63 65 76 61 67 66 71 77 57 63 72 64 68 74 69 70 67 77 75 66 61 67 65 71 70 67 71 80 67 76 75 75 68 64 84 60 76 80 70 78 65 75 75 65 50 80 75 81 78 62 70 62 76 50 80 62 78 75 73 75 223. Almonte-Peralta. Celso J.3 243.7 Arteche. Geronimo F. Jose S. Dominador Z. 71 70. 72 67 70 72 73 Abellera. Villagonzalo. 217. Beriña. Pablo V. 75 Acosta. Rey A. 215. Agapito C. 240. Mariano L. Alandy. MRP206. 71 64 70 71 70 73 73 70 Barilea.95 Arribas.65 Batucan. MRP204. 53 MRP70.. 75 MRP70.7 241. Adove. Andres R. 226. 71. 212. Francisco C. Aglugub. 234. 71.85 Barrientos.4 Belderon. Conceso D. 71 70 62 MRP73. 58 MRP72. 70 MRP72. 208. 70 72.65 Belo.2 Antonio. 222.

Alejandro P. 57 73.244. 260. Armando R. 75 70 72 7 7 Mariano 80 66 Campos. Jr. Salvador F. Isabel Cabugao. B. Conrado 67 Capitulo.. 253. 262.9 286. Raymundo 75 280. MRP266. Cabreros. Cesar V. MRP252. 62 MRP70. Juan A.15 V. Chavez. 78 71 72 75 78 68 82 75 65 76 81 60 87 87 81 92 82 76 91 82 75 67 80 84 73 65 77 72 69 75 80 79 79 74 88 74 78 79 63 64 76 78 69 72 87 82 82 76 79 89 64 76 85 73 77 87 76 86 60 74 77 84 73 86 74 82 76 86 60 76 62 86 79 85 72 83 76 92 67 80 70 85 68 82 66 86 80 83 71 74 80 84 77 56 73 60 69 75 54 66 69 53 61 66 55 50 57 72 75 71 55 62 55 50 67 52 69 80 75 64 72 76 67 66 71 78 69 76 80 68 68 73 75 71 80 68 65 67 73 60 70 69 80 70 75 80 84 75 80 64 66 60 75 65 76 71 50 71 79 70 57 50 7 7 82 268. Bobila. 70. Doroteo M. Felicisimo R. 82 MRP73.7 Cruz. 75 MRP73. MRP251. Daniel T.75 Cartagena. de 73 7 Cerio. Honorato A. 279. MRP246.3 276. 73. Getulio R. Cardoso.65 70 91 284. 256. 50 277. 247. Cantoria. Canda. 75 Calupitan.85 Cornejo. Alfonso R.8 MRP62 281. MRP255. 71. 72 73 73 Cobangbang.2 Crisol. Jesus L.2 273. MRP265. Melecio F. Luis B.8 75 283. 80 271. Anastacio F. 71 Cunanan. Maximino L. Bueno.75 Cauntay.65 Dacuma. Vicente N. 254. 70. 80 270. Jr. 73 7 73 72 72 7 82 282. 60 71. Avelina R. Irineo M. 285. 72. Angelita G. Florentino R. Alfredo 75 Caluya. 76 MRP73. Calañgi. Arsenio V. Borres. 72. Pedro R. 69 Cortez.95 Cunanan. MRP263.05 Castro. Campanilla. 269. Agustin 71 B. 71 274. Pablo N. MRP257. 288. Alfredo J. Cesar de la Canabal.. Jose C.25 289. Orlando 69 B. 71. 60 72. Binaoro. 76 56 MRP73.15 Dusi. 70. 73 Delgado. 70 Cimafranca. 72 Page 24 of 43    . Eulogio 73 76 78 73 67 72 72 79 71 76 70 76 73 72 71 69 86 80 78 85 71 78 88 79 79 72 82 87 93 71 80 78 70 93 86 75 85 78 76 75 71 62 76 78 53 83 66 80 81 69 71 77 71 71 53 81 70 78 83 83 73 83 68 75 70 78 71 91 72 75 74 89 58 91 71 84 60 88 69 67 62 77 78 80 58 87 70 90 62 89 70 90 65 87 78 76 64 87 77 77 73 84 67 59 59 55 67 63 70 70 85 62 75 71 51 64 66 75 55 75 63 75 52 71 61 70 71 72 71 76 71 67 75 71 68 66 75 78 69 66 72 72 76 68 77 63 80 267.6 Crisostomo. R. Chavez. Buenafe. MRP245. Cabello. Mateo C. Benjamin S. 76 278. Herminio 71 65 78 MRP73. 248. Paulino N. 70. MRPDegamo. Rosalio B. 258. Vicente M. 76 287. 60 70. 78 76 68 75 78 73 Calayag. 71. 261. Cabrera. 71.85 73 7 Gaudencio 70 70 75 68 73 77 Castro. MRP264.5 275. Colorado. Pedro L. 70 71 73 70 73 Capacio. Juan A. Calzada.9 272. 249. MRP250. 259. Cabegin. Datu. Crisanto R.

73. Benjamin B. Lorenzo B.9 Flores. Ernesto A. Castulo Ebbah. 301. MRP302. de la 76 317. Jose S. Hilario B. 73. 310. Fajardo. Dionisio 312. 298. Duque. Fajardo. 70 72. 73. B. Gaerlan.2 Fuente. 296. Gallardo. 72 MRP68.65 Fernando. 324. 73 71 70 75 83 84 77 76 84 69 78 77 80 80 77 75 70 86 78 76 75 69 79 75 75 86 64 71 82 63 81 53 78 73 85 75 84 88 73 58 74 80 82 77 72 87 73 54 89 71 81 69 73 79 67 64 82 68 88 75 86 76 83 66 76 66 89 75 84 71 93 72 81 63 68 66 86 58 82 80 83 65 79 79 87 63 83 64 54 78 75 70 60 63 77 72 67 63 62 59 67 77 64 67 71 60 50 63 65 75 75 80 72 70 71 62 64 65 76 75 69 65 69 75 70 67 75 73 77 68 75 311. Antonio S. Delgado. Victor N. 68. 72 86 322. Patrocinio G. Ducusin.MRP290. Jose B. Rosa C. Guillermo 75 Jr. Alberto M. Carlos S. Nazario 72 75 73.25 Fariñas. 67. 70 75 75 70 65 70 66 78 315. 75 329. Dionisio. Jose A.15 MRPGanete. 73.05 Gamalinda. 309. MRP293. Z.. 325. Galem. 300. Abner 73 Domingo. 308.2 Galang. MRP294. Nestor R.4 75 323. 76 318. Gamboa.1 Galindo. Jacinto N. 70 71 71 73 78 84 69 77 72 82 88 79 81 83 83 87 79 88 78 89 72 79 67 80 78 87 67 89 74 70 86 77 70 72 71 74 82 84 77 86 75 84 87 80 81 70 75 74 77 80 66 65 70 75 85 69 79 70 83 67 70 78 74 60 77 68 69 71 83 70 76 70 90 67 78 60 75 63 91 80 65 78 85 71 86 67 72 76 81 68 90 79 82 74 82 67 75 67 81 76 60 65 71 61 71 63 57 61 61 70 51 71 56 63 60 62 59 57 57 70 73 72 64 68 64 79 76 73 75 71 72 75 70 65 62 70 69 75 73 76 68 64 50 59 70 50 73 75 79 60 60 65 60 75 70 65 70 62 53 55 68 68 65 81 70 72 72 72 Dichoso. 78 326. 291. Agapito B. Sulpicio Edradan. 70. Jesus S. Lope F. MRP303. 75 MRP72. 331. Jose Pe B. MRP306.8 Feliciano. Agustin A.65 75 320. Gaudioso R. 72 73 70 Page 25 of 43    . Matias N.65 Gallos. Dionisio S.95 Gabuya. Percival B. Duque. Genaro P. Eulalio D. Cirilo B. Diolazo.9 330. Familara. 65 321. Cesar Estoista. 73. 72 73 7 72 7 70 Evangelista. Enage. 65 71. Edisa. 299. 76 70 69 73 72 75 70 70 72 76 71 69 67 75 75 72 70 73 70 72 73 7 73 7 73 Alfonso 75 65 78 66 77 70 Encarnacion. 56 MRP73. Gannod. 305.05 Fohmantes. 70 316.7 Galman.9 S.35 Fortich. 314. Manuel L. Gilbang. Carmelo 332. Felicidad 75 P. 70 MRP73. Favila. MRP297. 72. Alberto I. 304. 75 MRP72. 76 327. Balbino P. 313. 66 319. Fabros. Raymundo 68 75 MRP72. MRP292. MRP307. 70 328. 71. Claudio R. 66 MRP72. MRP295. Encarnacion.85 333. Dominador 70 T.5 Garcia. Dipasupil. MRPFuggan. Antonio G.

. Emilio Jaen. 70. Francisco Jose. Ines. Gosiaoco. Rodolfo P. Salvador B. 70 69. MRP354. 54 358. Gonzales. 80 73. Lucito Luz. Antonio S. Naterno G. 346. Guzman. Javier. Jose S.05 Mati-ong. Leonilo F. Justiniano S. 377. 340. 349. Gomez. Lomontod. 355.8 MRP64 374. Alipio S. 71 Hedriana. 72. Lauro L. 67 Homeres. MRP352. Jamer. 344. 70.75 366. 75 de Habelito. 65 361. Majarais. 73 50 376. MRP341.9 MRP365. Iluminado M. Geronimo E. Ignacio T.3 362. MRP336. Jr. 73.6 364. 335.9 76 MRP70. 58 71. Felipe A. 62 70 73 73 7 72 73 Page 26 of 43    . 353.7 50 372.85 72 MRPMasancay.55 Maniquis. 74 369. 76 370. 60 360. Mercado. 72 73 7 72 72 67 7 Ibasco. Jr. MRP337. V. Llanera. de Grageda. 343. Amando E. 72 54 373. de 359. Aquilino M.75 66 MRP73. 75 Hernandez.75 55 68 73 72 Godofredo 80 73 367. 70.7 Mara. Jomuad. 345. A. Claro C. 72. 342. 72. 75 70. MRP351.35 Leon. 75 67 68 72 77 75 70 76 73 71 75 81 69 81 76 75 90 81 67 62 90 83 87 80 79 71 67 86 87 87 78 77 75 78 79 80 80 69 69 78 72 84 64 77 74 73 73 60 83 74 76 75 72 78 82 72 70 91 78 84 73 87 73 78 64 70 73 83 59 88 64 83 66 76 70 82 88 83 59 89 58 76 77 91 69 72 73 75 69 76 64 78 72 77 72 79 73 89 75 82 78 67 51 60 62 59 76 53 58 75 62 75 71 60 50 71 51 62 75 71 50 76 67 52 81 72 77 70 75 74 74 75 72 65 71 72 72 76 65 75 69 75 75 78 69 66 69 59 80 60 61 63 75 75 77 70 68 79 78 76 76 70 86 70 57 53 80 77 65 85 73 72 73 72 73 73 Guzman.05 Liboro.334. Jaime P. Emiliano 75 M.75 MRP76 73. 73. MRP350. MRP- Gofredo. Justiniano F. Arsenio Marasigan. Constante B. Nestor L. Quintin B. Juan de Guzman. 70 75 65 75 75 70 Maraña.8 Maloles. 70 371.65 MRPMakabenta. Guillermo L. Osmundo P. Leones. 348. Tomas S. Gracia. Mateo de Guzman. Jose M.4 80 MRP69.. Jardinico. 70. Jaring. Brigido C. 73.9 62 357. Agustin R. Eduardo 75 60 368. 70. Napoleon Marco. 73 76 72 75 75 78 72 MRPMartir. 72. 43 378. Magbiray. Macasaet. 339. 73 65 68 73 363. Cesar L. Rafael C. 68 71 68 77 66 70 75 76 71 78 76 93 75 68 85 86 79 61 84 76 68 75 84 88 75 65 86 75 77 84 75 61 72 71 85 71 90 72 69 79 74 64 71 84 72 65 71 83 68 72 78 79 79 72 64 86 78 81 76 78 64 89 55 84 77 67 70 84 64 73 72 72 61 81 74 87 73 76 66 81 72 86 70 88 77 89 80 85 76 78 82 84 71 70 72 78 77 88 78 73 68 52 63 69 70 59 60 79 69 66 61 60 58 72 77 73 61 70 67 66 57 61 58 76 70 69 70 70 69 73 75 68 78 78 67 76 66 63 61 65 83 67 70 71 66 76 64 76 356. Lorenzo V. Horacio T. 70. 1952 347. 77 375.6 Malapit. Jose M. Eulalia L.85 La Q. MRP338. Daniel R. 70. Luna. Jose P. Salvador T.

MRP400.45 Puzon. Ocampo. MRP386. Miculob.379. Estanislao 75 L. Jr. Padilla. 401. Estanislao 71 E. 72 7 Leodegario 72 75 406. 79 416.. 415. 391. 70 7 Page 27 of 43    . Melquiades 73 70 7 7 73 79 MRP71.95 Pacifico. Nuval. Amado A. 71 72 76 75 71 70 75 64 79 69 66 65 88 81 72 88 87 80 76 66 87 75 64 81 81 76 79 70 80 78 76 69 72 76 67 78 80 85 74 85 68 71 80 73 75 81 74 72 74 82 75 81 81 66 86 72 80 76 75 78 79 68 82 78 86 59 82 71 85 77 89 69 77 64 81 82 76 68 87 75 83 69 62 75 92 69 87 59 82 69 86 65 76 66 87 74 69 72 67 61 52 58 67 75 75 75 59 66 67 79 63 50 71 70 58 68 71 79 64 67 53 70 76 72 75 74 78 78 69 63 76 63 76 77 65 68 60 67 76 60 65 74 64 67 78 75 80 70 66 75 50 75 71 73 76 58 83 80 65 66 70 75 75 72 50 75 70 72 72 7 53 404. Orden.6 70 MRPPelaez. Jr. Eugenio P. Eduardo S. Jose O. 71 77 77 67 72 68 72 67 419. Macario. 83 MRP73.65 Peña. Rodentor P. Jesus 418. Filemon Poblete. 60. Perez. Generoso 78 Mosquera. 70 72 79 MRP73. Pablo. MRP392. Jr. 66 72. 70 79 79 82 78 79 89 76 84 78 78 67 64 70 79 86 70 77 72 90 75 77 62 91 65 73 73 68 69 67 78 75 70 74 64 71 77 81 69 78 67 77 68 74 85 76 84 86 77 75 71 88 64 89 70 71 65 84 60 85 72 94 72 86 78 81 73 76 76 77 72 80 73 73 57 67 75 90 72 72 69 72 84 67 73 81 74 87 72 86 66 52 68 78 68 66 73 55 75 63 50 79 62 56 37 59 68 55 50 66 50 66 50 79 69 69 70 75 68 77 70 72 75 75 76 72 64 71 78 65 75 68 68 70 72 402. MRP390. 70. Motus. Antonio D. C.15 73 73 75 MRP69. 381. 72. 76 71. Jose O. Pinlac. 70 Nono. 65 MRP72. Nieto. 67 78 75 72 76 70 70 72 70 414. MRP395. Benedicto S. Monponbanua. 68 424. Melencio T. 411. Manuel R. 73. 72. Jose C.9 73 7 72 7 Nodado. 67 75 71 70 63 69 70 72 66 MRP73. MRP393. Perfecto D.9 Pido. 397. 57 412. Luz 423.8 422.. Fedelino S. Rafael M. Bartolome 409. Pedro Olaviar. 76 72.85 79 421. Santos L.75 Papa. MRPPasion..15 Palma. MRP399. Noguera. Montero. 71. Pacifico G. 398. Per O. 385. Celso B. 407. Servillano S. 71. Rizal R. 71. Augusto Oliveros. Pedro R. MRP380. 387. Romeo P.8 403.9 70 73 Ortiz. Mario V. 396.05 Pariña.45 Piza. 57 MRP73. Raymundo 80 70 72 67 69 71 Padilla. Vicente C. Nadela. Vicente V. 72 63. Anastacio 413.15 Pastrana. MRPPaulin. 76 408. 70 71. 75 Mocorro. Geredion T. MRP383. Angel A.15 Padlan. 73. Nazareno.. 73 Morada. 384. 420. 410. Domiciano R. MRP389. Toribio R. Jr. Olandesca. Mison. MRP382. Paderna. Apolonio J. Opiña. 394.7 Pestaño. Serafin C.15 Parayno.35 75 67 417. Crispin M.1 405. 388.

35 Santos. Adelaida R. 71. 70 73. Reyes.65 Sañiel. 60 73.2 463. Reyes. 73 66 73 79 MRP73. 71 71. MRP432. Jose A. Domingo B. Quipanes. 73. Revilla. 71. Quetulio..7 Suarez. 445. 77 455. Jesus B. Rivera. 429. Reyes. Ramos. 75 76 75 67 72 75 75 76 73 72 7 7 456. Pablo D. 71 77 72 75 72 72 7 72 70 MRPSandoval. Bayani R. 428. MRP434. Restituto F. 73. Cristobal Emmanuel 71 Jr.85 70 MRP72. 442. Jose V.425. Francisco M. Sabas P. Racho. 54 450. 70 Soriano.85 Sabelino. MRPSybico. Robles.25 M. Clarita 468. 436.45 Q. Buenaventura 72 A.9 Santos. Ramos-Balmori. 70. Victor S. 437. Rigonan. Feliz M. Abdon L. Conrado S. 439.6 464. 80 Page 28 of 43    . 446. Enrique Rodriguez. Rufino A. 53 458. 435. Emmanuel 75 75 453.9 del 75 81 86 93 80 83 75 76 89 75 54 71 81 67 79 68 79 85 70 68 79 79 69 72 76 76 70 81 84 83 78 69 73 79 67 76 82 77 70 70 77 72 90 68 75 77 89 59 80 67 72 60 83 77 90 62 93 63 83 63 82 73 76 63 79 73 85 74 92 79 78 72 84 60 80 80 87 76 72 75 79 74 80 62 65 71 76 75 67 67 64 65 58 76 64 79 72 59 75 69 53 70 75 68 75 66 75 65 66 68 77 76 59 65 66 71 71 66 76 68 76 70 64 72 72 73 63 70 72 62 70 60 68 70 52 70 60 85 54 76 67 65 65 70 60 60 80 66 448.55 San Juan. Josefina D.25 467. Oscar R.65 461. 441. 70 MRP73. 75 del 53 MRP72. 457. 50 73. 81 MRP73. Macario D. 69 81 Roldan. Lozano M. 64 73 79 73 7 70 Orestes 76 67 70 465. 460. 72. Santillan. Mariano S. Aquilino C. Damaso 80 451. 449. 447. 73 73 73 Rivero. Bantas 70 MRP72. MRP433. Manuela Raro. MRP431. MRP443. Quietson. 73 Rosario. Ruperto M. Honorio 75 69 73 68 71 80 75 78 75 75 75 72 72 75 80 75 71 71 90 88 75 75 80 83 87 84 81 86 78 64 87 85 57 75 85 56 88 77 75 80 75 60 79 76 81 73 79 76 76 76 79 81 81 78 84 78 82 65 70 72 75 76 79 65 93 64 82 65 77 70 82 78 87 62 79 62 75 72 90 48 67 75 91 71 90 70 78 76 83 72 68 75 79 78 82 76 86 75 90 71 94 68 77 82 63 69 83 73 70 68 78 62 81 53 62 72 72 75 77 67 54 73 75 71 65 64 70 65 73 64 77 71 72 76 71 71 66 75 68 61 80 55 67 69 69 62 68 64 68 76 75 66 69 65 75 80 83 72. 466. Jesus L. Reyes. Suanding. 78 72. Raffiñan. Melchor V. Rodolfo C.9 Santos.9 Tan Kiang. Celso Rayos. MRPSanidad. 73.7 462. Ramirez. 65 452. 72.7 459. 438. Sulit. Patricio S. Arellano 75 Songco.4 Santiago.35 Santos. MRP430. MRP427. Cesar V. Felicisimo G. Aniceto S.25 Samaniego.55 Rosario. 70 MRP73. Felix L. Reyes. Juanito Ll. 65 454. MRP440. Benjamin R. MRP426. 71. MRP444. 80 72.15 73 7 Tabaque.

Jesus C. MRP475.65 77 2. 63 492.4 73 70 Tiongson. Custodio R. 474. Venus. Olegario Ga. Ge Av 68 59 65 65 57 67 80 76 68 74 76 67 58 75 68 76 77 55 84 68 73 62 59 72 76 73 80 63 59 52 49 71 75 73 71 50 57 72 57 76 Velez. Land Merc. Felipe C. Mariano R. Gelacio U. Apolonio Trinidad. 471. Amao. Tasico. Tobias.8 71. Venancio M. indicated by the 70 initials 73. 50 495. Manuel O. Federico B. Artemio M.2 66 Page 29 of 43    . Jr. F. showing years in which they took the examinations together with 60 the 71.55MRD. MRP479. Valino. Villafuerte. Pedro 63 MRP71. Usita. 73. 481. 65 500.6 list of those who petitioned for the consolidation of their grades in subjects passed in previous examinations. Baldo. Int. 478. 50 MRP73. MRP488. 483. Amado T.55 MRP50 498. 72 V. 67. Yaranon. Osmundo C.8 75 501.05 1951 59 73.15 Villar. Conrado B. Leg. Udarbe.45 Villaseñor. Jr. Yulo.3 Yasay. Francisco M. Maria E. Flavio J. MRP486. 470. 72 73 7 7 75 A 72. Trinidad. 75 73 85 69 85 77 77 75 80 82 65 79 79 70 67 65 76 72 83 78 76 69 88 66 88 76 77 62 93 70 85 72 76 63 84 62 75 60 79 62 89 76 77 66 75 65 50 77 59 81 77 62 67 69 76 65 75 70 72 75 69 71 70 50 73 65 75 60 77 75 82 64 MRPVillanueva. MRP482. 489. MRP476. 494. Severo E.8 499. Jose H. 70. 71 71 73 82 69 82 70 89 66 58 86 91 78 82 75 75 72 81 75 62 80 70 91 81 79 83 78 75 72 76 63 67 74 76 83 78 77 81 87 75 80 81 79 74 89 58 74 72 70 83 71 89 70 93 76 84 77 84 85 83 68 81 71 86 70 75 63 85 78 82 67 80 71 85 56 74 73 84 62 86 72 87 70 85 60 80 56 67 76 85 62 88 76 76 64 61 75 57 75 73 75 55 68 66 51 56 69 56 76 78 57 70 66 50 55 66 68 64 71 67 68 75 73 71 65 75 67 64 68 68 66 71 71 81 71 76 72 75 72 74 75 60 491. 70 7 7 496. 70.65 54 493. 67 Emmanuel 71 73 78 69 75 Civ.85 1. Vega. Torrijas.7 UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 77. Teodoro Zamora. 485.7 1952 66 67 64 69 Eduardo 75 65 1953 71. Alfredo A. 480.85 73. Juanito C.MRP469. 71. 57 497. Federico T. Dominador M. 73. Ismael P. MRP490. Tiburcio. MRP473. Macairog L. Rem. Venal. Trillana. follows: 75 PETITIONERS 73.. 71.. Crim. Sulpicio M. and those who had filed motions for reconsideration which were denied. 70 Tolentino. 67 1946 71. Varela. de Velasco. Umali. MRP472. 487. MRP477. Artemio V. 484. 75 77 69 76 66 66 80 68 77 75 72 78 Leonidas 80 80 70 75 73 73 70 70 73 Viterbo. Cecilio C.05 73 1950 73.7 their 60 71 grades and averages.8 Ygay. Alberto Rigonan. Verzosa. Pol. 72 70 65 76 73. Pedro O. MRP- Tando. Umayam. D.

Salvador H.4 MRD-1951 69 1953 67. 64 1951 64. 72. Placido.75 65 65 68 68 67 65 67 70 39 67 70 62 73 60 75 70 50 47 35 68 70 62 75 57 53 80 67 60 71 69 56 59 76 71 64 64 71 64 66 65 59 73 75 72 48 68 51 78 70 67 82 69 55 54 70 55 70 79 76 78 40 72 74 60 75 60 67 69 74 65 78 75 75 60 82 65 70 81 65 66 64 75 55 70 73 60 91 58 69 75 68 67 76 72 68 72 78 68 76 72 66 71 63 69 81 57 75 66 56 77 62 56 75 72 77 57 77 64 52 55 54 69 86 57 65 56 75 55 55 75 73 69 75 71 55 60 78 66 65 70 61 66 60 65 27 75 69 71 85 75 64 53 80 66 70 50 75 67 65 78 75 75 80 52 85 49 75 71 66 MRD-1949 1951 4. Macario C. 71 1949 66.55 75 1951 68. 1952 60 1953 68. MRD-1949 1950 6. 1948 69 MRD-1949 66.2 50 MRD-1949 66. Sevilla. Constantino 75 1952 69. Isidro 1950 66 64 65 66 70 67 70 63 68 65 66 70 62 69 70 63 68 45 69 71 Page 30 of 43    . 1950 1951 1952 11. Santos. Juan T. 67.4 66 1950 70. 68. Mateo 1950 1951 5.95 1951 92 1952 69. 75 64 71 70 69 60 60 57 63 70 72 65 61 70 78 25 70 75 68 75 71 80 60 70 71 70 65 53 75 68 79 60 77 64 75 77 75 78 70 58 62 61 76 55 82 51 69 69 68 60 58 65 66 45 65 75 70 75 65 75 65 73 67 79 69 76 83 75 72 60 79 68 75 79 62 75 77 68 75 77 76 67 70 54 75 59 75 73 70 66 81 45 66 75 69 76 70 81 64 71 75 69 85 76 53 72 51 63 52 50 52 52 70 70 60 75 55 67 55 56 60 56 57 74 60 75 75 70 71 46 70 60 58 1951 90 12. 1951 80 1952 69. Ducusin. Sulpicio M. Sr. Montano.65 89 14.3. Maraña.85 Amao. Manuel M. Lucito A. 1951 1952 1953 10. Blanco.25 84 15. 60. MRD-1949 1950 7.1 Rodulfa. Manuel N.65 18.4 78 1953 70. Arsenio s.. 71 MRD-1948 46. Filemon S.15 Rementizo. Agapito B.35 86 1953 67. Luna. Santos.3 Sanchez. Garcia. Jose B.4 16. Peña. Condeno. Juan J.3 81 13. Jesus S.9 17. 1946 1952 8. 1949 1952 9.8 50 1952 66.

78 34. 3. 14.1Radaza. Rem. 65 70 73 69 73 Page 31 of 43    . 10. Edilberto C. 73 Peña. 30. Armando G. 15. Pol.Finally. Calixto R. 28. 27.65 71 51. Buenaventura 80 M. Fabunan. 65 67 70 75 85 87 54 71 80 32. 17. 9. Rodolfo P. others invoked the provisions of Republic Act No. Ilejay. 78 44. 70.8Rabaino. 2.05 74 42. 22. Santiago P.95 74 45. 73. Eldo J. Bernardo M. 12. 73. 73. Jose M. Benjamin C. 70 67 70 66 66 71 64 57 65 73 72 79 67 70 67 70 75 76 70 73 72 73 80 78 65 82 74 71 76 80 81 73 73 79 72 71 75 80 86 68 71 86 76 75 76 47 68 76 71 89 60 84 80 64 68 84 87 86 70 75 75 80 58 79 58 79 81 77 68 76 70 82 68 76 75 80 91 76 61 66 75 74 79 77 71 75 73 82 69 77 65 70 80 81 77 64 75 73 59 80 76 50 68 55 50 58 52 62 61 37 74 61 70 62 60 60 63 74 63 51 75 71 77 73 75 75 71 83 74 69 76 71 73 71 76 65 61 66 73 72 77 33. Sisenando B. Gungon. 11. Arnaiz.35 Pigar. 6.. with regards to the examinations of 1953. Oscar N. Andres D. A list of those candidates separating those who filed mere motions for reconsideration (56) from those who invoked the aforesaid Republic act. 72. Floriano U. Antonio S. 24. 69 49. Alejandro G. de Bacaiso. Gen. 21. Benjamin La. 67 Nodado. Benjamin R. 73. de 29. Leovigildo 70 47. 68 41. 74 46. 74 43. Crim. 73. 18. 73. 78 40. Renovilla. Gregorio Estrellado. 73. Julius G. 70 70. Enrique M. Abraham I.9Ravanera. Av. Eduardo L.7Papas. 20. Dimapuro Castañeda. Domingo B. Rufino C.6Ramos. Burgos. Cariño. Feril.. Casar. Alcantara. 77 73 70 68 62 82 51 67 77 31. 4. Celestino M. 80 48. is as follows: 1953 PETITIONERS FOR RECONSIDERATION 23. Benjamin O. 75 50. Jr. Buhay. Pedro N. Asis.95 70 69 69 72 63 73 70 72 70 Fernandez. Exequiel Andres.7Molina. Land Merc. Olegario A. (Miss) Garcia. Felipe L. 70. Dominador C.45 Mandi. Domiciano R. 71. Florencio F. Mariano A. Gapus.4Melocoton. Leopoldo R. Manuel C. Fernando 63 73 39. 66. 71. Jr. 972. 70 75 81 35. Rafael B. 7. 72. 75 69 36. Acenas. 26. Solomon B. 76 38. Bala.G. Narciso Peralta. 71. Antonio E. 73.95 82 37. Leon. Maloles. 5. Gutierrez. Miguel L. Nestorio B. Abdul-Hamid 68 68 77 66 62 76 76 77 70 66 70 64 76 71 76 76 81 78 80 75 67 62 75 77 72 95 70 75 69 78 62 72 77 75 73 76 66 76 75 78 67 68 60 70 66 73 70 86 65 67 71 71 54 66 81 52 78 76 76 75 75 80 80 80 84 77 70 72 77 81 70 77 65 78 69 73 68 71 71 79 61 79 75 85 78 83 61 75 67 74 75 83 50 70 61 70 62 83 62 74 54 71 78 67 81 68 61 72 76 70 61 77 93 81 73 78 71 82 68 79 69 82 57 59 62 55 56 59 51 62 68 73 52 63 57 55 50 56 67 78 58 66 63 72 59 50 52 55 62 52 69 77 71 70 71 69 73 75 68 75 71 72 66 68 73 56 66 70 75 72 67 59 71 74 71 66 69 69 62 69 83 74 68 82 81 75 78 72 72 75 75 85 76 79 75 67 72 68 78 73 69 79 67 86 80 76 78 78 79 73 69 73 70 69 70 1.25 Navarro. 72. 8. Benjamin 77 Civ. Alejandro. Paciano L.35 Pasno.2Publico.8Margete. 13. 19. Leg.4Muñoz. Maloles. Rosita S. Lukman. Gracia. Gregorio M. Int. De Lugtu. Barrios. 71. 60 65 70 78 70 70 76 68 75 64 68 70 65 69 70 69 7 72 72 70 73 73 6 66 Pagulayan-Sy. 25. 71 Sabaot. 16. Padula. Baldo. while some candidates--85 in all--presented motions for reconsideration of their grades.

65 Criminal Law. 60. but those referring sections 62to 70 71 14 and 16 immediately concern us. Land Registration Mortgages.45 weights: Civil Law. Adding 490 candidates who have not presented 74 66 73 60 78 63 78any72 72. Viray. 18. 14. Narciso Alcantara. 68cent 82 72. Antonio M. 65 Jacobo. 67. Pelagio Concepcion Estonina. Montano. Pedro Garcia. Macalindong. Page 32 of 43  73 73 Fernandez. Mercantile Law. Calautit. In determining the 77 72. Macario C. 53. Juan R. Formilleza. 10. Santos. 7. Torrefiel. Ricardo S. Vera. Ala. 72 76 70 78 73 69 74 75 75 75 75 68 75 79 76 77 70 64 82 76 64 87 77 87 89 83 78 86 75 79 78 66 69 81 75 82 89 81 80 81 75 78 78 75 68 83 83 73 66 79 78 60 74 76 79 74 61 80 68 81 68 50 56 63 67 50 51 62 61 61 50 72 74 50 71 84 73.9they reach a total of 1. Leg. 2. 64.5 70 71 There the unsuccessful candidates totaling 604 directly affected 67 70 75 85 87 54 71 80 are 72. Salvador H. 972 71 78 84 75 75 61 68 72 73. Antonio L. Santos. 9. 19.5Rivera. Santiago R. Mangubat. 54. Manuel M. 5. 72 21. 73 76 71 91 76 61 74 78 73.55 77 22. Vicente E. 9. 25. Rafael F. Venancio Bustos Ylaya.05 passing general average in the bar examination of august and November of 1946. Villavicencio. 70 per cent in 1948. Eduardo L. 972 70 7 70 1. The proposed is as follows: 69amendment 82 71. Buhay.05 As will be observed from Annex I.1Plomantes. 73 70 71 65 65 73 70 67 80 73 78 67 71 71 74 76 77 83 78 70 79 58 68 67 72 76 81 60 76 74 75 65 78 65 72 70 69 59 75 62 64 54 76 72 72 70 69 65 66 71 79 74 70 80 78 80 71 77 83 7 72 73 72 70 PETITIONERS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO.9Reyes. Celestino R. Ruperto G. 61 80 72. The 70amendments 75 73. concerning the admission of attorneys-at-law to the practice of the profession. 11.3 127 of the Rules of Court. (1952) Nestor 27. 20 per cent. 10 per cent. Grospe. Severino Fernandez. 65 23.35 The Enactment of Republic Act No. Alejandro Q. 78 and 70. he 76 must 72. 69. 73. Jose A. Federico V. 69.094. Eulogio J. petition. Reinerio L. 6. this Court reduced to 72 per cent 58the 79 72. 74 per in 1949. Enriquez. Crim. 56.15 Reyes. 69 per cent in 1947. 73. 16.8 This caused the introduction in 1951. 76 73 76 73 80 58 68 73 59 73 74 81 77 73. 13. 17. 12. 55. Manuel M. Sofronio O. but raising to 75 per cent those who obtained 74 per cent since 1950. 14 and 16 of Rule 68 68 72. Pol.6 75 72 68 62 71 70 SEC. in the Senate of the Philippines 72of Bill 73 No. Arellano. 29. Pedro N. Int. 67   . 28.2 61 y 84 80 70 70 65 69 68 R.4 maintaining the prescribed 75 per cent since 1950. Sumaway.05 14. 3. Figueroa.52. Marcos Ramos. Gen. 70 73 74 70 81 56 69 Civ. Sevilla.75 average. (Miss) 66 70 60 65 63 76 77 61 67 70 69 74 47 67 56 76 74 75 73 77 69 52 73 75 68 56 50 50 64 54 72 68 67 71 70 68 20. Political Law. Sulvio P. 15 per cent. 8. Constantino P. Luis N. the foregoing subjects shall be given the following 70 relative 71. — In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed the examinations successfully. 4.3have obtained a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. 5 per cent.35 12 which was intended to amend Sections 5. 12. 15. Passing average. Eugenio R.25 embrace many interesting matters. 78 75 70 67 69 77 64 Av.8 by this resolution. Angela P. Galema. Alfredo A. 10 per cent. Rem. de Viray. Land Merc. Casuncad. 77 24. 26.

he need not be examined in said subject in his next examination. shall be allowed to take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office. 4 and 5. This is not the case in any other government examination. That if the candidate fails to get a general average of 70 per cent in his third examination. 20 per cent. by the time that he has passed the last required subjects. This amendment provides that any application who Page 33 of 43    . With regards to the matter that interests us. We believe that the present system of requiring a candidate to obtain a passing general average with no grade in any subject below 50 per cent is more desirable and satisfactory. The trouble with this proposed system is that although it makes it easier and more convenient for the candidate because he may in an examination prepare himself on only one or two subjects so as to insure passing them. The comment was signed by seven Justices while three chose to refrain from making any and one took no part. 16. although failing to pass the examination. one or two or three subjects at a time. 1951. 12 having been approved by Congress on May 3. SEC. 1946. or who has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar. — Any applicant who has obtained a general average of 70 per cent in all subjects without falling below 50 per cent in any examination held after the 4th day of July. This is highly possible because there is nothing in the law which requires a candidate to continue taking the Bar examinations every year in succession. must pass the examination in no more that three installments. so as presently to be able to practice the legal profession and adequately render the legal service required by prospective clients. But this would not hold true of the candidates who may have obtained a passing grade on any five subjects eight years ago. 5 per cent. (Arts. he shall lose the benefit of having already passed some subjects and shall be required to the examination in all the subjects. 5 per cent. and prepared in all required legal subjects at the time of admission to the practice of law. the portion pertinent to the matter before us being: It seems to be unfair that unsuccessful candidates at bar examinations should be compelled to repeat even those subjects which they have previously passed. Unsuccessful candidates shall not be 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 be taken into account in determining their general average in any subsequent examinations: Provided." Senate Bill No. another three subjects one year later. 5 per cent. When a person is so admitted. however. 5 per cent. the Court said: The next amendment is of section 14 of Rule 127. Remedial Law. The Rules of Court have therefore been amended in this measure to give a candidate due credit for any subject which he has previously passed with a rating of 75 per cent or higher. No. Social Legislation. xxx xxx xxx We now come to the last amendment. 8. that of section 16 of Rule 127. Admission and oath of successful applicants. he shall have forgotten the principles and theories contained in those subjects and remembers only those of the one or two subjects that he had last reviewed and passed.International Law. and the last two subjects the present year. The only condition imposed is that a candidate. Taxation. This would defeat the object and the requirements of the law and the Court in admitting persons to the practice of law. One part of this amendment provides that if a bar candidate obtains 70 per cent or higher in any subject. the President requested the comments of this Tribunal before acting on the same. This is a sort of passing the Bar Examination on the installment plan. but there is no limitation as to the time or number of years intervening between each examination taken. It requires one to be all around. With the bill was an Explanatory Note. it is to be presumed and presupposed that he possesses the knowledge and proficiency in the law and the knowledge of all law subjects required in bar examinations. 12). which may be several years away from the time that he reviewed and passed the firs subjects. on this plan. Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises.

despite their non-admission to the Bar by the Supreme Court because they failed to obtain a passing general average in any of those years. In other words. This is not achieved. Another aspect of this question to be considered is the fact that members of the bar are officers of the courts. shall be allowed to take and subscribed the corresponding oath of office. but also rejecting and denying the petitions for reconsideration of those who have failed. must be admitted and allowed by this Court to serve as its officer. or resolution already promulgated. undeserving and unqualified. the bill contains provisions to which I find serious fundamental objections. stating the following: I am fully in accord with the avowed objection of the bill. and this phase of the amendment if finally enacted into law might have to go thru a legal test. 1947. As one member of the Court remarked during the discussion. 1946. We have already stated in our comment on the next preceding amendment that we are not exactly in favor of reducing the passing general average from 75 per cent to 70 per cent to govern even in the future. The President vetoed the bill on June 16. order. by admitting to practice precisely a special class who have failed in the bar examination. the Supreme Court passes the corresponding resolution not only admitting to the Bar those who have obtained a passing general average grade. competent and qualified to be its officer. This provision is not only prospective but retroactive in its effects. in the sense of revoking or rendering it void and of no effect. We repeat. namely. however. The present amendment would have the effect of repudiating. nevertheless and in spite of all. 1948. We should not lose sight of the fact that after every bar examinations. Section 5 provides that any applicant who has obtained a general average of 70 per cent in all subjects without failing below 50 per cent in any subject in any examination held after the 4th day of July. we have serious legal doubts. benefiting as it does specifically one group of persons.has obtained a general average of 70 per cent in all subjects without failing below 50 per cent in any subject in any examination held after the 4th day of July. namely. It is clear that this question involves legal implications. reversing and revoking the Supreme Court's resolution denying and rejecting the petitions of those who may have obtained an average of 70 per cent or more but less than the general passing average fixed for that year. to elevate the standard of the legal profession and maintain it on a high level. The present amendment giving retroactivity to the reduction of the passing general average runs counter to all these acts and resolutions of the Supreme Court and practically and in effect says that a candidate not accepted. when it refused and denied admission to the Bar to a candidate who in any year since 1946 may have obtained a general average of 70 per cent but less than that required for that year in order to pass. shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office. Conversely. including the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court equally and impliedly considered and declared that he was not prepared. the subsequent amendment or even repeal of said law or rule may not affect the final decision. 1949 and 1950 bar examinations. It should be noted that after every bar examination the Supreme Court passes the corresponding resolution not only admitting to the Bar those who have obtained a passing general average but also rejecting and Page 34 of 43    . Bar candidates who obtained not less than 70 per cent in any examination since the year 1946 without failing below 50 per cent in any subject. As to the validity of making such reduction retroactive. and even rejected by the Court to be its officer because he was unprepared. ready. The same provision undertakes to revoke or set aside final resolutions of the Supreme Court made in accordance with the law then in force. This provision constitutes class legislation. Moreover. that this is another important aspect of the question to be carefully and seriously considered. when a court renders a decision or promulgate a resolution or order on the basis of and in accordance with a certain law or rule then in force. competent and qualified to be its officer. the unsuccessful candidates in the 1946. 1951. 1946. will be admitted to the Bar. the Supreme Court impliedly regards him as a person fit. When a Bar candidate is admitted to the Bar.

72 per cent. SEC. for 1952 bar examination. 71 per cent. and Provided. article VI of the Constitution. In order to cure the apparent arbitrary fixing of passing grades and to give satisfaction to all parties concerned. Consequently. The Supreme Court has been altering the passing mark from 69 in 1947 to 74 in 1951. In this will we eliminated altogether the idea of having our Supreme Court assumed the supervision as well as the administration of the study of law which was objected to by the President in the Bar Bill of 1951. Rule 127 of the Rules of Court. With the following explanatory note: This is a revised Bar bill to meet the objections of the President and to afford another opportunity to those who feel themselves discriminated by the Supreme Court from 1946 to 1951 when those who would otherwise have passed the bar examination but were arbitrarily not so considered by altering its previous decisions of the passing mark. it is proposed in this bill a gradual increase in the general averages for passing the bar examinations as follows. That 75 per cent passing general average shall be restored in all succeeding examinations. The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing grade. 2. 1946 up to the August 1951 Bar examinations. for 1954 bar examination. 73 percent. 3. any bar candidate who obtained a general average of 70 per cent in any bar examinations after July 4. any exact one-half or more of a fraction. and for 1955 bar examination. 71 per cent in the 1952 bar examinations. however. The provision under consideration would have the effect of revoking the Supreme Court's resolution denying and rejecting the petitions of those who may have failed to obtain the passing average fixed for that year. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject in any bar examination after July 4. for 1953 bar examination. 74 per cent. Provided. 371 was presented in the Senate. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14. is the tremendous handicap which students during the years immediately after the Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of students who took up law soon after the liberation. 73 per cent in the 1954 bar examinations. Page 35 of 43    . 1945 shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing general average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take. architecture and certified public accountancy. engineering. Instead Bill No. but it was not repassed by 2/3 vote of each House as prescribed by section 20. That for the purpose of this Act. This bill shall take effect upon its approval. shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar.denying the petitions for reconsideration of those who have failed. For 1946 to 1951 bar examinations. Said provision also sets a bad precedent in that the Government would be morally obliged to grant a similar privilege to those who have failed in the examinations for admission to other professions such as medicine. finally. It reads as follows: AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR EXAMINATIONS FROM 1946 UP TO AND INCLUDING 1953 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Thus in 1956 the passing mark will be restored with the condition that the candidate shall not obtain in any subject a grade of below 50 per cent. 70 per cent. shall be considered as one and included as part of the next whole number. the bill was returned to the Congress of the Philippines. It is believed that by 1956 the preparation of our students as well as the available reading materials will be under normal conditions. 74 per cent in 1955 bar examinations without a candidate obtaining a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. SEC. if not improved from those years preceding the last world war. 72 per cent in the 1953 bar examinations.

1015. 53 Sup. with a wide margin of discretion conceded to the lawmakers. E. The constitution does not prohibit special laws inflexibly and always. 36. Only in the case of plain abuse will there be revision by the court. to the Assistant Executive Secretary. 286 U. Another case penned by Justice Cardozo: "Time with its tides brings new conditions which must be cared for by new laws. 1951. however. in good conscience. 371. 1951. 77 L. 431). or classification. by virtue of which it became a law Page 36 of 43    . Ed. correct because Congress is merely supplementing what the Supreme Court have already established as precedent by making as low as 69 per cent the passing mark of those who took the Bar examination in 1947. N. Sometimes the condition affect only a few. When a class is accepted by the Court as "natural" it cannot be again split and then have the dissevered factions of the original unit designated with different rules established for each. the members of the Court are taking the same views they expressed on Senate Bill No. the correcting statute must apply to all alike. is very expressed in the following American Jurisprudence: A valid classification must include all who naturally belong to the class. without giving due consideration to the rights already accrued or vested in the bar candidates who took the examination when the precedent was not yet altered. with the information that. These bar candidates for who this bill should be enacted. or in effect. (In Williams vs. attribute. If so. It permits them when there are special evils with which the general laws are incompetent to cope. which endorsed the following: Respectfully returned to the Honorable. with respect to Senate Bill No.) RICARDO PARAS The President allowed the period within which the bill should be signed to pass without vetoing it. the Acting Executive Secretary. is not. vs. (Fountain Park Co. 465 (1926). 12 passed by Congress in May. The problem in the last analysis is one of legislative policy. He considered the bill a class legislation. Sometimes the new conditions affect the members of a class. it shall be considered as a simple curative act or corrective statute which Congress has the power to enact. Ct. constitutionally.) PABLO Senator ANGELES DAVID Without much debate. all who possess a common disability. The requirement of a "valid classification" as against class legislation. 199 Ind. If so. (Sgd. (Sgd. and there must be a "natural" and substantial differentiation between those included in the class and those it leaves untouched. If this bill would be enacted. was still enforced and without being inconsistent with the principles of their previous resolutions. S. Rensier. . contained in the first indorsement of the undersigned dated June 5. We believe that such precedent cannot or could not have been altered. Manila. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. the correcting statute may be as narrow as the mischief. (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. by the Supreme Court. . 95. This contention. the revised bill was passed by Congress as above transcribed. considered themselves as having passed the bar examination on the strength of the established precedent of our Supreme Court and were fully aware of the insurmountable difficulties and handicaps which they were unavoidably placed. The President again asked the comments of this Court.The President in vetoing the Bar Bill last year stated among his objections that the bill would admit to the practice of law "a special class who failed in the bar examination". The special public purpose will sustain the special form. . For the foregoing purposes the approval of this bill is earnestly recommended.

and lies completely with this Court. privilege of a lower passing grade. Why should those taking the examinations in 1953. in order that a bar candidate "may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully. 1947. but. they lost in the polls. the exclusive privilege of this Court. together. because it is an undue interference with the power of this Court to admit members thereof. VI. 20. concurring and dissenting: The right to admit members to the Bar is. 12 candidates with general averages ranging from 72 to 73 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of December 18. 127. 73 per cent in 1954. In the examinations of November. It may be mentioned in passing that 1953 was an election year. 1948. 1946. and has always been. without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. with certain exception presently to be specified. however. were allowed to pass by resolution of April 28.' This passing mark has always been adhered to. and on motion for reconsideration. C. for the year 1947 the Court in Page 37 of 43    . and 74 per cent in 1955 should be considered as having passed the examination. It is a mandate to the tribunal to pass candidates for different years with grades lower than the passing mark. 1948. 19 candidates with a general average of 72 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of March 31. 1954 and 1955 be allowed to have the PARAS. Thus the rules on the holding of examination.J. however. are within the scope of the legislative power. 1946 the list first released containing the names of successful candidates covered only those who obtained a general average of 75 per cent or more. But the power to determine when a candidate has made or has not made the required grade is judicial. because lawyers are members of the Court and only this Court should be allowed to determine admission thereto in the interest of the principle of the separation of powers. because it is not embraced within the rule-making power of Congress. 974). Thus. Art. After the original list of 1947 successful bar candidates had been released. while those taking earlier or later are not? I vote that the act in toto be declared unconstitutional. This power should be distinguished from the power to promulgate rules which regulate admission. It is furthermore objectionable as discriminatory. I hold that the act under consideration is an exercise of the judicial function. J. To say that candidates who obtain a general average of 72 per cent in 1953. all candidates with a general average of 69 per cent were allowed to pass by resolution of July 15... and lies beyond the scope of the congressional prerogative of amending the rules. and that both the President and the author of the Bill were candidates for re-election. and because it is discriminatory.on June 21. This would indicate that in the original list of successful candidates those having a general average of 73 per cent or more but below 75 per cent were included. Upon motion for reconsideration. It is only this power (to promulgate amendments to the rules) that is given in the Constitution to the Congress. etc. No reasoning is necessary to show that it is an arrogation of the Court's judicial authority and discretion. he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects. the original list of successful candidates included only those who obtained a general average of 75 per cent or more. dissenting: Under section 145 of Rule of Court No. With respect to the bar examinations held in August. Separate Opinions LABRADOR. the passing grades. With reference to the bar examinations given in August. all those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more. not the exercise of the discretion to admit or not to admit. is to mean exercise of the privilege and discretion judged in this Court. Constitution) numbered 972 (many times erroneously cited as No. The power to admit is judicial in the sense that discretion is used in is exercise. 1946. in addition to the original list of successful bar candidates. upon motion for reconsideration. the qualifications of applicants. 1949. 1953 (Sec. irrespective of the grades in any one subject and irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration.

or supplement the rules concerning pleading. alter or supplement said rules. Under Republic Act No. praying that they be admitted to the practice of law under and by virtue of said Act. Bautista and Jugo. and (4) the equal division among the examiners of all the admission fees paid by bar applicants. Page 38 of 43    . Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish. were invited to argue or submit memoranda as amici curiae. by the President by merely not signing it within the required period. section 13. 70 per cent. were eliminated. 972 and failed to obtain the necessary passing average. Montemayor. and members of the bar. filed motions for reconsideration invoking the precedents set by this Court in 1947 and 1948. especially authorized representatives of bar associations. without obtaining a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. 1946. filed with this Court mass or separate petitions. Republic Act No. the Congress passed another bill similar to the previous bill vetoed by the President. speaking for the people. practice. upon the allegation that they have obtained the general averages prescribed therein. the Congress has the power to repeal. Said Act also provides that any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject in any examination after July 4. but said motions were uniformly denied. the reason alleged for said hearing being that some doubt had "been expressed on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. In 1953. without being noticed perhaps. and procedure." All discussions in support of the proposition that the power to regulate the admission to the practice of law is inherently judicial. Tuason. among others. This bill was vetoed by the President mainly in view of an unfavorable comment of Justices Padilla. 1953. The Congress shall have the power to repeal. 1946 up to August 1951. practice. In the year 1951. Numerous flunkers in the bar examinations held subsequent to 1948. and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. practice. (2) the inclusion of Social Legislation and Taxation as new bar subjects. 1953 a hearing on said petitions. and 74 per cent in the 1955 bar examinations. This second bill was allowed to become a law. Little intelligence is necessary to see that the power of the Supreme Court and the Congress to regulate the admission to the practice of law is concurrent. 72 per cent in 1953 bar examinations. retroactive to any bar examination held after July 4. and law graduates appeared and argued lengthily pro or con. increase or modify substantive right. and for the year 1948. Reyes.effect made 69 per cent as the passing average. practising attorneys. and the admission to the practice of law. 1946. the Congress. with the important difference that in the later bill the provisions in the first bill regarding (1) the supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court of the study of law. because the subject is now governed by the Constitution which in Article VII. and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes and are declared Rules of Court. chose to repass the bill first vetoed by him. and this amounted. Numerous candidates who had taken the bar examinations previous to the approval of Republic Act No. approved a bill providing. presidents of bar associations. The existing laws on pleading. to an amendment of section 14 of Rule 127. In virtue of the resolution of July 6. while the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law. shall be allowed to pass. 71 per cent in the 1952 bar examinations. whose general averages mostly ranged from 69 to 73 per cent. 972. Under this constitutional provision. and procedure in all courts. are immaterial. 972 in so far as it affects past bar examinations and the matter" involved "a new question of public interest. for the reduction of the passing general average from 75 per cent to 70 per cent. and in doing so the President gave due respect to the will of the Congress which. 73 per cent in the 1954 bar examinations. shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing in any subsequent examinations. this Court held on July 11. after public hearings where law deans and professors. subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. alter. (3) the publication of the bar examiners before the holding of the examination. provides as follows: The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading. 972. any bar candidates who obtained a general average of 70 per cent in any examinations after July 4.

the bar admission of those whose general averages were from 75 to 79 per cent. A law would be objectionable and unconstitutional if. irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration. and we can fairly suppose that the classification adopted in the Act reflects good legislative judgment derived from the facts and circumstances then brought out. Republic Act No. 1946. when this Court on July 15. In stands to reason. that the latter may validly pass a retroactive rule fixing the passing general average. interference in judicial adjudication prohibited by the Constitution is essentially aimed at protecting rights of litigants that have already been vested or acquired in virtue of decisions of courts. unlike justiciable cases. because bar examinations and the admission to the practice of law. Neither can it be said that bar candidates prior to July 4. At any rate. apart from the circumstance that 75 per cent had always been the passing mark during said period. specially on motions for reconsiderations filed by flunkers in any give year. because it sets aside the final resolutions of the Supreme Court refusing to admit to the practice of law the various petitioners. Besides. it is a mere curative statute intended to correct certain obvious inequalities arising from the adoption by this Court of different passing general averages in certain years. and denies to no one the right to due process and equal protection of the law. is unconstitutional. because during the examinations held in August 1947 and August 1948. 972 certainly is not an ex post facto enactment. On the other hand. effective several years before the date of the resolution. it in effect amended section 14 of Rule 127 retroactively. in so far as it covers bar examinations held prior to its approval. it is sufficient to state that. Republic Act No. resolutions on the rejection of bar candidates do not have the finality of decisions in justiciable cases where the Rules of Court expressly fix certain periods after which they become executory and unalterable. whose general average is below 80 per cent. Indeed.The opponents of Republic Act No. if there is any interference at all. does not impair any obligation and contract or vested rights. do not affect opposing litigants. and this has been the practice heretofore. thereby resulting in a legislative encroachment upon the judicial power. because said statute would then destroy a right already acquired under previous resolutions of this Court. 1948 allowed to pass all candidates who obtained a general average of 69 per cent or more and on April 28. It is no more than the function of other examining boards. in the exercise of its rule-making power conferred by the Constitution. Resolutions on bar matters. 1946. retroactive laws are not prohibited by the Constitution. it is one expressly sanctioned by the Constitution. if we are to admit that the Supreme Court and the Congress have concurrent power to regulate the admission to the practice of law. 1949 those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more. Page 39 of 43    . to the Supreme Court. namely. The obvious reason is that bar examinations and admission to the practice of law may be deemed as a judicial function only because said matters happen to be entrusted. because we no longer have any record of those who might have failed before the war. 972 argue that this Act. will not be allowed to practice law. it would provide that those who have been admitted to the bar after July 4. the statute will not affect the previous resolutions passing bar candidates who had obtained the general average prescribed by section 14 of Rule 127. may pass a resolution amending section 14 of Rule 127 by reducing the passing average to 70 per cent. 972 has not produced a case involving two parties and decided by the Court in favor of one and against the other. would impair obligations and contracts or vested rights or would deny due process and equal protection of the law. regardless of the period within which the motion were filed. are subject to revision by this Court at any time. are being discriminated against. It may also be that there are no pre-war bar candidates similarly situated as those benefited by Republic Act No. for instance. In the second place. In my opinion this view is erroneous. In the first place. not merely for the empty purpose of creating appearances of separation and equality among the three branches of the Government. 972. said section (fixing the general average at 75 per cent) was supposed to be in force. Without fear of contradiction. There is no judicial function involved. the reasonableness must be determined by the legislative body. It is proper to recall that the Congress held public hearings. except only when they would be ex post facto. As regards the alleged interference in or encroachment upon the judgment of this Court by the Legislative Department. in the matter of classification. in the subject and constitutional sense of the word. Needless to say. under the Constitution and our Rules of Court. I think the Supreme Court.

or supplement the Rules of Court regarding the admission to the practice of law. 73 per cent in 1954. because it is not embraced within the rule-making power of Congress. dissenting: Under section 145 of Rule of Court No. I am inclined to accept Republic Act No. 127. Why should those taking the examinations in 1953. It is furthermore objectionable as discriminatory. and lies beyond the scope of the congressional prerogative of amending the rules. I hold that Republic Act No. Anyway. No reasoning is necessary to show that it is an arrogation of the Court's judicial authority and discretion. in the same way that this Court may not do so. where we can and should only hope that the right men are put in the right places in our Government.. and has always been. in the exercise of its concurrent power to repeal. because it is an undue interference with the power of this Court to admit members thereof. and yet it has consistently refrained from nullifying them solely on that ground. as do the members of this Court. and because it is discriminatory. however. The right to admit members to the Bar is. since this Court had already adopted as passing averages 69 per cent for the 1947 bar examinations and 70 per cent for the 1948 examinations. is to mean exercise of the privilege and discretion judged in this Court. is to assume that the matter of whether said Act is beneficial or harmful to the general public was not considered by the Congress. arbitrary or capricious.J. J. the exclusive privilege of this Court. the Congress held public hearings. It is a mandate to the tribunal to pass candidates for different years with grades lower than the passing mark. alter. On the question of public interest I may observe that the Congress. loyal. should be more qualified to make an appraisal.Republic Act No. since this is a matter that is addressed to the judgment of the legislators. the qualifications of applicants. 972 as an expression of the will of the people through their duly elected representatives. It is only this power (to promulgate amendments to the rules) that is given in the Constitution to the Congress. This Court in many instances had doubted the propriety of legislative enactments. not go to the extent of admitting that the Congress. in order that a bar candidate "may be deemed to have passed his examinations Page 40 of 43    . etc. The power to admit is judicial in the sense that discretion is used in is exercise.. Separate Opinions LABRADOR. 972 is constitutional and should therefore be given effect in its entirety. incidental to a democracy. because lawyers are members of the Court and only this Court should be allowed to determine admission thereto in the interest of the principle of the separation of powers. and we are bound to assume that the legislators. Thus the rules on the holding of examination. concurring and dissenting: PARAS. As already stated. to their oath of office. I hold that the act under consideration is an exercise of the judicial function. We are thus left in the situation. while those taking earlier or later are not? I vote that the act in toto be declared unconstitutional. and 74 per cent in 1955 should be considered as having passed the examination. 1954 and 1955 be allowed to have the privilege of a lower passing grade. and lies completely with this Court. we should not inquire into the wisdom of the law. To say that the admission of the bar candidates benefited under Republic Act 972 is against public interest. may act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. the passing grades. This power should be distinguished from the power to promulgate rules which regulate admission. are within the scope of the legislative power. I would. Wherefore. To say that candidates who obtain a general average of 72 per cent in 1953. C. representing the people who elected them. But the power to determine when a candidate has made or has not made the required grade is judicial. had taken all the circumstances into account before passing the Act. 972 cannot be assailed on the ground that it is unreasonable. not the exercise of the discretion to admit or not to admit.

Republic Act No. praying that they be admitted to the practice of law under and by virtue of said Act. This bill was vetoed by the President mainly in view of an unfavorable comment of Justices Padilla. and in doing so the President gave due respect to the will of the Congress which. the reason alleged for said hearing being that some doubt had "been expressed on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 71 per cent in the 1952 bar examinations. After the original list of 1947 successful bar candidates had been released.' This passing mark has always been adhered to. irrespective of the grades in any one subject and irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration. chose to repass the bill first vetoed by him. speaking for the people. all those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more. 1946. Tuason. (3) the publication of the bar examiners before the holding of the examination. to an amendment of section 14 of Rule 127. and (4) the equal division among the examiners of all the admission fees paid by bar applicants. and members of the bar. the original list of successful candidates included only those who obtained a general average of 75 per cent or more. with the important difference that in the later bill the provisions in the first bill regarding (1) the supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court of the study of law. 972 and failed to obtain the necessary passing average. and law graduates appeared and argued lengthily pro or con." Page 41 of 43    . and on motion for reconsideration. 1947.successfully. this Court held on July 11. without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. In the examinations of November. but. and 74 per cent in the 1955 bar examinations. with certain exception presently to be specified. 1946 the list first released containing the names of successful candidates covered only those who obtained a general average of 75 per cent or more. but said motions were uniformly denied. This would indicate that in the original list of successful candidates those having a general average of 73 per cent or more but below 75 per cent were included. however. approved a bill providing. 972. Numerous candidates who had taken the bar examinations previous to the approval of Republic Act No. 972. With respect to the bar examinations held in August. he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects. Upon motion for reconsideration. shall be allowed to pass. whose general averages mostly ranged from 69 to 73 per cent. presidents of bar associations. upon the allegation that they have obtained the general averages prescribed therein. for the reduction of the passing general average from 75 per cent to 70 per cent. 72 per cent in 1953 bar examinations. In the year 1951. With reference to the bar examinations given in August. all candidates with a general average of 69 per cent were allowed to pass by resolution of July 15. 1953. especially authorized representatives of bar associations. In 1953. Numerous flunkers in the bar examinations held subsequent to 1948. among others. Said Act also provides that any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject in any examination after July 4. 73 per cent in the 1954 bar examinations. 12 candidates with general averages ranging from 72 to 73 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of December 18. any bar candidates who obtained a general average of 70 per cent in any examinations after July 4. and this amounted. 19 candidates with a general average of 72 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of March 31. This second bill was allowed to become a law. filed motions for reconsideration invoking the precedents set by this Court in 1947 and 1948. were eliminated. Reyes. 1946. without obtaining a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. by the President by merely not signing it within the required period. upon motion for reconsideration. without being noticed perhaps. after public hearings where law deans and professors. 1949. practising attorneys. were allowed to pass by resolution of April 28. (2) the inclusion of Social Legislation and Taxation as new bar subjects. were invited to argue or submit memoranda as amici curiae. Thus. and for the year 1948. the Congress. 972 in so far as it affects past bar examinations and the matter" involved "a new question of public interest. 1946. 1948. Montemayor. shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing in any subsequent examinations. 1946. for the year 1947 the Court in effect made 69 per cent as the passing average. In virtue of the resolution of July 6. 1953 a hearing on said petitions. filed with this Court mass or separate petitions. 70 per cent. Bautista and Jugo. retroactive to any bar examination held after July 4. 1948. the Congress passed another bill similar to the previous bill vetoed by the President. 1946 up to August 1951. Under Republic Act No. in addition to the original list of successful bar candidates.

and we can fairly suppose that the classification adopted in the Act reflects good legislative judgment derived from the facts and circumstances then brought out. section 13. practice. and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes and are declared Rules of Court. not merely for the empty purpose of creating appearances of separation and equality among the three branches of the Government. it Page 42 of 43    . Besides. In the second place. because it sets aside the final resolutions of the Supreme Court refusing to admit to the practice of law the various petitioners. for instance. A law would be objectionable and unconstitutional if. while the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law. thereby resulting in a legislative encroachment upon the judicial power. The obvious reason is that bar examinations and admission to the practice of law may be deemed as a judicial function only because said matters happen to be entrusted. Resolutions on bar matters. it is sufficient to state that. interference in judicial adjudication prohibited by the Constitution is essentially aimed at protecting rights of litigants that have already been vested or acquired in virtue of decisions of courts. would impair obligations and contracts or vested rights or would deny due process and equal protection of the law. Neither can it be said that bar candidates prior to July 4. 1946. in the matter of classification. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish. and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. The Congress shall have the power to repeal. does not impair any obligation and contract or vested rights. is unconstitutional. Republic Act No. and this has been the practice heretofore. unlike justiciable cases. In the first place. are immaterial. it is a mere curative statute intended to correct certain obvious inequalities arising from the adoption by this Court of different passing general averages in certain years. if there is any interference at all. resolutions on the rejection of bar candidates do not have the finality of decisions in justiciable cases where the Rules of Court expressly fix certain periods after which they become executory and unalterable. On the other hand. At any rate. There is no judicial function involved. The opponents of Republic Act No. or supplement the rules concerning pleading. 972. Needless to say. practice. As regards the alleged interference in or encroachment upon the judgment of this Court by the Legislative Department. it is one expressly sanctioned by the Constitution. the reasonableness must be determined by the legislative body. apart from the circumstance that 75 per cent had always been the passing mark during said period. because the subject is now governed by the Constitution which in Article VII. and denies to no one the right to due process and equal protection of the law. The existing laws on pleading. retroactive laws are not prohibited by the Constitution. and the admission to the practice of law. the Congress has the power to repeal. It is proper to recall that the Congress held public hearings. Little intelligence is necessary to see that the power of the Supreme Court and the Congress to regulate the admission to the practice of law is concurrent. Republic Act No. 972 has not produced a case involving two parties and decided by the Court in favor of one and against the other. and procedure.All discussions in support of the proposition that the power to regulate the admission to the practice of law is inherently judicial. It may also be that there are no pre-war bar candidates similarly situated as those benefited by Republic Act No. and procedure in all courts. increase or modify substantive right. except only when they would be ex post facto. It is no more than the function of other examining boards. in the subject and constitutional sense of the word. regardless of the period within which the motion were filed. practice. because we no longer have any record of those who might have failed before the war. do not affect opposing litigants. specially on motions for reconsiderations filed by flunkers in any give year. 972 certainly is not an ex post facto enactment. Under this constitutional provision. subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. alter. In my opinion this view is erroneous. the statute will not affect the previous resolutions passing bar candidates who had obtained the general average prescribed by section 14 of Rule 127. because bar examinations and the admission to the practice of law. alter or supplement said rules. in so far as it covers bar examinations held prior to its approval. 972 argue that this Act. provides as follows: The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading. under the Constitution and our Rules of Court. to the Supreme Court. are subject to revision by this Court at any time. are being discriminated against.

or supplement the Rules of Court regarding the admission to the practice of law. As already stated. On the question of public interest I may observe that the Congress. if we are to admit that the Supreme Court and the Congress have concurrent power to regulate the admission to the practice of law. because said statute would then destroy a right already acquired under previous resolutions of this Court. in the same way that this Court may not do so. had taken all the circumstances into account before passing the Act. Anyway. namely. said section (fixing the general average at 75 per cent) was supposed to be in force. in the exercise of its concurrent power to repeal. in the exercise of its rule-making power conferred by the Constitution. This Court in many instances had doubted the propriety of legislative enactments. to their oath of office. We are thus left in the situation. where we can and should only hope that the right men are put in the right places in our Government. 1949 those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more. we should not inquire into the wisdom of the law. irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration. the bar admission of those whose general averages were from 75 to 79 per cent. 972 cannot be assailed on the ground that it is unreasonable. incidental to a democracy. should be more qualified to make an appraisal. effective several years before the date of the resolution. I think the Supreme Court. Without fear of contradiction. because during the examinations held in August 1947 and August 1948. however. 1948 allowed to pass all candidates who obtained a general average of 69 per cent or more and on April 28.would provide that those who have been admitted to the bar after July 4. In stands to reason. it in effect amended section 14 of Rule 127 retroactively. 972 is constitutional and should therefore be given effect in its entirety. alter. may act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 1946. and we are bound to assume that the legislators. and yet it has consistently refrained from nullifying them solely on that ground. since this Court had already adopted as passing averages 69 per cent for the 1947 bar examinations and 70 per cent for the 1948 examinations. is to assume that the matter of whether said Act is beneficial or harmful to the general public was not considered by the Congress. as do the members of this Court. 972 as an expression of the will of the people through their duly elected representatives. Republic Act No. Page 43 of 43    . may pass a resolution amending section 14 of Rule 127 by reducing the passing average to 70 per cent. when this Court on July 15. since this is a matter that is addressed to the judgment of the legislators. not go to the extent of admitting that the Congress. will not be allowed to practice law. I hold that Republic Act No. I am inclined to accept Republic Act No. arbitrary or capricious. whose general average is below 80 per cent. representing the people who elected them. Indeed. To say that the admission of the bar candidates benefited under Republic Act 972 is against public interest. loyal. the Congress held public hearings. that the latter may validly pass a retroactive rule fixing the passing general average. Wherefore. I would.