You are on page 1of 76

RENATO CAYETANO vs.CHRISTIAN MONSOD G.R. No.

100113 September 3, 1991

Black defines "practice of law" as: The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.) The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650) A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: ... for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or Page 1 of 12 

PARAS, J.:p We are faced here with a controversy of far-reaching proportions. While ostensibly only legal issues are involved, the Court's decision in this case would indubitably have a profound effect on the political aspect of our national existence. The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding -elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (Emphasis supplied) The aforequoted provision is patterned after Section l(l), Article XIIC of the 1973 Constitution which similarly provides: There shall be an independent Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and eight Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age and holders of a college degree. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.' (Emphasis supplied) Regrettably, however, there seems to be no jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of law as a legal qualification to an appointive office.

 

while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v..C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852) This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava, (105 Phil. 173,176-177) stated: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied) Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require

in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139,144). (Emphasis ours) The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation briefing for new lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the practice of law in even broader terms as advocacy, counselling and public service. One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of employment in the profession. If what he does exacts knowledge of the law and is of a kind usual for attorneys engaging in the active practice of their profession, and he follows some one or more lines of employment such as this he is a practicing attorney at law within the meaning of the statute. (Barr v. Cardell, 155 NW 312) Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or Page 2 of 12 

 

render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23) The following records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it has adopted a liberal interpretation of the term "practice of law." MR. FOZ. Before we suspend the session, may I make a manifestation which I forgot to do during our review of the provisions on the Commission on Audit. May I be allowed to make a very brief statement? THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir). The Commissioner will please proceed. MR. FOZ. This has to do with the qualifications of the members of the Commission on Audit. Among others, the qualifications provided for by Section I is that "They must be Members of the Philippine Bar" — I am quoting from the provision — "who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years". To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding members of the Bar who are now employed in the COA or Commission on Audit, we would like to make the clarification that this provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment as

members or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on Audit. This has been discussed by the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies and we deem it important to take it up on the floor so that this interpretation may be made available whenever this provision on the qualifications as regards members of the Philippine Bar engaging in the practice of law for at least ten years is taken up. MR. OPLE. Will Commissioner Foz yield to just one question. MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. MR. OPLE. Is he, in effect, saying that service in the COA by a lawyer is equivalent to the requirement of a law practice that is set forth in the Article on the Commission on Audit? MR. FOZ. We must consider the fact that the work of COA, although it is auditing, will necessarily involve legal work; it will involve legal work. And, therefore, lawyers who are employed in COA now would have the necessary qualifications in accordance with the Provision on qualifications under our provisions on the Commission on Audit. And, therefore, the answer is yes. MR. OPLE. Yes. So that the construction given to this is that this is equivalent to the practice of law. MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. MR. OPLE. Thank you. Page 3 of 12 

 

By no means will most of this work involve litigation. not reality. p. 4). The test that defines law practice by looking to traditional areas of law practice is essentially tautologous. 325." (Business Star. .). 11. (Wolfram.: Minnesota. (emphasis supplied) Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner" and which is in many ways synonymous with the word "lawyer. among others. In this regard thus. I[t] need not [be] stress[ed] that in law. The business lawyer has been described as the planner. p. (Ibid. (State Bar Ass'n v. ( Emphasis supplied) Section 1(1). 15). [1986]. it might be helpful to define private practice.2d 623. The term. Nonetheless. 128 Conn. At this point. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. once articulated on the importance of a lawyer as a business counselor in this wise: "Even today." (Ibid. or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. although many lawyers do not engage in private practice. (Ibid. 145 Conn. "Corporate Finance Law. there are younger or more inexperienced salaried attorneyscalled "associates. 1986]. there are still uninformed laymen whose concept of an attorney is one who principally tries cases before the courts. a lawyer will shift from one legal task or role such as advice-giving to an importantly different one such as representing a client before an administrative agency. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. commonly understood to be the practice of law.). 687). (Gary Munneke. Instead. p. as commonly understood. 593). In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks.(Wolfram. In most firms.). General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more time doing what [is] loosely desccribe[d] as business counseling than in trying cases. cit. surgery should be avoided where internal medicine can be effective. The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen.). 593). The practice of law is defined as the performance of any acts ." (Ibid. Lawyers who practice alone are often called "sole practitioners. Wolfram." Today. the diagnostician and the trial lawyer. provides. legal skills. clients. legal institutions. (Charles W. In either case.. 140 A. a corporate lawyer.2d 863. and other interested parties. supra. substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms. op. means "an individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services. And even within a narrow specialty such as tax practice. the dominance of litigation in the public mind reflects history. such a definition would obviously be too global to be workable. Most lawyers spend little time in courtrooms. the members of the firm are the experienced attorneys." Groups of lawyers are called "firms. v. unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. . Why is this so? Recall that the late Alexander SyCip.. Modern Legal Ethics [West Publishing Co. unhelpful defining the practice of law as that which lawyers do. legal processes. 222. 626 [1941])." Jan.. the surgeon. Payne. 22 A. it is still a fact that the majority of lawyers are private practitioners..). the Page 4 of 12    . in or out of court. The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of a client is at once the most publicly familiar role for lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer. many lawyers do continue to litigate and the litigating lawyer's role colors much of both the public image and the self perception of the legal profession. and a large percentage spend their entire practice without litigating a case. as in medicine.. that the Chairman and two Commissioners of the Commission on Audit (COA) should either be certified public accountants with not less than ten years of auditing practice. Because lawyers perform almost every function known in the commercial and governmental realm. (Ibid. p. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and the members called shareholders. Opportunities in Law Careers [VGM Career Horizons: Illinois]. p. 1989. each involving different legal doctrines. 870 [1958] [quoting Grievance Comm. know that in most developed societies today." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the partners. Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution.

and negotiation. Lawyers. and electronic computing equipment. Truth to tell. advice-giving. wherein a "model". In a complex legal problem the mass of information to be processed. are finding that understanding the major emerging trends in corporation law is indispensable to intelligent decision-making. Certainly. document drafting. 11. the subject of corporate finance law has received relatively little organized and formalized attention in the philosophy of advancing corporate legal education. a departure from the traditional concept of practice of law. at least theoretically.work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client counselling. many situations involving corporate finance problems would require the services of an astute attorney because of the complex legal implications that arise from each and every necessary step in securing and maintaining the business issue raised. particularly with either a master's or doctorate degree in business administration or management. 1989. (Business Star. the necessity of estimating the consequences of given courses of action. p. functioning at the legal policy level of decision-making now have some appreciation for the concepts and analytical techniques of other professions which are currently engaged in similar types of complex decision-making. And increasingly lawyers find that the new skills of evaluation and mediation are both effective for many clients and a source of employment.). automatic data processing. Lawyers and other professional groups. In several issues of the Business Star.). The most common of these roles are those of corporate practice and government legal service. operational analysis." Jan. a business daily. 4). an improved decisional structure must stress the predictive component of the policymaking process. the most prominent is that of prosecutor. In some lawyers' work the constraints are imposed both by the nature of the client and by the way in which the lawyer is organized into a social unit to perform that work. a cross-disciplinary approach to legal research has become a vital necessity. "Corporate Finance Law. particularly "model-making" and "contingency planning. and the need for fast decision and response in situations of acute danger have prompted the use of sophisticated concepts of information flow theory. (Ibid. so as to remove from it some of the salient features of adversarial litigation. Although members of the legal profession are regularly engaged in predicting and projecting the trends of the law. the appraisal of major trends. Understandably." has impressed upon us the inadequacy of traditional procedures in many decisional contexts. in particular those members participating in various legal-policy decisional contexts. Page 5 of 12    . The recognition of the need for such improved corporate legal policy formulation. Constructive adjustment to major corporate problems of today requires an accurate understanding of the nature and implications of the corporate law research function accompanied by an accelerating rate of information accumulation. herein below quoted are emerging trends in corporate law practice. the general orientation for productive contributions by those trained primarily in the law can be improved through an early introduction to multivariable decisional context and the various approaches for handling such problems. We are experiencing today what truly may be called a revolutionary transformation in corporate law practice. (Ibid. Nonetheless. Of these special roles. the sorting and weighing of significant conditional factors. of the decisional context or a segment thereof is developed to test projected alternative courses of action in terms of futuristic effects flowing therefrom. Most lawyers will engage in non-litigation legal work or in litigation work that is constrained in very important ways.

inter alia: corporate legal research. These include such matters as determining policy and becoming involved in management. No longer are we talking of the traditional law teaching method of confining the subject study to the Corporation Code and the Securities Code but an incursion as well into the intertwining modern management issues. To borrow the lines of Harvard-educated lawyer Bruce Wassertein.In our litigation-prone country. 4). is a lawyer who handles the legal affairs of a corporation. and the excellent lawyer is one who surmounts them. Today. Because working in a foreign country is perceived by many as glamorous. At any rate. ( Emphasis supplied. Many smaller and some large corporations farm out all their legal problems to private law firms. acting out as corporate secretary (in board meetings). for all intents and purposes. p. however. or not understanding how one's work actually fits into the work of the orgarnization. In most cases. 4). a corporate lawyer may assume responsibilities other than the legal affairs of the business of the corporation he is representing.e. 1989. "Corporate Finance Law. Despite the growing number of corporate lawyers. a corporate lawyer's services may sometimes be engaged by a multinational corporation (MNC). appearances in both courts and other adjudicatory agencies (including the Securities and Exchange Commission). Many others have in-house counsel only for certain matters. one may have a feeling of being isolated from the action. Other corporation have a staff large enough to handle most legal problems in-house. In short. His areas of concern or jurisdiction may include.) In a big company. A corporate lawyer. a corporate lawyer is sometimes offered this fortune to be more closely involved in the running of the business. Moreover. "Corporate Law Practice. the number of attorneys employed by a single corporation will vary with the size and type of the corporation. (2) an introduction to usable disciplinary skins applicable to a corporate counsel's management responsibilities. many people could not explain what it is that a corporate lawyer does. tills is an area coveted by corporate lawyers. for example. i. and in other capacities which require an ability to deal with the law." Jan. and (3) a devotion to the organization and management of the legal function itself. p." May 25. For one. tax laws research. After all.. the overseas jobs go to experienced attorneys while the younger attorneys do their "international practice" in law libraries. a corporate lawyer is assiduously referred to as the "abogado de campanilla. a good lawyer is one who perceives the difficulties. to wit: "A bad lawyer is one who fails to spot problems. This can be frustrating to someone who needs to see the results of his work first hand. 11. international law is practiced in a relatively small number of companies and law firms. (Business Star." (Business Star. This brings us to the inevitable." so to speak. Page 6 of 12    ." He is the "big-time" lawyer. earning big money and with a clientele composed of the tycoons and magnates of business and industry. Some large MNCs provide one of the few opportunities available to corporate lawyers to enter the international law field. the role of the lawyer in the realm of finance.1990. Such corporate legal management issues deal primarily with three (3) types of learning: (1) acquisition of insights into current advances which are of particular significance to the corporate counsel. the study of corporate law practice direly needs a "shot in the arm.

In general. the nature of the lawyer's participation in decision-making within the corporation is rapidly changing. Firms increasingly collaborate not only with public entities but with each other — often with those who are competitors in other arenas. social. For that matter. The salience of the nation-state is being reduced as firms deal both with global multinational entities and simultaneously with subnational governmental units. promoting team achievements within the organization. The field of systems dynamics has been found an effective tool for new managerial thinking regarding both planning and pressing immediate problems. the legal managerial capabilities of the corporate lawyer vis-a-vis the managerial mettle of corporations are challenged. the office of the Corporate Counsel comprises a distinct group within the managerial structure of all kinds of organizations. These trends are complicated as corporations organize for global operations. (Emphasis supplied) Following the concept of boundary spanning. Otherwise known as "intersecting managerial jurisprudence. enable users to simulate all sorts of systematic problems — physical. the corporate lawyer reviews the globalization process." it forms a unifying theme for the corporate counsel's total learning. economic. The modem corporate lawyer has gained a new role as a stakeholder — in some cases participating in the organization and operations of governance through participation on boards and other decision-making roles. such external activities are better predictors of team performance than internal group processes. New collaborative arrangements for promoting specific technologies or competitiveness more generally require approaches from industry that differ from older. New programming techniques now make the system dynamics principles more accessible to managers — including corporate counsels. managerial. Current research is seeking ways both to anticipate effective managerial procedures and to understand relationships of financial liability and insurance considerations. Some current advances in behavior and policy sciences affect the counsel's role. and the need to think about a corporation's. (Emphasis supplied) Page 7 of 12    . Also. In Europe. inventory levels.These three subject areas may be thought of as intersecting circles. with a shared area linking them. An understanding of the role of feedback loops. ( Emphasis supplied) The practising lawyer of today is familiar as well with governmental policies toward the promotion and management of technology. Often these new patterns develop alongside existing legal institutions and laws are perceived as barriers. strategy at multiple levels. more adversarial relationships and traditional forms of seeking to influence governmental policies. and psychological. and rates of flow. three factors are apropos: First System Dynamics. In a crisis situation. including the resulting strategic repositioning that the firms he provides counsel for are required to make. And there are lessons to be learned from other countries. Eureka and Race are examples of collaborative efforts between governmental and business Japan's MITI is world famous. Esprit. (Emphasis supplied) Regarding the skills to apply by the corporate counsel. Effectiveness of both long-term and temporary groups within organizations has been found to be related to indentifiable factors in the groupcontext interaction such as the groups actively revising their knowledge of the environment coordinating work with outsiders.

managing improved relationships with an increasingly diversified body of employees. coping internally with more complex make or by decisions. [Be this as it may. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not Page 8 of 12    . "The Corporate Counsel. 4). concern three pointed areas of consideration. Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. 1991. p. 11. In the context of a law department. p." April 10." Jan. The challenge for lawyers (both of the bar and the bench) is to have more than a passing knowledge of financial law affecting each aspect of their work.] the organization and management of the legal function. 1989. creating new and varied interactions with public decision-makers. The practice and theory of "law" is not adequate today to facilitate the relationships needed in trying to make a global economy work. They differ from those of remedial law. This is the framework within which are undertaken those activities of the firm to which legal consequences attach. it can be used to appraise the settlement value of litigation. interdependent environment. Computer-based models can be used directly by parties and mediators in all lands of negotiations. at the very least. including hands-on on instruction in these techniques. Yet. 4). Preventive lawyering is concerned with minimizing the risks of legal trouble and maximizing legal rights for such legal entities at that time when transactional or similar facts are being considered and made. Organization and Functioning of the Corporate Counsel's Office. And even if the corporate lawyer's aim is not the understand all of the law's effects on corporate activities. "Corporate Finance law. This whole exercise drives home the thesis that knowing corporate law is not enough to make one a good general corporate counsel nor to give him a full sense of how the legal system shapes corporate activities. This enables users to make better decisions involving complexity and uncertainty. he must. or will he feign understanding and risk exposure? (Business Star. Managerial Jurisprudence. managing expanded liability exposure. The corporate counsel hear responsibility for key aspects of the firm's strategic issues. aid in negotiation settlement. including structuring its global operations. All integrated set of such tools provide coherent and effective negotiation support. The general counsel has emerged in the last decade as one of the most vibrant subsets of the legal profession. What transpires next is a dilemma of professional security: Will the lawyer admit ignorance and risk opprobrium?. It needs to be directly supportive of this nation's evolving economic and organizational fabric as firms change to stay competitive in a global. 1991. many would admit to ignorance of vast tracts of the financial law territory. also gain a working knowledge of the management issues if only to be able to grasp not only the basic legal "constitution' or makeup of the modem corporation. (Emphasis supplied) Third Modeling for Negotiation Management. Planning by lawyers requires special skills that comprise a major part of the general counsel's responsibilities. A simulation case of an international joint venture may be used to illustrate the point. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25.Second Decision Analysis. "Business Star". and minimize the cost and risk involved in managing a portfolio of cases. thus: Preventive Lawyering.

Thus. has worked with the under privileged sectors. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. 11).P. lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. p. Manila." Staff Paper No. 13). He appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation hearings before the Comelec. (2) borrower's representation. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar. 2. has rendered services to various companies as a legal and economic consultant or chief executive officer. Monsod. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1970. he worked with the Meralco Group. (p. a quast judicial body. During his stint in the World Bank Group (1963-1970). 1982. and Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers. the loan agreement is like a country's Constitution. the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. Atty. In a loan agreement. Rollo) After graduating from the College of Law (U. and since 1986. there are the legal officer (such as the legal counsel). in initiating. (3) conditions of closing. Monsod's work involved being knowledgeable in election law. for instance. served as chief executive officer of an investment bank and subsequently of a business conglomerate. Central Bank of the Philippines. In the field of advocacy. petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. (4) covenants. Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with individual freedoms and public accountability and the party-list system for the House of Representative. they score national development policies as key factors in maintaining their countries' sovereignty. Atty. (Emphasis supplied) After a fashion. Besides top officials of the Borrower concerned. 1991. he assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC. a negotiating panel acts as a team. and an operations officer (such as an official involved in negotiating the contracts) who comprise the members of the team. Monsod also made use of his legal knowledge as a member of the Davide Commission. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination. and project work of the Bank. For aside from performing the tasks of legislative drafting and legal advising. On the same day. (Condensed from the work paper. having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-55%. lawyers play an important role in any debt restructuring program. As former Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. such as the farmer and urban poor groups.) and having hurdled the bar. which conducted numerous hearings (1990) and as a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987). 128-129 Rollo) ( Emphasis supplied) Just a word about the work of a negotiating team of which Atty. for which he was cited by the President of the Commission. the finance manager. "Loan Negotiating Strategies for Developing Country Borrowers. (Guillermo V. (pp. On June 18. and (5) events of default. On June 5. in his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human Development. 1991.. entitled "Wanted: Page 9 of 12    . In the same vein. the meat of any Loan Agreement can be compartmentalized into five (5) fundamental parts: (1) business terms. (Ibid. it lays down the law as far as the loan transaction is concerned. 124. filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void. Monsod used to be a member. p. he took his oath of office.possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. and which is adequately constituted to meet the various contingencies that arise during a negotiation. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. Monsod worked as an operations officer for about two years in Costa Rica and Panama. economic. which involved getting acquainted with the laws of membercountries negotiating loans and coordinating legal. Soliven.

they beat no drums. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law." Integrated Bar of the Philippine Journal. Civil Service Commission. men learn that bustle and bush are not the equal of quiet genius and serene mastery. 265). Nos. If he does. 143 SCRA 327. Third and Fourth Quarters. Vol. as in this case. and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. ( Emphasis supplied) A critical aspect of sovereign debt restructuring/contract construction is the set of terms and conditions which determines the contractual remedies for a failure to perform one or more elements of the contract. the Court said: Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights. p. Civil Service Commission. Romulo. For a compleat debt restructuring represents a devotion to that principle which in the ultimate analysis is sine qua non for foreign loan agreements-an adherence to the rule of law in domestic and international affairs of whose kind U. 1987. Michael Hager. a lawyer-manager. This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide. an unpublished dissertation. demand expertise in the law of contracts. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-economist." (See Ricardo J. Atty. a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry. p. 15. but where they are. particularly the modern concept of law practice.Development Lawyers for Developing Nations.T. 321)." submitted by L. 171 SCRA 744) where it stated: It is well-settled that when the appointee is qualified. during the Session on Law for the Development of Nations at the Abidjan World Conference in Ivory Coast. perhaps even more so than purely renegotiation policies. then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. 1973). A good agreement must not only define the responsibilities of both parties. It also has no authority to direct the appointment of a Page 10 of 12    . "The Role of Lawyers in Foreign Investments. Necessarily. once said: "They carry no banners. and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution. in legislation and agreement drafting and in renegotiation. U. (See International Law Aspects of the Philippine External Debts. and all the other legal requirements are satisfied. but must also state the recourse open to either party when the other fails to discharge an obligation. Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law". Graduate School of Law. The Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a particular position.S. regional legal adviser of the United States Agency for International Development. Jr. a sovereign lawyer may work with an international business specialist or an economist in the formulation of a model loan agreement. (emphasis supplied) No less emphatic was the Court in the case of (Central Bank v. 1977. a lawyer-negotiator of contracts. sponsored by the World Peace Through Law Center on August 26-31. Debt restructuring contract agreements contain such a mixture of technical language that they should be carefully drafted and signed only with the advise of competent counsel in conjunction with the guidance of adequate technical support personnel. ( Emphasis supplied) Loan concessions and compromises. Besides in the leading case of Luego v. the Commission has no alternative but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Civil Service Law.S. 3 and 4.

. law practice once or twice a year for ten consecutive years. three Members shall hold office for seven years. Romero. the President issues the permanent appointment. Article IX of the Constitution which provides: The Chairman and the Commisioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Upon the other hand. most individuals. Page 11 of 12    . the separate opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz states that in my written opinion. I greatly doubt. implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law.. in making use of the law. 1949. L-3081. are actually practicing law. only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the Commission's judgment. Justice Padilla's definition would require generally a habitual law practice.substitute of its choice. VIII. Law on Public Officers. and (4) acceptance e. how can an action or petition be brought against the President? And even assuming that he is indeed disqualified. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. oath-taking. p. perhaps practised two or three times a week and would outlaw say. Sec. consists of four (4) stages: (1) nomination. I made use of a definition of law practice which really means nothing because the definition says that law practice " .g. and the last Members for three years. October 14. In that sense. who has been practising law for over ten years. . Moreover. . but we should not lose sight of the fact that Mr. posting of bond. perhaps. An appointment is essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested. ( Emphasis supplied) The appointing process in a regular appointment as in the case at bar. upon submission by the Commission on Appointments of its certificate of confirmation. how can the action be entertained since he is the incumbent President? We now proceed: The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on Monsod's confirmation. Gonzales. (Art. this is far from the constitutional intent. Of those first appointed. This matter. In the instant case. which modern connotation is exactly what was intended by the eminent framers of the 1987 Constitution. 1 Constitution). (3) issuance of a commission (in the Philippines. suffice it to say that his definition of the practice of law is the traditional or stereotyped notion of law practice. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. Justice Cruz goes on to say in substance that since the law covers almost all situations. is what people ordinarily mean by the practice of law. or in advising others on what the law means. Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion. a member of the Philippine Bar. as distinguished from the modern concept of the practice of law. without first becoming lawyers. Monsod is a lawyer. To do so would be an encroachment on the discretion vested upon the appointing authority." True I cited the definition but only by way of sarcasm as evident from my statement that the definition of law practice by "traditional areas of law practice is essentially tautologous" or defining a phrase by means of the phrase itself that is being defined. . (2) confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Thus. say. etc. 200) The power of the Commission on Appointments to give its consent to the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections is mandated by Section 1(2) Sub-Article C. No. subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. Clearly. For one thing. This is different from the acts of persons practising law. without reappointment. The judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. . two Members for five years. on the ground that he lacks one or more qualifications. Justice Cruz also says that the Supreme Court can even disqualify an elected President of the Philippines. (Lacson v.

whom the Commission has confirmed? The answer is likewise clear. Griño-Aquino and Medialdea. may the Court reject the nominee.S. the answer is in the negative. that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed. the procurator of Judea asked Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing Samson. it would be incredible that the U. J. the procurator placed an iron rod burning white-hot two or three inches away from in front of Samson's eyes.J. (3) If the United States Senate (which is the confirming body in the U. Finally. Supreme Court would still reverse the U. for has been clearly shown. Delilah was beside herself with anger. one significant legal maxim is: We must interpret not by the letter that killeth. concur. Regalado. J.. J... much less a grave abuse of discretion. Congress) decides to confirm a Presidential nominee. C. This blinded the man. No blood shall flow from his veins. I certify that he voted to dismiss the petition. is on leave. accused the procurator of reneging on his word.there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's corrective power. Feliciano. Upon hearing of what had happened to her beloved. Once. (2) In the same vein. C.. not the spirit of the agreement. consider the following: (1) If the Commission on Appointments rejects a nominee by the President.. Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah.S. (Fernan. In view of the foregoing. and fuming with righteous fury. this petition is hereby DISMISSED. The procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade touch his skin? Did any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying on the letter. took no part. since no abuse.) Sarmiento.S. Jr. SO ORDERED. Delilah agreed on condition that — No blade shall touch his skin. Senate. may the Supreme Court reverse the Commission. Page 12 of 12    . and thus in effect confirm the appointment? Clearly. but by the spirit that giveth life. When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured.. and Davide.J. Fernan. Additionally. JJ.

Inc. deceptive. any activity. is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. THE Please call:521-0767. or in return for.. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers. fair. US Embassy CLINIC. constitutes practice of law and whether the same are in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility HELD: The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of law as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Visa Ext.  Ulep vs. Canon 3. 429 UN Ave. the court found and held that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the exceptions. 1977. publicity to attract legal business (Canon 3. but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law.04). Annulment of Marriage. taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of paralegal services in the Philippines. such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments. No such exception is provided for. & Special Retiree's Visa. UN Ave. to which as a member of the legal profession. misleading. VISA. and all other like self-laudation. Immigration Problems. reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7. 553 June 17. Investment in the Phil. 1993 FACTS: The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the respondents are champertous. ABSENCE. self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Inc. Mla.01 adds that he is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false. which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered.. directly or indirectly. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services. Annex B GUAM DIVORCE DON PARKINSON an Attorney in Guam. dignified and objective information or statement of facts. ISSUE: Whether or not. Declaration of Absence Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true. ANNULMENT. It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services. demeaning of the law profession. 521-0767 In its answer to the petition. Page 1 of 16    . Quota/Non-quota Res.. he is ashamed and offended by the following advertisements: Annex A SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.. Tel. Monsod. to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. The respondent’s defense with the case of Bates vs. Victoria Bldg. The Canons of Professional Ethics. LEGAL 5217232. Besides. 521-7232. the advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic. fraudulent.00 for a valid marriage. However. from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition.5222041 CLINIC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm 7-Flr. the magnitude of the interest involved. honest. There are existing exceptions under the law on the rule prohibiting the advertisement of a lawyer’s services. respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance. had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment. INC. Guam divorce. Adoption. before the adoption of the CPR. expressly or impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility. and from conducting. but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Legal Clinic Bar Matter No. Manila nr. State Bar of Arizona. Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of. LEGAL Ermita. the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso that the exceptions stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by such authority in that state. INC. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. Info on DIVORCE.. unethical. undignified. 521-7251.” The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic. the importance the lawyer's position. or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct. and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that. THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 522-2041. rules or regulations granting permission therefore. US/Force Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.

  operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein. Page 2 of 16    .

demeaning of the law profession. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. hence the reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted. It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champterous. Call Marivic. assistance to layman in need of basic institutional services from government or non-government agencies like REGALADO. 553 June 17. INC.. MARRIAGE? marriage. 1977. Inc.P. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein. and (6) Federacion International de Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position papers on the controversy and. (3) Philippine Lawyers' Association (PLA). Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case. INC. 5222041 CLINIC." The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: Annex A SECRET P560. Page 3 of 16    . is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. Manila nr.e. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines: Guam divorce. ULEP vs. 1. he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. in either case. 3 The said bar associations readily responded and extended their valuable services and cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation and gratitude. Womens Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI). as a member of the legal profession. In its answer to the petition. & Special Retiree's Visa. unethical. (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA). we deem it proper and enlightening to present hereunder excerpts from the respective position papers adopted by the aforementioned bar associations and the memoranda submitted by them on the issues involved in this bar matter. 429 UN Ave. common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without substantial distinction. THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232. Quota/Non-quota Res.... US Embassy CLINIC.. For who could deny that document search. 8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-Flr. but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. a valid DIVORCE. DON PARKINSON an Attorney in Guam.  Bar Matter No. LEGAL Ermita. as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and. 521-7232. respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at its instance. (4) U. J. 2 reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7. Visa Ext. Adoption. Annex B GUAM DIVORCE. the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services. Mla. 1993 MAURICIO C. Declaration of Absence. Victoria Bldg. THE 7F Victoria Bldg. Immigration Problems. their memoranda. we required the (1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). thereafter. THE LEGAL CLINIC. (5) Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP). 522-2041. "legal support services" vis-a-vis "legal services". Annulment of Marriage. The Legal Clinic. INC. ABSENCE. State Bar of Arizona. 521-0767 xxx xxx xxx Notwithstanding the subtle manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the two terms. 1 Tel. Investment in the Phil. UN Ave. whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.: Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.00 for Info on ANNULMENT. i. evidence gathering. VISA. 521-7251. and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that. The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not the services offered by respondent.

apparently because this (is) the effect that the advertisements have on the reading public. . as earlier mentioned. and this practically removes whatever doubt may still remain as to the nature of the service or services being offered. obtaining documents like clearance. The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this Honorable Court to perpetually restrain respondent from undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law practice as aforedescribed. to wit. to the very name being used by respondent — "The Legal Clinic. whether true or not. Said advertisements. emphasize to Guam divorce. B. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. the advertisements in question give the impression that respondent is offering legal services. just like a medical clinic connotes medical services for medical problems. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine Law. . Suffice it to state that the IBP has made its position manifest. public order and public policy. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable Page 4 of 16    ." as the respondent would have it. that the Family Code (defines) a marriage as follows: Article 1. It may be conceded that. constitutes practice of law? xxx xxx xxx The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue with respondent's foreign citations. as the respondent claims." Such a name. and any law student ought to know that under the Family Code. The Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so. While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public. It must not be forgotten. or business registration. and that is: Article 26. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law. which all the more reinforces the impression that it is being operated by members of the bar and that it offers legal services. it is respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of legal services for legal problems. that it strongly opposes the view espoused by respondent (to the effect that today it is alright to advertise one's legal services). property. The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced. 4 xxx xxx xxx A.  birth. It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal support services" as claimed by it. the advertisements in question appear with a picture and name of a person being represented as a lawyer from Guam. . And it becomes unnecessary to make a distinction between "legal services" and "legal support services. Inc. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic. there is only one instance when a foreign divorce is recognized. More importantly. as the term medical clinic connotes doctors. Inc. too. local or foreign visas. as published in the advertisements subject of the present case. appears with (the) scale(s) of justice. morals." gives the impression that respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it renders legal services. In addition. passports. however. first of all. marriage. The advertisements in question leave no room for doubt in the minds of the reading public that legal services are being offered by lawyers. the respondent's name. Furthermore. or whether it offers legal services as any lawyer actively engaged in law practice does. Marriage is special contract of permanent union between a man and woman entered into accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. the advertisements in question are only meant to inform the general public of the services being offered by it. The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's act of establishing a "legal clinic" and of concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper publications. the term "Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers.

this is outright malpractice." if not suggesting a "secret marriage. Even if it be assumed. as earlier discussed. If the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be reviewed. and more importantly. not legal services. a lawyer using a computer will be doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter. Both the Bench and the Bar. Technological development in the profession may be encouraged without tolerating. It is also submitted that respondent should be prohibited from further performing or offering some of the services it presently offers." makes light of the "special contract of permanent union. Admittedly. By simply reading the questioned advertisements. electronic data gathering. Indeed. there can be no choice but to prohibit such business. Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being encouraged or committed (a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with impunity simply because the jurisdiction of Philippine courts does not extend to the place where the crime is committed. but instead ensuring prevention of illegal practice. good customs and the public good. However. violation of Philippine law." which is how the Family Code describes marriage. or any other advertisements similar thereto. such as computer experts. or serves to induce. xxx xxx xxx It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from causing the publication of the advertisements in question. In addition. Alternatively. however. Worse. the only logical consequence is that. it can readily be concluded that the above impressions one may gather from the advertisements in question are accurate. except that marriage settlements may fix the property relation during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. when the conduct of such business by non-members of the Bar encroaches upon the practice of law. or. To prohibit them from "encroaching" upon the legal profession will deny the profession of the great benefits and advantages of modern technology. for the protection of the public. this particular advertisement appears to encourage marriages celebrated in secrecy. it is obvious that the message being conveyed is that Filipinos can avoid the legal consequences of a marriage celebrated in accordance with our law. the more difficult task of carefully distinguishing between which service may be offered to the public in general and which should be made available Page 5 of 16    . morals. but encourages. from offering such services to the public in general. The Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion example alone confirms what the advertisements suggest. Thus. and like services will greatly benefit the legal profession and should not be stifled but instead encouraged. many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better performed by specialists in other fields. but only if such services are made available exclusively to members of the Bench and Bar. and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. storage and retrieval. who by reason of their having devoted time and effort exclusively to such field cannot fulfill the exacting requirements for admission to the Bar. the advertisements in question give the impression that respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it offers legal services. Respondent would then be offering technical assistance.02. consequences. arguendo. in the eyes of an ordinary newspaper reader. members of the bar themselves are encouraging or inducing the performance of acts which are contrary to law. by simply going to Guam for a divorce. investigators for gathering of evidence.  social institution whose nature. The IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal research. — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. where certain defects in Philippine laws are exploited for the sake of profit. At the very least. should be careful not to allow or tolerate the illegal practice of law in any form. standardized legal forms. At worst." the inviolable social institution. it may also be relevant to point out that advertisements such as that shown in Annex "A" of the Petition. thereby destroying and demeaning the integrity of the Bar. not only for the protection of members of the Bar but also. which is suggestive of immoral publication of applications for a marriage license. at the very least. obviously to emphasize its sanctity and inviolability. which contains a cartoon of a motor vehicle with the words "Just Married" on its bumper and seems to address those planning a "secret marriage. even if both are (equal) in skill. This is not only misleading. Rule 1. this can be considered "the dark side" of legal practice. (that) the "legal support services" respondent offers do not constitute legal services as commonly understood. There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform all of its services.

It is an odious vehicle for deception. respondent's acts of holding out itself to the public under the trade name "The Legal Clinic. 2. but before allowance of such practice may be considered. The practice of law is not a profession open to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be assigned to another (See 5 Am. in answer to the issues stated herein. Philippine Lawyers' Association: The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position." holds out itself to the public and solicits employment of its legal services.." is offering and rendering legal services through its reserve of lawyers. It has been held that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. But nobody should be allowed to represent himself as a "paralegal" for profit. in the information given. p. the corporation's Article of Incorporation and Bylaws must conform to each and every provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court. Also. such as acts which tend to suggest or induce celebration abroad of marriages which are bigamous or otherwise illegal and void under Philippine law. It follows that not only respondent but also all the persons who are acting for respondent are the persons engaged in unethical law practice. Unquestionably. Inc. Inc. it must be required to include. that certain course of action may be illegal under Philippine law. the limitation of practice of law to persons who have been duly admitted as members of the Bar (Sec. and without any adequate and effective means of regulating his activities. through experienced paralegals. 2 and 3. rendering opinions. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical. 5 2. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law. It must be emphasized. This is absurd. especially so when the public cannot ventilate any grievance for malpractice against the business conduit. but also misleading and patently immoral. with the use of modern computers and electronic machines" (pars. however. This. respondent "The Legal Clinic. however. For respondent to say that it is merely engaged in paralegal work is to stretch credulity. Rule 138. that a lawyer should be consulted before deciding on which course of action to take.. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to supress and punish the Legal Clinic and its corporate officers for its Page 6 of 16    . advertising should be directed exclusively at members of the Bar. 1. 1984 ed. and that it cannot recommend any particular lawyer without subjecting itself to possible sanctions for illegal practice of law. are wit: 1. Respondent's own commercial advertisement which announces a certain Atty. 39). It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice of law. 270). Comment). the persons and the lawyers who act for it are subject to court discipline. but includes drawing of deeds. 6 3. incorporation." and soliciting employment for its enumerated services fall within the realm of a practice which thus yields itself to the regulatory powers of the Supreme Court. It is a personal right limited to persons who have qualified themselves under the law. without such term being clearly defined by rule or regulation. Don Parkinson to be handling the fields of law belies its pretense. Revised Rules of Court) is to subject the members to the discipline of the Supreme Court. 3. this is the scheme or device by which respondent "The Legal Clinic. may require further proceedings because of the factual considerations involved. From all indications. Although respondent uses its business name. Respondent asserts that it "is not engaged in the practice of law but engaged in giving legal support services to lawyers and laymen. and 4. Precisely. If respondent is allowed to advertise. Jur. that some of respondent's services ought to be prohibited outright. Obviously. Inc. and such limitation cannot be evaded by a corporation employing competent lawyers to practice for it. a disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law. with a clear and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or perform legal services. Legal and Judicial Ethics. and advising clients as to their legal right and then take them to an attorney and ask the latter to look after their case in court See Martin.  exclusively to members of the Bar may be undertaken. that it is not authorized or capable of rendering a legal opinion. Philippine Bar Association: xxx xxx xxx. Such practice is unauthorized. While respondent may not be prohibited from simply disseminating information regarding such matters. The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. law practice in a corporate form may prove to be advantageous to the legal profession.

these do not exist in the Philippines. as provided for under the above cited law. But its advertised services. visa extensions. Inc. clearly and convincingly show that it is indeed engaged in law practice. however. adoption and foreign investment. particularly regarding foreign divorces." 7 4. — does not help matters. (are) illegal and against the Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers in this country. 8 A perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent. which are in essence. when only "paralegals" are involved in The Legal Clinic. immigration. particularly on visa related problems. as claimed. is a lawyer qualified to practice law. Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid law. staffed purely by paralegals.  unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical. Immigration Laws. annulment of marriage. courses of study and/or standards which would qualify these paralegals to deal with the general public as such. Women Lawyers' Circle: In resolving. As advertised. Applying the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited Agrava Case. absence and adoption. immigration problems. the issues before this Honorable Court. who gave an insight on the structure and main purpose of Respondent corporation in the aforementioned "Starweek" article. Nogales. litigants and the general public as enunciated in the Primary Purpose Clause of its Article(s) of Incorporation. as there are doctors in any medical clinic. the fact remains that at present. paramount consideration should be given to the protection of the general public from the danger of being exploited by unqualified persons or entities who may be engaged in the practice of law." 9 5. It gives the impression again that Respondent will or can cure the legal problems brought to them. the Investments Law of the Philippines and such other related laws. While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdiction as an aid to the administration of justice.. it also gives the misleading impression that there are lawyers involved in The Legal Clinic. Atty. In the meantime. xxx xxx xxx Respondent posits that is it not engaged in the practice of law. the legal principles and procedures related thereto. divorce. Inc. misleading and immoral advertising. declaration of absence. as enumerated above. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines: Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit cases for the purpose of gain which. seems to give the impression that information regarding validity of marriages. measures should be taken to protect the general public from falling prey to those who advertise legal services without being qualified to offer such services." Clearly. will be given to them if they avail of its services. the legal advices based thereon and which activities call for legal training. While it may now be the opportune time to establish these courses of study and/or standards. it appears in the instant case that legal services are being advertised not by lawyers but by an entity staffed by "paralegals. Page 7 of 16    . annulment of marriages. albeit outside of court. becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year course of study on top of a four-year bachelor of arts or sciences course and then to take and pass the bar examinations. Only then. there are in those jurisdictions.P. it offers the general public its advisory services on Persons and Family Relations Law. While it appears that lawyers are prohibited under the present Code of Professional Responsibility from advertising. knowledge and experience. Inc. Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its President and majority stockholder. It claims that it merely renders "legal support services" to answers. At present. secret marriages. legal matters . the general public should also be protected from the dangers which may be brought about by advertising of legal services. (See pages 2 to 5 of Respondent's Comment). The Respondent's name — The Legal Clinic. Assuming that Respondent is. the activities of respondent fall squarely and are embraced in what lawyers and laymen equally term as "the practice of law. In the same manner. U. this Honorable Court may decide to make measures to protect the general public from being exploited by those who may be dealing with the general public in the guise of being "paralegals" without being qualified to do so.

If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to engage a lawyer to Page 8 of 16    . but when we are serving others. While it is advertised that one has to go to said agency and pay P560 for a valid marriage it is certainly fooling the public for valid marriages in the Philippines are solemnized only by officers authorized to do so under the law. In the same vein.7 That entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law. in support of some measure that he recommends. such as management consultancy firms or travel agencies. In the case (of) In re Taguda. . but it is a fact that most men have considerable acquaintance with broad features of the law . He must be careful not to suggest a course of conduct which the law forbids. the fact that the business of respondent (assuming it can be engaged in independently of the practice of law) involves knowledge of the law does not necessarily make respondent guilty of unlawful practice of law. and seek advice on divorce. is unprofessional. Bankers. . . asked by his client to omit a fire tower. We submit further that these advertisements that seem to project that secret marriages and divorce are possible in this country for a fee. . But suppose the architect. Our knowledge of the law — accurate or inaccurate — moulds our conduct not only when we are acting for ourselves. It would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they could go about having a secret marriage here. who must be familiar with zoning. . where in this country there is none. No amount of reasoning that in the USA. whether run by lawyers or not. A good example is the architect. except under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws in the Philippines. . when in fact it is not so. are highly reprehensible. . . and his use of that knowledge as a factor in determining what measures he shall recommend. . Are they practicing law? In my opinion. . replies that it is required by the statute. and offenses of this character justify permanent elimination from the Bar. This is not practicing law. 53 Phil. for one (cannot) justify an illegal act even by whatever merit the illegal act may serve. 37. liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather precise knowledge of the laws touching their particular business or profession. Or the industrial relations expert cites. . And to employ an agency for said purpose of contracting marriage is not necessary.  Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement to solicit cases. acting as a consultant can render effective service unless he is familiar with such statutes and regulations. perform the services rendered by Respondent does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Respondent is not unlawfully practicing law. It is largely a matter of degree and of custom. they are not. . when it cannot nor should ever be attempted. but it is illegal in that in bold letters it announces that the Legal Clinic. It is not only presumed that all men know the law. . the Supreme Court held that solicitation for clients by an attorney by circulars of advertisements. and who draws plans and specification in harmony with the law. however. Federacion Internacional de Abogados: xxx xxx xxx 1. The law has yet to be amended so that such act could become justifiable.clear that (the consultant's) knowledge of the law.. 10 6. . . . Canada and other countries the trend is towards allowing lawyers to advertise their special skills to enable people to obtain from qualified practitioners legal services for their particular needs can justify the use of advertisements such as are the subject matter of the petition. It seems . could work out/cause the celebration of a secret marriage which is not only illegal but immoral in this country. do not constitute the practice of law . Of necessity. and the legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem. It is also against good morals and is deceitful because it falsely represents to the public to be able to do that which by our laws cannot be done (and) by our Code of Morals should not be done. building and fire prevention codes. a decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Inc. provided no separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information. factory and tenement house statutes. no one .

The law only provides the frame within which he must work. Here. he performed services which are customarily reserved to members of the bar. then it may be that only a lawyer can accept the assignment. The handling of industrial relations is growing into a recognized profession for which appropriate courses are offered by our leading universities. of course. he drew employees' wills. if the industrial relations field had been pre-empted by lawyers. consultants like the defendants have the same service that the larger employers get from their own specialized staff. there may be an exception where the business turns on a question of law. The State of New Jersey is without power to interfere with such determination or to forbid representation before the agency by one whom the agency admits. But this is not the case. since the situation is not presented by the proofs. But such is not the fact in the case before me. The incidental legal advice or information defendant may give. it is quite likely that defendant should not handle it. Let me add that if. especially before trial examiners of the National Labor Relations Board. he would be practicing law. would be the practice of the law. it has been the practice for some years to delegate special responsibility in employee matters to a management group chosen for their practical knowledge and skill in such matter. Or if a controversy between an employer and his men grows from differing interpretations of a contract. The court should be very cautious about declaring [that] a widespread. In determining whether a man is practicing law. wellestablished method of conducting business is unlawful. This. with or without a mediator. For instance. and without regard to legal thinking or lack of it. may regulate the representation of parties before such agency. does not transform his activities into the practice of law. I can imagine defendant being engaged primarily to advise as to the law defining his client's obligations to his employees. or custom placed a lawyer always at the elbow of the lay personnel man. Likewise. or that the technical education given by our schools cannot be used by the graduates in their business. More recently. then an architect who performed this function would probably be considered to be trespassing on territory reserved for licensed attorneys. The most important body of the industrial relations experts are the officers and business agents of the labor unions and few of them are lawyers. as a whole. or that the considerable class of men who customarily perform a certain function have no right to do so. acting by virtue of an authority granted by the Congress. Defendant also appears to represent the employer before administrative agencies of the federal government. This is not per se the practice of law. to guide his client along the path charted by law. Another branch of defendant's work is the representations of the employer in the adjustment of grievances and in collective bargaining. Among the larger corporate employers. just as the zoning code limits the kind of building the limits the kind of building the architect may plan. if as part of a welfare program. we should consider his work for any particular client or customer. Anyone may use an agent for negotiations and may select an agent particularly skilled in the subject under discussion. But if the value of the land depends on a disputed right-of-way and the principal role of the negotiator is to assess the probable outcome of the dispute and persuade the opposite party to the same opinion. to guide his client's obligations to his employees. Most real estate sales are negotiated by brokers who are not lawyers. or of a statute. The rules of the National Labor Relations Board give to a party the right to Page 9 of 16    . But I need not reach a definite conclusion here. however. An agency of the federal government. Defendant's primarily efforts are along economic and psychological lines. even as a minor feature of his work.  advise him and the architect in respect to the building code and the like. and the person appointed is free to accept the employment whether or not he is a member of the bar.

the Legal Clinic appears to render wedding services (See Annex "A" Petition). and does not purport to give personal advice on a specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified person. Rules and Regulations. Dacey's book is sold to the public at large. such publication and sale did not constitutes the unlawful practice of law . Apparently it is urged that the conjoining of these two. and ther representative' one not a lawyer. or by other representative.. 203. constitutes the unlawful practice of law. Purely giving informational materials may not constitute of law. (b) The services performed are not customarily reserved to members of the bar.08 — A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. the Code of Professional Responsibility succintly states the rule of conduct: Rule 15. At most the book assumes to offer general advice on common problems. 1946. In the present case.31. And the mere fact that the principles or rules stated in the text may be accepted by a particular reader as a solution to his problem does not affect this. Such would constitute unauthorized practice of law. . . . 1. renders such services then it is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. If a nonlawyer.11. that aside from purely giving information. Services on routine. at pp. 1. If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer. . 154-156. (c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information. and give legal advice. In this phase of his work. However. even arguing questions purely legal. Introduction to Paralegalism [1974]. S. cited in Statsky. The business is similar to that of a bookstore where the customer buys materials on the subject and determines on the subject and determines by himself what courses of action to take. .8 From the foregoing. if the problem is as complicated as that described in "Rx for Legal Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez case. however.9. and making arrangements with a priest or a judge. then what may be involved is actually the practice of law. absence. defendant may lawfully do whatever the Labor Board allows. (Auerbacher v. the text and the forms. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL PRACTICE — THE REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF A PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION. that is.10. 'Counsel' here means a licensed attorney. It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which publication of a legal text which purports to say what the law is amount to legal practice. Nor does there exist that relation of confidence and trust so necessary to the status of attorney and client. September 11th. It is not entirely improbable. straightforward marriages. But that is the situation with many approved and accepted texts. . Wood. There is no personal contact or relationship with a particular individual.  appear in person. Similarly the defendant's publication does not purport to give personal advice on a specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified person in a particular situation — in their publication and sale of the kits. there was no proper basis for the injunction against defendant maintaining an office for the purpose of selling to persons Page 10 of 16    . may not constitute practice of law. the Legal Clinic's paralegals may apply the law to the particular problem of the client. 53 A. The Legal Clinic also appears to give information on divorce. 2d 800. annulment of marriage and visas (See Annexes "A" and "B" Petition). or by counsel. 1.). All these must be considered in relation to the work for any particular client as a whole. There being no legal impediment under the statute to the sale of the kit. with advice as to how the forms should be filled out. such as the Legal Clinic. like securing a marriage license. 1. . it can be said that a person engaged in a lawful calling (which may involve knowledge of the law) is not engaged in the practice of law provided that: (a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem. .

101. he is in the practice of law. are available. which requires the application of law. With all the solemnities. separation. 17 One who renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute. The record does fully support. we note that the clause "practice of law" has long been the subject of judicial construction and interpretation. the defendant gave legal advice in the course of personal contacts concerning particular problems which might arise in the preparation and presentation of the purchaser's asserted matrimonial cause of action or pursuit of other legal remedies and assistance in the preparation of necessary documents (The injunction therefore sought to) enjoin conduct constituting the practice of law. 348. or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation." such would constitute practice of law (Comment. and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings. annulment of separation agreement sought and should be affirmed. It is not limited to appearing in court. no Philippine marriage can be secret. Monsod.)." 11 A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law" becomes exigent for the proper determination of the issues raised by the petition at bar. 14 When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer. 1. but embraces the preparation of pleadings. knowledge. that if the services "involve giving legal advice or counselling. is. cited in Statsky. and property according to law. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the impression (or perpetuate the wrong notion) that there is a secret marriage. practicing law. annulment or separation agreement any printed material or writings relating to matrimonial law or the prohibition in the memorandum of modification of the judgment against defendant having an interest in any publishing house publishing his manuscript on divorce and against his having any personal contact with any prospective purchaser. of course. Practice of law means any activity. supra at p. Respondent.  seeking a divorce. The courts have laid down general principles and doctrines explaining the meaning and scope of the term. training and experience. Winder. however. On this score. in or out of court. however. 2.10. and not legal services. NYS 2D 270 [1973]. Page 11 of 16    . a licensed attorney at law generally engages in three principal types of professional activity: legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. (State v. we laid down the test to determine whether certain acts constitute "practice of law. although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. It is in this light that FIDA submits that a factual inquiry may be necessary for the judicious disposition of this case. the finding that for the change of $75 or $100 for the kit.. xxx xxx xxx 2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. 18 In the recent case of Cayetano vs. advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court. The second paragraph thereof (which is not necessarily related to the first paragraph) fails to state the limitation that only "paralegal services?" or "legal support services". par. and the preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured. particularly with reference to the giving of advice and counsel by the defendant relating to specific problems of particular individuals in connection with a divorce. and appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life. non-advisory. 6. It includes legal advice and counsel. to that extent. to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill. and receives pay for it. is also practicing law. Family Code). 12 The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court." thus: Black defines "practice of law" as: The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. et seq.2). separation. 13 In the practice of his profession. in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of law. 19 after citing the doctrines in several cases.11. 15 One who confers with clients. legal procedures. states that its services are "strictly non-diagnostic. some of which we now take into account. liberty. "It is not controverted. formalities and other requisites of marriages (See Articles 2.12. 16 Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. Generally.

Comments on the Rules o Court. so far as concerns the question set forth in the order.] 197 A. one who. 176-177). through the extensive use of computers and modern information technology in the gathering. educational or employment records or certifications. Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court.. of sound moral character. 3 [1973 ed.]. the foreclosure of a mortgage. 262. all advice to clients. conveying. body. marriage. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on court. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill. obtaining documentation like clearances. evidence gathering. p. and conducting proceedings in attachment. associations or corporations as to their right under the law. engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law. The practice of law. document search. the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. pp. No valid distinction. or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings. constitute "practice of law. in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v. It embraces conveyancing. W. 139. property. A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: . This Court. E. 665-666. referee. which are strictly non-diagnostic. 102 S. pending or prospective. E. Otherwise stated. passports. therefore. locating parties or witnesses to a case. in such representative capacity. . Agrava (105 Phil. v. local or foreign visas. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering. we agree with the perceptive findings and observations of the aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent. enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill. as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments. Dworken . and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. v. like birth. in a representative capacity. can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. Automobile Service Assoc. the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds.(Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings. 340 Mo. 263). or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies and there. [R. Bar Assoc.stated: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. firms. a wide experience with men and affairs.I." The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered nor sustained. encoding and reproduction of documents and pleadings prepared by laymen or lawyers. Jr. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings. to wit: Legal support services basically consists of giving ready information by trained paralegals to laymen and lawyers. (Moran. 23. 129 Ohio St. . giving information about laws of other countries that they may find useful. (State ex. transmission and reproduction of information and communication. 313. fact finding investigations. performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law. 194 N. and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services. C. 650). and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. Dudley and Co. is engaged in the practice of law. . where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. Vol. committee. assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body. and the giving of all legal advice to clients. and in matters or estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. quoted in Rhode Is. for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person. non-advisory. or business registrations. and in addition. citing In Re Opinion of the Justices [Mass]. the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts. 173. covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. (5 Am. 193N.  conveyancing. Mckittrick v. like foreign Page 12 of 16    . storage. Applying the aforementioned criteria to the case at bar. or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose. 852). 2d 895. such as computerized legal research.S. they are always subject to become involved in litigation. before any court. as advertised. board. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. commissioner. 144). processing. and assistance to laymen in need of basic institutional services from government or non-government agencies. In general. rel.

  divorce. 20 While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow. it caters to clients who cannot afford the services of the big law firms. Nogales: This is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The Legal Clinic. as the weight of authority holds. Atty. What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this proceeding. hindi kailangang ma-confine. these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule. in medical terms. and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. It's just like a common cold or diarrhea. or the computerization of research aids and materials. Inc. Nogales. about foreign laws on marriage. There are cases which do not. who knows how to arrange the problem for presentation in court. who. then it's referred to one of our specialists. contract drafting and so forth. N. "Things like preparing a simple deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can be taken care of by our staff or. medico-legal problems." explains Atty. They ask you how you contracted what's bothering you. entitled "Rx for Legal Problems. and family law. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. and only a specialist in taxation would be properly trained to deal with the problem.P. they take your temperature. kung baga sa hospital. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law. are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Now. divorce and adoption. No matter what the client's problem. In providing information. and gather evidence to support the case. they observe you for the symptoms and so on. And once the problem has been categorized. designing and installing computer systems. Inspired by the trend in the medical field toward specialization. if there were other heirs contesting your rich relatives will. courts and other entities engaged in dispensing or administering legal services. 22 Page 13 of 16    . we would refer you to a specialist in taxation. and you stand to inherit millions of pesos of property. or software for the efficient management of law offices. The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January 13. WILOCI. marriage or adoption laws that they can avail of preparatory to emigration to the foreign country. with offices on the seventh floor of the Victoria Building along U. 21 That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. is not limited merely giving legal advice. for example. said reported facts sufficiently establish that the main purpose of respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U. such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices. Atty. Further. and other matters that do not involve representation of clients in court. That is what its advertisements represent and for the which services it will consequently charge and be paid. "If you had a rich relative who died and named you her sole heir. There would be real estate taxes and arrears which would need to be put in order. Rogelio P. Avenue in Manila. it strains the credulity of this Court that all the respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice. programs. too. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals. main purpose and operations of respondent corporation was given by its own "proprietor." Atty. and even if it is as complicated as the CunetaConcepcion domestic situation. out-patient. With its attorneys and so called paralegals. These specialist are backed up by a battery of paralegals. it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. if this were a hospital the residents or the interns. furnish a copy thereof to the client. Again. That's what doctors do also. corporate legal departments. Those cases which requires more extensive "treatment" are dealt with accordingly. Nogales and his staff of lawyers. labor. and your relative is even taxed by the state for the right to transfer her property. then you would need a litigator. We can take care of these matters on a while you wait basis. Its contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. require surgery or follow-up treatment. The Legal Clinic. but rather." where an insight into the structure. "when they come. litigation. What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. we start by analyzing the problem. counsellors and attorneys. These The Legal Clinic disposes of in a matter of minutes. That's how we operate. The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. 1991 issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippines Star. like doctors are "specialists" in various fields can take care of it. has specialists in taxation and criminal law.

the court. or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court. or defend the rights claims. the magnitude of the interest involved. it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. 26 The justification for excluding from the practice of law those not admitted to the bar is found. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar. The permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. or liabilities of their clients. such as the National Association of Legal Assistants. counsel with. As admitted by respondent. As pointed out by FIDA. self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. and not of unilateral adoption as it has done. the bar. undignified. rules or regulations granting permission therefor. 29 In the Philippines. 27 We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the concept in the United States of paralegals as an occupation separate from the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. with respect to the construction. 28 As the concept of the "paralegals" or "legal assistant" evolved in the United States. similar to those of respondent which are involved in the present proceeding. Inc. 33 He is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false. Only those persons are allowed to practice law who. dignified and objective information or statement of facts. misleading. 34 Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of. 25 The practice of law is not a lawful business except for members of the bar who have complied with all the conditions required by statute and the rules of court. not in the protection of the bar from competition. There are also associations of paralegals in the United States with their own code of professional ethics. but in the protection of the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little control. Bayot 38 an advertisement. a person who has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the proper administration of justice cannot be hindered by the unwarranted intrusion of an unauthorized and unskilled person into the practice of law. and who is in good and regular standing. in the case of The Director of Religious Affairs. deceptive.  It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private respondent which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. fraudulent. 31 That policy should continue to be one of encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal rights and remedies to seek legal assistance only from persons licensed to practice law in the state. 36 The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. Thus. The purpose is to protect the public. the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true. publicity to attract legal business. such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments. the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the court. by reason of attainments previously acquired through education and study. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the Page 14 of 16    . interpretation. 24 The same rule is observed in the american jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to draw support for his thesis. 37 The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession. there are schools and universities there which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education. Estanislao R. some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been allowed limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services. Legislation has even been proposed to certify legal assistants. is entitled to practice law. The doctrines there also stress that the practice of law is limited to those who meet the requirements for. or in return for. the importance of the lawyer's position. respondent cannot but be aware that this should first be a matter for judicial rules or legislative action. have been recognized by the courts as possessing profound knowledge of legal science entitling them to advise. 32 Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements. Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. fair. and have been admitted to. or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct. the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment. standards and guidelines also evolved to protect the general public. A lawyer cannot. 39 was held to constitute improper advertising or solicitation. and the American Paralegal Association. The pertinent part of the decision therein reads: It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession. we still have a restricted concept and limited acceptance of what may be considered as paralegal service. and all other like self-laudation. 35 Prior to the adoption of the code of Professional Responsibility. 30 Accordingly. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. 23 Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. and various statutes or rules specifically so provide. operation and effect of law. while there are none in the Philippines. One of the major standards or guidelines was developed by the American Bar Association which set up Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs (1973). Whatever may be its merits. we have adopted the American judicial policy that. honest. without violating the ethics of his profession. protect. but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law. vs. in the absence of constitutional or statutory authority.

date and place of birth and admission to the bar. telephone number and special branch of law practiced. Besides. to allow the publication of advertisements of the kind used by Page 15 of 16    . membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof. the fact of listings in other reputable law lists. trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. either personally or thru paid agents or brokers. on the attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing television commercials. legal authorships." 42 The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose. telephone numbers. management or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar. 43 The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. is not objectionable. which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered. can be made only if and when the canons expressly provide for such an exception. Code of Ethics. . such as that being invoked by herein respondent. "Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his professional associates. we find and so hold that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned exceptions. We repeat. not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. et al. whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility." (Canon 27. For that reason. constitutes malpractice. magazine. associates. the names of clients regularly represented. expressly or impliedly. degrees and other educational distinction. and. it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal and judicial systems. as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers. address. those which are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. State Bar of Arizona. it was found that public opinion dropped significantly 47 with respect to these characteristics of lawyers: Trustworthy from 71% Professional from 71% Honest from 65% Dignified from 45% to 14% to to to 14% 14% 14% Secondly. as in the case at bar. Foremost is the fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a lawyer. in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct. is obviously not applicable to the case at bar. trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso that the exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by such authority in that state. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership." 46 This goes to show that an exception to the general rule. firm name or office address. is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. . A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. namely. The card may contain only a statement of his name. "The most worthy and effective advertisement possible. vs. public or quasi-public offices. with their written consent. cable addresses.). 41 The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists. it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper. 45 which is repeatedly invoked and constitutes the justification relied upon by respondent. in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities. being for the convenience of the profession. or to lower the dignity or standing of the profession. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. addresses. The exceptions are of two broad categories.  purpose of gain. Law is a profession and not a trade. branches of law practiced. The canons of the profession enumerate exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be undertaken. 40 Of course. the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. No such exception is provided for. to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. the prohibition stands. Otherwise. of brief biographical and informative data. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. . schools attended with dates of graduation. he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. even for a young lawyer. posts of honor. It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar Association after the decision in Bates. the names and addresses of references. 44 Verily. As a member of the bar. magazine. . a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper. the name of the law firm which he is connected with. The ruling in the case of Bates. legal teaching positions.

albeit in a different proceeding and forum. Romero. of course.. concur Page 16 of 16    . Nocon. imperative that this matter be promptly determined. we are constrained to refrain from lapsing into an obiter on that aspect since it is clearly not within the adjudicative parameters of the present proceeding which is merely administrative in nature. it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer. 49 Considering that Atty. Inc. major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic. a corporation cannot be organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country. While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or illegality of the purpose/s for which the Legal Clinic.J. it is of utmost importance in the face of such negative. and from conducting. The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is the concern and province of the Solicitor General who can institute the corresponding quo warranto action. is a member of the Philippine Bar. Jr. Davide. just like the rule against unethical advertising. to advertise his services except in allowable instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition. 50 after due ascertainment of the factual background and basis for the grant of respondent's corporate charter. Padilla. ACCORDINGLY. In sum. The Legal Clinic. cannot be subverted by employing some so-called paralegals supposedly rendering the alleged support services. any activity.. It is. Inc. the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent. Nogales. under the present state of our law and jurisprudence.. Bidin. That spin-off from the instant bar matter is referred to the Solicitor General for such action as may be necessary under the circumstances. who is the prime incorporator.. JJ. operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein. and to exert all efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal profession. This interdiction. in light of the putative misuse thereof. with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely. he is hereby reprimanded. Rogelio P. C. to adopt and maintain that level of professional conduct which is beyond reproach. Melo and Quiason. was created should be passed upon and determined.  respondent would only serve to aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack lately by media and the community in general. directly or indirectly. At this point in time. Feliciano. the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance herewith. Bellosillo. Cruz. subject to disciplinary action. Inc. since. even if unfair. criticisms at times. Griño-Aquino. Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Narvasa.

J. reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946. That for the purpose of this Act. Notwithstanding the provisions of section fourteen. 14. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. without the Executive approval. 2. 70 per cent in 1948. 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. unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentage lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress for. shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar: Provided. Although the members of this court reiterated their unfavorable views on the matter. any exact one-half or more of a fraction. 1953 without his signature. 972). seventyone per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-two bar examinations. Enacted on June 21. the President allowed the bill to become a law on June 21. ALBINO CUNANAN DIOKNO. 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. 3. 371. 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. Instead. "in order that a candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully. it approved Senate Bill No. which incidentally was enacted in an election year. shall be considered as one and included as part of the next whole number.A." (Rule 127. seventy-three per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-four bar examinations. 12 which. 1953. Congress did not override the veto. seven members of the court subscribed to and submitted written comments adverse thereto. any bar candidate who obtained a general average of seventy per cent in any bar examinations after July fourth. SEC. SEC. and feeling conscious of having been discriminated against (See Explanatory Note to R. and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. In 1950 to 1953. The President requested the views of this court on the bill. sec.: In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as Republic Act No. Page 1 of 43  In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953. 1954 REPUBLIC ACT NO. No. Complying with that request. 972. nineteen hundred and forty-six up to the August nineteen hundred and fifty-one bar examinations. without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects. Rules of Court). Rule numbered one hundred twenty-seven of the Rules of Court. this court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of only 72 per cent in 1946. seventy-two per cent in the in the nineteen hundred and fifty-three bar examinations. Nevertheless. among others.Resolution March 18. and 74 per cent in 1949. embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. 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. popularly known as the "Bar Flunkers' Act of 1953. 69 per cent in 1947. Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by this court. and secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of seventyfive per cent in any subject in any bar examination after July fourth. however. reads in full as follows:   . The law." Under the Rules of Court governing admission to the bar. the 74 per cent was raised to 75 per cent. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1.

some other 10 unsuccessful candidates are to be benefited by section 2 of said Republic Act.555 121 228 340 409 532 893 879 18 43 0 11 164 26 196 (2) In addition. aside from the memoranda of counsel for petitioners. the Solicitor General. however. Arturo A. Consolidating. 972.168 Of the total 1.738 2.168 candidates. with their latest marks. and because some doubts have been expressed as to its validity. invoking the law in question. 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.H. however. 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. These candidates had each taken from two to five different examinations. Mamerto V. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without.   . 972. Vicente del Rosario. Voltaire Garcia. E. and of petitioners Cabrera.168. Vicente Pelaez and Buenaventura Evangelista. Macasaet and Galema themselves. Barrios. 972 is constitutional. Juan de Blancaflor. Alafriz. 972.068 2. And to realize more readily the effects of the law. The valuable studies of Messrs. properly classified. If they are to be admitted to the bar. it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. Women's Lawyers' Circle. Enrique M. M.230 5. and Roman Ozaeta against it. Miguel R. 972 which. if declared valid. and 56 of 1953. The legal researchers of the court have exhausted almost all Philippine and American jurisprudence on the matter. the court has found no reason to revise their grades.316 2. has greatly helped us in this task. The question has been the Page 2 of 43  1. 972. A complete list of the petitioners. affected by this decision. Fernando. the following statistical data are set forth: (1) The unsuccessful bar candidates who are to be benefited by section 1 of Republic Act No. or mere motions for reconsideration. this tribunal finds no sufficient reasons to reconsider their grades UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. while 125 unsuccessful candidates of 1952.P. on the various aspects in which the question may be gleaned. 972 total 1. and only 586 have filed either motions for admission to the bar pursuant to said Republic Act. and of the U. (3) The total number of candidates to be benefited by this Republic Acts is therefore 1. the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration. in favor of the validity of the law. Messrs. Of these 604 petitioners. We have been enlightened in the study of this question by the brilliant assistance of the members of the bar who have amply argued.033 426 968 284 12. 92 have passed in subsequent examination. they would be sufficient to reach the passing average as provided for by Republic Act No.421 1. Jose M. Vicente J.094. their highest grades in different subjects in previous examinations. should be applied equally to all concerned whether they have filed petitions or not. irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. are appended to this decision as Annexes I and II. Francisco. Aruego. the court set the hearing of the afore-mentioned petitions for admission on the sole question of whether or not Republic Act No. which are still pending because they could be favorably affected by Republic Act No. Cornejo and Antonio Enrile Inton. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners. Gonzales. of which only 604 have filed petitions. many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions. but failed to obtain a passing average in any of them. Vicente Abad Santos. de Joya. orally an in writing. Unfortunately.After its approval. classified as follows: 1946 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 TOTAL (August) (November) 206 477 749 899 1. had presented similar motions.218 1. Carlos A. as well as a more detailed account of the history of Republic Act No. — although as has been already stated. 33 who failed in 1946 to 1951 had individually presented motions for reconsideration which were denied. Messrs.

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.094). 37). if the law in question is valid. we can not find a case in which the validity of a similar law had been sustained.. 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. where the Court of Appeals of New York revoked the decision of the Supreme court of that State. honor and civil liberties. from which has been directly derived the judicial system established here with its lofty ideals by the Congress of the United States. The question is not new in its fundamental aspect or from the point of view of applicable principles. Cannon. the cases of Day (In re Day. of Cannon (State vs. which continued to be supplemented by the addition of new volumes. A new set of Philippine Reports began to be published since 1946. 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. among others. because they suffered from "insufficiency of reading materials" and of "inadequacy of preparation. Many law books. To the legal profession is entrusted the protection of property. the judiciary immediately declared them without force or effect. 81). Page 3 of 43    . It is not within our power to offer a precedent to uphold the disputed law.094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. which was declared by the Court of Appeals to be consistent with the Constitution of the state of New York. the statement that there was an insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly exaggerated. 5. as was exactly found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations. and finally. Republic Act No.object of intense deliberation for a long time by the Tribunal. of Guariña (24 Phil. or in our contemporaneous judicial history of more than half a century? From the citations of those defending the law.236 passed. 1860. 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. it has to be enforced. When similar laws in other countries had been promulgated. and which we have preserved and attempted to improve. the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1. 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. There were abundant materials. those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation. Is there any precedent in the long Anglo-Saxon legal history. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. The Official Gazette had been published continuously. 54 NE 646). to admit to the Bar. precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult." By its declared objective. And now it is claimed that in addition 604 candidates be admitted (which in reality total 1. This law has no precedent in its favor. 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. Books and magazines published abroad have entered without restriction since 1945. Those are facts of public knowledge. The public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency. 240 NW. Quoting a portion of the Explanatory Note of the proposed bill. life. 972 has for its object. To approve officially of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. some even with revised and enlarged editions have been printed locally during those periods. To be exact. Of the 9.675 candidates who took the examinations from 1946 to 1952. the opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 1932 (81 ALR 1061). while those against its validity cite. Moreover. after the voting. according to its author. 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. Notwithstanding all these. 441).

They shall not exercise any power of appointment to public office. Columbia College being an institution of established reputation. in this particular section of the Constitution. solicitors. To this extent alone it operates as a modification of pre-existing statutes. citizenship. 1860. and as rendering the latter examination. The convention was evidently dissatisfied with the manner in which this power had been exercised. to the ordinary examination by the court. the judges) shall not hold any other office of public trust. with respect to the law of April 7. that it was intended to make the college diploma competent evidence as to the legal attainments of the applicant. The only rational interpretation of which the act admits is. without affecting the validity of the act. and for the mere purpose of substituting the examination by the law committee of the college for that of the court. and this was the principal appointing power which they possessed. It could have had no other object.. but to a certain definite period of study before being entitled to a diploma of being graduates. It is urged that the admission spoken of must be by the court. Any male citizen of the age of twenty-one years. as fully equivalent as a test of legal requirements. etc. The decision does not however quote the text of the law. and the insertion of the provision" expecting the admission of attorneys. In the case of Cooper.. the Legislature evidently. supra. 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. of the students before granting a diploma. unnecessary and burdensome. and who possesses the requisite qualifications of learning and ability. etc. 93).. According to the Court of Appeals. and no doubt justly. (p. There is nothing indicative of confidence in the courts or of a disposition to preserve any portion of their power over this subject. and having a law department under the charge of able professors. and it is to be read in connection with these statutes and with the Page 4 of 43    . shall be entitled to admission to practice in all the courts of this State. that to admit means to grant leave. evidently arose from its connection with the object of this prohibitory clause.) Now. These positions may all be conceded. the Court of Appeals said of the object of the law: The motive for passing the act in question is apparent. the power of appointing them had previously rested with the judges. and of course the right of determining whether the applicant possesses the requisite qualifications to entitle him to admission. The act was obviously passed with reference to the learning and ability of the applicant. 93. given by the Legislature or the people. 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. (p. and with the restrictions which the judges had imposed upon admission to practice before them. unless the Supreme Court is right in the inference it draws from the use of the word `admission' in the action referred to. and that the power of granting necessarily implies the power of refusing. considered this examination. All votes for either of them for any elective office except that of the Court of Appeals.It appears that the Constitution of New York at that time provided: They (i. to which no definite period of preliminary study was essential. the object of the constitutional precept is as follows: Attorneys. and nothing else. shall be void. The prohibitory clause in the section quoted was aimed directly at this power. of good moral character. and the act contains nothing whatever to indicate an intention that the authorities of the college should inquire as to the age. the students in which department were not only subjected to a formal examination by the law committee of the institution. to make the law consistent with the Constitution of New York. were public officers. which we cannot find in any public or accessible private library in the country. together with the preliminary study required by the act.e.

444) Page 5 of 43    . 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. its continuous and zealous possession and exercise by the judicial power have been demonstrated during more than six centuries. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been disputably a judicial function and responsibility. the admission. suspending. Because of this attribute.93) From the foregoing. to our judgment and proposition that the admission. in effect.89) xxx xxx xxx The Legislature has not taken from the court its jurisdiction over the question of admission. and not legislative. art. in which the validity of a legislative enactment providing that Cannon be permitted to practice before the courts was discussed. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved.Constitution itself in order to determine the present condition of the law on the subject. (2) The law of New York according to the very decision of Cooper. Cannon (1932) 240 NW 441. the Legislature is acting within its constitutional authority when it sets up and prescribes such qualifications. properly belonging to Congress. a judicial function of the highest degree. 4. it does not decree the admission of any lawyer. (p. Cannon an attorney at law. 444) Under the Constitution all legislative power is vested in a Senate and Assembly. the act of admitting." Even considering the power granted to Congress by our Constitution to repeal. disbarment and reinstatement of the attorneys at law is a legislative function. The function requires (1) previously established rules and principles. And it becomes more undisputably judicial. alter supplement the rules promulgated by this Court regarding the admission to the practice of law. is unacceptable. (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. and in this respect it stands alone as an assertion of legislative power. the complete inapplicability of the case of Cooper with that at bar may be clearly seen. if previous judicial resolutions on the petitions of these same individuals are attempted to be revoked or modified. whether past or present. (Section 1. 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. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived. has not taken from the court its jurisdiction over the question of admission of attorney at law.) In so far as the prescribing of qualifications for admission to the bar are legislative in character. This act purports to constitute Mr. (2) concrete facts. 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. affecting determinate individuals. suspension. 444) But when the Legislature has prescribed those qualifications which in its judgment will serve the purpose of legitimate legislative solicitude. that has simply prescribed what shall be competent evidence in certain cases upon that question. 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. A comprehensive and conscientious study of this matter had been undertaken in the case of State vs. suspension. (p. in effect. is the power of the court to impose other and further exactions and qualifications foreclosed or exhausted? (p. (p. which certainly "constitutes the most solid of titles. and the act of admission has always been regarded as a judicial function. (p.

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

Grattan. Admission to the bar is accomplish and made open and notorious by a decision of the court entered upon its records. 1021. 489. it seems clear that the licensing of an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function. and . In all of the states." One is admitted to the bar "for something more than private gain. Ex parte Secombre. Culkin. whose opportunity for doing mischief is wide. admitted as such by its order. Admission to practice as an attorney at law is almost without exception conceded to be a judicial function. Egan. 471. 333. 242 N.Y. 19 How. holding the test oath for attorneys to be unconstitutional. 7 Wall. 60 A.L. 572. 12). 19 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. 90 A. 13. 130 Am. no matter where the power to determine the qualifications may reside. in People ex rel. 843. Jur. 18 L. 54 NE 646). The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been perpetually exercised by the courts. 43. upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning and fair private character. 470. the court. 19 How. However. explained the nature of the attorney's office as follows: "They are officers of the court. 451) In that same year of 1932. Ed. Ed. 366.J.E.like the court itself. 4 Wall. and restraining authority over the knavish. litigant. That has been the history of attorneys under the common law. (p. Danforth vs. it having been so generally held that the act of the court in admitting an attorney to practice is the judgment of the court. 9.15 L. 565.. "It has been well settled. and for what cause he ought to be removed. adequate learning and sound moral character. 4 Wall. The establishment by the Constitution of the judicial department conferred authority necessary to the exercise of its powers as a coordinate department of government. so far as our investigation reveals. Ed. Ed. those lacking in sufficient learning. an instrument or agency to advance the end of justice. 487. 646." (p. by the rules and practice of common-law courts. as are other proceedings invoking judicial action. and to protect itself in this respect from the unfit. 48 Kan. 285. respectively. and the statement Page 7 of 43    . 565. His cooperation with the court is due "whenever justice would be imperiled if cooperation was withheld. Cor. also that the public be protected from incompetent and vicious practitioners.W. three years preceding their application. It was said by Cardoz. 413. 333. both in this country and England. Chief Justice Taney stated succinctly and with finality in Ex parte Secombe. except New Jersey (In re Reisch. Hanson vs. Ed. in answering a consultation of the Senate of that State.R. belong for. the court said in part: In the case of Ex parte Garland. 82. Brigham. This arises from the need of enlightened assistance to the honest.A. Eq. It is highly important. 83 N. Petition to that end is filed in courts. 180 NE 725. Randall vs. 15 L.exercise the power of appointment when it is in pursuance of a legislative functions. 23 S. as an attorney and counselor. 18 L. C. 115 P. Ex parte Garland.R. 9. 20 Ann. Rep. is regarded as sufficient evidence of the possession of the requisite legal learning. 851: "Membership in the bar is a privilege burden with conditions.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. for assisting in its work.L. Karlin vs. the authorities are well-nigh unanimous that the power to admit attorneys to the practice of law is a judicial function. 519. 53. 34 L." He becomes an "officer of the court"." Without such attorneys at law the judicial department of government would be hampered in the performance of its duties. and those not possessing good moral character. Cas. the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. St. 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. 366. It has always been the general practice in this country to obtain this evidence by an examination of the parties. and an attempt as this on the part of the Legislature to confer such right upon any one being most exceedingly uncommon. 162 N. 1030. In this court the fact of the admission of such officers in the highest court of the states to which they. that it rests exclusively with the court to determine who is qualified to become one of its officers. D. attorneys receive their formal license to practice law by their admission as members of the bar of the court so admitting. 119 N. 456.

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

Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. — Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VIII, sec. 13. 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 primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in this Court. Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter, it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it. Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this Court, but the authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. The power to repeal, 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. The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit, suspend, disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law, or a determinate group of individuals to the practice of law. Its power is limited to repeal, modify or supplement the existing rules on the matter, if according to its judgment the need for a better service of the legal profession requires it. But this power does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to admit, suspend, disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the legal profession. Being coordinate and independent branches, the power to promulgate and enforce rules for the admission to the practice of law and the concurrent power to repeal, alter and supplement them may and should be exercised with the respect that each owes to the other, giving careful consideration to the responsibility which the nature of each department requires. These powers have existed

together for centuries without diminution on each part; 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, culture, training and responsibility. The legislature may, by means of appeal, amendment or supplemental rules, fill up any deficiency that it may find, and the judicial power, which has the inherent responsibility for a good and efficient administration of justice and the supervision of the practice of the legal profession, should consider these reforms as the minimum standards for the elevation of the profession, and see to it that with these reforms the lofty objective that is desired in the exercise of its traditional duty of admitting, suspending, disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law is realized. They are powers which, exercise within their proper constitutional limits, are not repugnant, 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. The case of Guariña (1913) 24 Phil., 37, illustrates our criterion. Guariña took examination and failed by a few points to obtain the general average. 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. The Government appointed Guariña and he discharged the duties of Fiscal in a remote province. This tribunal refused to give his license without previous examinations. The court said: Relying upon the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 1597, the applicant in this case seeks admission to the bar, without taking the prescribed examination, on the ground that he holds the office of provincial fiscal for the Province of Batanes. Section 2 of Act No. 1597, enacted February 28, 1907, is as follows: Sec. 2. Paragraph one of section thirteen of Act Numbered One Hundred and ninety, entitled "An Act providing a Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the Philippine Islands," is hereby amended to read as follows: Page 9 of 43 

 

1. 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; Provided, That any person who, prior to the passage of this act, or at any time thereafter, shall have held, under the authority of the United States, the position of justice of the Supreme Court, judge of the Court of First Instance, or judge or associate judge of the Court of Land Registration, of the Philippine Islands, or the position of Attorney General, Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney General, assistant attorney in the office of the Attorney General, prosecuting attorney for the City of Manila, city attorney of Manila, assistant city attorney of Manila, provincial fiscal, attorney for the Moro Province, or assistant attorney for the Moro Province, may be licensed to practice law in the courts of the Philippine Islands without an examination, upon motion before the Supreme Court and establishing such fact to the satisfaction of said court. The records of this court disclose that on a former occasion this appellant took, and failed to pass the prescribed examination. The report of the examining board, dated March 23, 1907, shows that he received an average of only 71 per cent in the various branches of legal learning upon which he was examined, thus falling four points short of the required percentage of 75. We would be delinquent in the performance of our duty to the public and to the bar, if, in the 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, we should grant him license to practice law in the courts of these Islands, without first satisfying ourselves that despite his failure to pass the examination on that occasion, he now "possesses the necessary qualifications of learning and ability." 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. 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, 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. It is contented that this mandatory construction is imperatively required in order to give effect to the apparent intention of the legislator, and to the candidate's claim de jure to have the power exercised. And after copying article 9 of Act of July 1, 1902 of the Congress of the United States, articles 2, 16 and 17 of Act No. 136, and articles 13 to 16 of Act 190, the Court continued: Manifestly, 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, by giving the word "may," as used in the above citation from Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, or of any Act of Congress prescribing, defining or limiting the power conferred upon the commission is to that extent invalid and void, as transcending its rightful limits and authority. Speaking on the application of the law to those who were appointed to the positions enumerated, and with particular emphasis in the case of Guariña, 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, we have accepted the fact that such appointments had been made as satisfactory evidence of the qualifications of the applicant. 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. In the case under consideration, however, 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 

 

the date of his appointment as provincial fiscal, 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. In the light of this affirmative proof of his defieciency on that occasion, 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. We conclude therefore that this application for license to practice in the courts of the Philippines, should be denied. In view, however, 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; 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, with the consent and approval of the Philippine Commission, sought to retain him in the Government service by appointing him to the office of provincial fiscal, we think we would be justified under the above-cited provisions of Act No. 1597 in waiving in his case the ordinary examination prescribed by general rule, 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, without prejudice to his right, if he desires so to do, to present himself at any of the ordinary examinations prescribed by general rule. — (In re Guariña, pp. 48-49.) It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. The law in question, like those in the case of Day and Cannon, has been found also to suffer from the fatal defect of being a class legislation, and that if it has intended to make a classification, it is arbitrary and unreasonable.

In the case of Day, a law enacted on February 21, 1899 required of the Supreme Court, until December 31 of that year, to grant license for the practice of law to those students who began studying before November 4, 1897, and had studied for two years and presented a diploma issued by a school of law, or to those who had studied in a law office and would pass an examination, or to those who had studied for three years if they commenced their studies after the aforementioned date. The Supreme Court declared that this law was unconstitutional being, among others, a class legislation. 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. The act of the general assembly passed in 1899, under which the application is made, is entitled "An act to amend section 1 of an act entitled "An act to revise the law in relation to attorneys and counselors," approved March 28, 1884, in force July 1, 1874." The amendment, so far as it appears in the enacting clause, 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, either in a law or office or a law school or college, shall be granted a license under this act notwithstanding any subsequent changes in said rules". — In re Day et al, 54 N.Y., p. 646. . . . After said provision there is a double proviso, one branch of which is that up to December 31, 1899, 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, whose regular course of law studies is two years, and requiring an attendance by the student of at least 36 weeks in each of such years, and showing that the student began the study of law prior to November 4, 1897, and accompanied with the usual proofs of good moral character. The other branch of the proviso is that any student who has studied law for two years in a law office, or part of such time in a law office, "and part in the aforesaid law school," and whose course of study began prior to November 4, 1897, shall be admitted upon a satisfactory examination by the examining board in the branches now Page 11 of 43 

 

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

101 Wis.W. as it is sometimes termed. West Virginia. that power can not be exercised in the manner here attempted. All may be pursued as sources of livelihood. the "estate" acquired in them — that is. A statute of the state of Minnesota (Laws 1929." This right may in many respects be considered as a distinguishing feature of our republican institutions.W. 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. 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.W. as distinguished from irrelevant and artificial ones. Justice Field in the case of Dent. 643. Therefore. also. Thomas Call. 114. The State ex rel. 172. 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. Ct. 178 Minn. sex. business or profession he may choose. 99 N. In other words. or.C. see. Even statutes regulating the practice of medicine. 345. 468. 28 S. Here all vocations are all open to every one on like conditions. 76 N. A good summary of a classification constitutionally acceptable is explained in 12 Am. This law singles out Mr. 331. furthermore. State vs. 626. Ed. 1924 and whose disability is rated at least ten per cent thereunder at the time of the passage of this Act. 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. 110. In re Application of George W. Humphrey. 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. 122 Wis. Speaking of the right of the Legislature to exact qualifications of those desiring to pursue chosen callings. 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. 233. 424) commanded the Supreme Court to admit to the practice of law without examination. Jur. State vs. have been challenged. 1924. The interest. 9 S. 121. said: "It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen of the United States to follow any lawful calling. Whitcom. 121 N. As the rule has sometimes avoided the constitutional prohibition.S. and condition. 517.and license those applying as attorneys at law. requiring medications to establish the possession on the part of the application of his proper qualifications before he may be licensed to practice. 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. vs.E. c. Rosenberg. That power must be exercised through general laws which will apply to all alike and accord equal opportunity to all. subject only to such restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of like age. some requiring years of study and great learning for their successful prosecution. 227 N. 129 U. 32 L. must be founded upon pertinent and real differences. 232." This Act was held |unconstitutional on the ground that it clearly violated the quality clauses of the constitution of that state. A law is not general because it operates on all within a clause unless there is a substantial reason why Page 13 of 43    . Winkler vs. Mr. 179. known as "World War Veteran's Act. It is fundamental under our system of government that all similarly situated and possessing equal qualifications shall enjoy equal opportunities. must be based upon substantial distinctions. the right to continue their prosecution — is often of great value to the possessors and cannot be arbitrarily taken from them. 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.

but was abandoned for this and other disadvantages. were not included because the Tribunal has no record of the unsuccessful candidates of those years. because they are not within the legislative powers of Congress to enact. 1954. second. which continue in force. 1955. the text of article 2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. seriously affecting in this manner his usefulness. manifest in the said law. and 73. in 1948. and in 1950 to 1953.5 per cent in the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951. The grave defect of this system is that it does not take into account that the laws and jurisprudence are not stationary. at indefinite intervals. Neither is the exclusion of those who failed before said years under the same conditions justified. These changes in the passing averages during those years were all that could be objected to or criticized. and not generally on all. because their purposes or effects violate the Page 14 of 43    . It was indicated that those who failed in 1944. 70 per cent and in 1949.5 per cent in 1955. (12 Am. which was considered by the Court as equivalent to 75 per cent as prescribed by the Rules. 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. have obtained a general average of 69. by reason of circumstances deemed to be sufficiently justifiable. Now. and to complete the cure of this infirmity. it approves what has been done by this Tribunal. then the classification is fatally defective. 1954 and 1955. and those will obtain 72. but the will or judgment of the Court. with the order that said candidates be admitted to the Bar. 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. This is doing directly what the Tribunal should have done during those years according to the judgment of Congress. 74 per cent. or Congress has exceeded its powers. and third. This power corresponds to the judiciary. which vitiates and annuls article 2 completely. 71. And this power is not included in what the Constitution has granted to Congress. to which such duty been confided. What was done was to stop or suspend them. This is contrary to Section 21 (1). it is obvious that its nullity affect the entire law. Is there any motive of the nature indicated by the abovementioned authorities. 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. the fatal defect is that the article is not expressed in the title will have temporary effect only from 1946 to 1955. and that in such form it is constitutional.5 per cent in 1953. is the best proof that what the law attempts to amend and correct are not the rules promulgated. 1952. it is the lack of will or defect of judgment of the Court that is being cured.5 per cent in 1952. which has been invariably followed since 1950. Laws are unconstitutional on the following grounds: first. 151-153. with the general average indicated.5 per cent obtained by those candidates who failed in 1946 to 1952 as sufficient to qualify them to practice law. by means of simply taking its place. The system that the said law prescribes was used in the first bar examinations of this country. in the 1947 and those who had 69 per cent or more. In this case. will be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar. This fact does not justify the unexplained classification of unsuccessful candidates by years.it is made to operate on that class only. without a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. article VI of the Constitution. What does Rep.5 per cent in 1954. What Congress lamented is that the Court did not consider 69. from 1946-1951. Concededly. This purpose. the power exercised was not to repeal. those who. and when a candidate finally receives his certificate. increasing each year the general average by one per cent. and because it is inseparable from article 1. and none has been given. To defend the disputed law from being declared unconstitutional on account of its retroactivity. the effectivity of the disputed law is being extended up to the years 1953. those who obtained 74 per cent. In other words. Jur.) Pursuant to the law in question. 70. because it falls within the power to apply the rules. it may happen that the existing laws and jurisprudence are already different. alter or supplement the rules. it is argued that it is curative. because they create or establish arbitrary methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles. Article 2 of the law in question permits partial passing of examinations. notwithstanding that the rules require a minimum general average of 75 per cent. however. pp. for this classification ? If there is none. The disputed law clearly does not propose to do so. 1941 or the years before. Hence. 1953.

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

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

Luis P.. Atty. Montemayor.218 55 686 532 164 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 56. Enrique Altavas. Jesus G. Fernando Jugo. Marcial P. Felipe Natividad. Mariano H. Members. Number of candidates who passed 432 Page 17 of 43    .72 74 Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Hon. Atty. Federico Agrava.. Number of candidates Number raised of candidates whose grades were 1. de Joya. Hon. Emeterio Barcelon. Hon. August. Atty. Barrera. Lichauco. Guillermo B. Marceliano R. Atty. Hon. Atty. Hon. August. Hon. Enrique Filamor. Atty. Antonio Araneta. Hon. 1950 Note. Atty.28 43. J. Hilado.59 45. Salvador Araneta. Chairman. Hon. Torres. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade (by resolution of the Court). Macario Peralta. Enrique V.41 69 (by resolution of the Court). Endencia. Francisco Delgado). the Court found out that they were not benefited at all by the bonus of 12 points given by the Examiner in Civil Law. Carlos B. August. Hon. Atty. Francisco A. Sr. Fernando Jugo.Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Filamor. Rafael Amparo. 1949 cent) Board of Examiners: Hon.40 37. Hon. Hon. Pastor M. Delgado. Hon. Atty. Hon. Felipe Natividad. 1948 Board of Examiners: Hon. Members. Number of candidates Number of candidates raised (74's) whose grades were 1. Members. Number of candidates Number raised of candidates whose grades were 29 35 490 409 11 (per cent) (per cent) (per 62. Antonio Horrilleno. Chairman Hon.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.--In passing the 2 whose grades were 68.95 per cent and 68.1 per cent respectively. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade (by resolution of the Court). (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 409 340 972 54. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade Board of Examiners: Hon. Atty.316 38 (The grade of 74 was raised to 75 per cent by recommendation and authority of the examiner in Remedial Law. Alfonso Ponce Enrile.2 Chairman. Jose Teodoro. Federico Agrava. Atty. Sr. Guevara. Sabino Padilla.

Fernando Jugo. Hon.49 42.04 38.73 75 Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Pablo. Number of candidates Number of candidates raised (74's) whose grades were 2. Hon. Number of candidates Number of candidates raised (74's) whose grades were 2. 1953 Board of Examiners: Hon.. Hon. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade August. de la Cruz. Mariano L. de la Rosa. Hon. Members. Alfonso Felix. Jose S. Hon. Enrique Altavas.068 112 1. Pastor M. Felipe Natividad. Guillermo F.555 100 1. Atty. Virata.96 75 Number of candidates who passed Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Emilio P. Sr. Filamor.570 986 284 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 61. Manuel Lim. Hon. Emilio Peña. Alfonso Felix. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade August. Atty. Felipe Natividad.27 37. Atty. Hon. Chairman. Chairman. Atty. Francisco Ortigas.738 Page 18 of 43    . Hon.189 879 196 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 57. Chairman. Enrique V. Atty. Hon. Number of candidates 2. Hon.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 August.033 426 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 62. Atty. Members. Francisco Ortigas. Arturo Alafriz. Hon. Sabino Padilla. Hon. Endencia. Members.Number of candidates who failed Number of those affected by Republic Act No.14 67. Vicente Albert. Pastor M. 1952 Board of Examiners: Hon. Alfonso Felix. Jr.86 75 Number of candidates raised (74's) whose grades were 163 1. Hon. Endencia. Macario Peralta.. Endencia. Pastor M. Atty. Filamor. Hon.705 1. Enrique V. Felipe Natividad. Atty. Hon. Emilio Peña. 972 Percentage of success Percentage of failure Passing grade Board of Examiners: Hon. Enrique Altavas. 1951 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) 894 26 32. Hon.

Pedro M. 76 64 72 64 74 65 75 70 68 83 70 74 65 68 Canda.9 MRDCornejo. Filemon L. 80 38. 23. Pedro 85 43. 70 7 7 73 Orlina. Pol. Antonio Lu. Manuel L. 69. 80 44. Odon R. Miguel S. 19. 75 42. 71. 15. Olvido D. Bandala. 71. 21. 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. Freidrich M. Albino Mejia. 11.8 36. Pedro V. 29. 1949 7. Amando C.4 25.95 Garcia. Crisanto R. Gen. Enriquez. 24. David D. Vivero. Soledad R. Rem. 20. 1948 MRD4. 75 41. MRD5. Espiritu. 16. Agunod. 69. 73 7 50 73 73 73 Abaya. 71. 70. Asinas. MRD3. and who filed mere motions for reconsideration without invoking said law. 34. Apolinario.05 Garcia. 12. Gregorio O. Jose B. Amado P. Gatchalian. 22. 80 39. Dizon. 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. Av. 13. T. Irineo E. Benjamin Blanco. Gallardo. Macario J.8 Fernandez. Clarin. Alfredo L. Amog. Angel L. Crim. Aquino. 72. Agustin P.65 Gonzales. Claudo. Cunanan. 72. Baldivino. Estela S. Julian L. 66 71 61 76 80 83 73 75 71. 9. Int.85 28. follows: PETITIONER UNDER THE BAR FLUNKERS' LAW 17. Garcia. 972.A list of petitioners for admission to the Bar under Republic Act No. 65 70. Jose Buenaluz. Civ.15 Genoves.2 Garcia. MRD6. Anacleto A. Santiago C. Bandon. 73. Marcial C. Condevillamar. MRD2. de 70 70 72 73 72 72 70 Page 19 of 43    . Advincula. Benjamin S. Balintona. Corona. 14.95 Guia. Candido D.65 33. Baquero. which are still pending.95 31. 72. Flaviano V.45 Cerezo. Land Merc. 71. Canon. 32. Conrado O. 73 73 73 72 26. Bernardo 61 75 75 82 75 75 75 Garcia. 30. Banawa. 63 Alacar. with annotations as to who had presented motions for reconsideration which were denied (MRD). Antonio V. Pascual C. MRD8. Salud 71 75 72 68 73 66 66 73 71 75 63 65 63 75 78 75 66 68 70 65 65 88 69. 18. Guillermo Carlos. 10. Maximo G. Leon Mo. Jesus A. 85 40. grouped by the years in which they took the bar examinations. 80 69. Leg. 63 72 70 69 7 7 Agraviador. Alawadin L.5 37. 80 27.

Proceso D. 60. Leonor S.4 Samano.05 70 7 7 Page 20 of 43    . Lim. Casimiro P.75 Santos. 70. 57. Benito B. Basilio S. 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. Marcelino Lim. Pido.6 98. Leyson. 70. Cuadrato Pañganiban. Fernandez. Seludo. Casto P. 75 71 75 85. 68 75 68 77 75 85 78 70 67 73 73 76 70 71 60 59 69 72 7 73 75 88. Mariano I.3 80 81. 80 73 7 7 7 72 75 82. 68. Vicente 80 72.65 Robis. Manuel C. Arsenio N. Nicolas Kalalang. 75 77.75 Saliguma.5 MRD70. 70 85 80.45. Viado. 69. Gaudencio 70 Miranda. Alfredo P. 70. Jose 75 75 75 80 75 70 95. 61. Lopez. 48.9 96. 73. 85 78. Crisogono 79 80 84. Lopez. 1948 66. 71 la 80 70. Rodrigo C. Palma. 85 79. 71. 67. Romero. 70. 70 76. Orosco. 75 100. 71. Manoleto. 51. Pablo S. Jose E. Clarencio J. 64. Valentin S.1 97.1 Hechanova. 70. 49. 73. 72. de 75 71. Filoteo Jesus. 70. Veyra. Felipe Patalinjug. Pareja. 73. Serafin C. 80 86. 85 83. Zabala. 74. Mercado. 71 87. Mancao. 63. Remigio Layumas. Lopez. de Jocom. Villacarlos. Juares. Eliezar M.45 Regalario.95 Tesorero. Josefina R. 59. Benjamin G.85 Pimentel. 46. 70.6 1950 69. 47. 70 71. 52. 55. Angelo P. 75 101.7 Santos. Felipe D. Fortunato A.3 Rodil. Ariston L. 72. 50. Rafael I. 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. de 65 91. 72. 54. Mariano M. Padua.15 94. Jacobo M. 62. 76 80 90. Ananias G. Libanan. Filomeno de la 69 70 70 70 70 73 73 70 73 Española. 69.75 99. Torres.15 Saez. 71. 71.55 Semilia. Leocadio T. 71. Linao. Eriberto Paulin.6 Plantilla. Zosimo C. 56. Cruz. Amando A. 71. Manad. Faustina C. Torre.55 93. Jose V. 58. Villamil. Delfin A. 70. Palang. Porfirio D. Nicanor S. Jose C. Mariano A.25 Foronda. Luis P. 71. 80 72. Francisco C. 65. Crispulo P. Simeon Jakosalem.15 D.95 Telan. 75 70. Amancio F. Manera. 80 89. 68.95 92. Andres B. Jose F. Vicente L. 53.

MRD115. Abasolo. Ambrosio 76 67 73 71 72 73 75 64 139. 72 73 7 69 69 Homeres. Vicente Z. Alfonso Balacuit. Jesus B.95 Gastardo. Ungson. Calimlim. 111. 71. D. 105. Manuel G. 75 73. 129. 70 7 70 7 72 Dominador 75 72 75 77 69 70 66 78 67 MRD70. 125.4 148.75 Guiani. Pablo L. Juan A.2 80 MRDFarol. Peñalosa.05 135. 150. Jose N. Praxedes P. 1951 106. Eufemio P.4 Castro. 124.8 MRDDimaano. 62 140. 109. Juan T. Antonio del Castillo. Tomas P. Dacanay. Buela. 70. Federico S. Torre. 132. 73. Jr. Osias R. 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. 72. 71. Amodia. Crispin B. Conrado S. 72. 79 71. 79 147. 75 71. 71. 70 72 68 143.25 Camello. 70.1 136. Briñas. 68 Barrientos. Cabilao. 69. 79 MRD72. 72. Ireneo M. 64 70 72 144.85 137. Cruz. MRD118. Catalino P. Antiola. Pedro B. Jeremias L. Felix. Guinald M.65 Ibarra.25 Guina. Angelo B. Leonardo S. Genson.35 Casuga. B. Atienza. 103. 77 71.15 Calimlim. 145. MRD117. Salvador G. Aquino. Santiago B. Sixto F. Soledad C.8 MRD64 131. 78 71. 71.6 134. Venancio M. Sotero H.25 79 72 70 72 7 72 70 73 7 Barinaga. 73 Page 21 of 43    . Felisberto 80 71. Evencia C. Ad. Anastacio R.2 142. Sarmiento. Arcadio P. 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. 82 130.2 126. Cabangbang. 75 68 66 71 146. 113. MRD104. 66 73. 76 138. 112. S. Cabrera. Avanceña.. Castillo.7 Campos. Floro A. Camilo N. 69 128. Calilung. Espinosa. Fernan. Daniel G. Añosa. Deysolong. 108. Imperial. 119. Graciano P. 70. 107. 122. Pablo S. Romulo Adeva. 114.25 Gandioco.25 Bienvenido 76 133. Emilio V. Biason. MRD120. Cacacho.25 78 141. 71 67 72 Benitez. Aguilar. Jose B. Isagani A. 116. MRD110. 74 60 72 73 7 59 149.MRD102. Fernando S. Monico L. Domingo L. 69. 121. 123. Rey A.

163.2 74 195. Lavilles. 153. MRD168.75 Torres.1 MRD62 196. Aquilino Leodegario 73 70 73 75 191. 70.85 176. 75 73. Emiliano 71 M.75 180. 57 177. 72. Jr. Carlos P. MRD- Ibasco. 72 62. 170. 169. 72. Ireneo I.1 51 Saavedra. Capistrano C. 156.5 Velasco. Rigor. 69 Tiausas. Benjamin S. Estelita C.5 Tado. 72.05 187.. 69 72. Salem. 154. Deogracias A. Julita A. Domingo A. Valeriano V. 160. Languido. 70. Florentino P.15 61 183. MRD171. de Antonio 66 F. 73 70 Rimorin-Gordo. Fortunato C. Alberto M. 62 189. Florencio C. 174.95 70 Olaviar.75 181. 155. 68 71. M. 70 Nisce. 73 73 Monzon. Alfredo N. Ocampo. 72. 77 Jimenez. 70. Jose O. 78 72. 72 Page 22 of 43    . Camilo Z. 75 72 75 Tapayan.35 MRD75 182. Estela 70 Rosario. Francisco U. 73. MRD167. 157.3 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. Foz. de Llanto. Cesar L. Gregorio Puzon. 166. Romulo R. 70.55 Redor. 78 70. 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. Avelino A.95 190.5 Ramos-Balmori. Felipe Salazar. Teodorico 79 194. 73. 70 69 Navallo. 72. Santos. 164.MRD151.05 Suson. 70. Encarnacion 77 Maligaya.75 Santos.75 51 75 184. 152. S. Natividad. 185. Inandan. MRD161. 70 70 73 72 73 7 Catalina 70 73. Perez. Pogado. del Vicente 70 D. Leon. Meynardo R.55 75 MRD71. 79 MRD70. Suico. Eduardo S. 179. Candido T. 73. 158. Causin O. MRD162. 72. Tria. Samuel 69 193. MRD173. Prisco del Rosario. 192. Marcial.65 186. Llenos. Ana. Oscar 75 63 61 64 63 72 68 Kintanar. Hipolito 75 199. 198. Priscilla Machachor.95 Recinto. C.05 Manuela 69 178. 159. Francisco K. Demetrio 70 67 72 66 68 72 72 Manio. MRD165. 72. Montero. Monterroyo. Cesar V.15 188. Martin. 172. Santa T. Marcelo D. 70 72. 75 73 66 77 75 Candido 77 72 76 73 74 64 67 68 69 65 70 Magsino. Miguel V. Woodrow M. Cesario Z. 73 72 7 69 197.

Cayetano S. 234. Robustiano 74 O. 73 Arcangel.2 70 232. Villarama. 75 MRP70. 70 228. Rey A. 216.8 D. Adrias.65 Belo. Agustin Ag. 1952 203. 70 72. Jose Y. S. Job R. Ceferino D. 226.55 Bautista. 239.95 Arribas. Doroteo R. 202. Ramos B.7 229. Felino A.2 Antonio.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 75 223.65 Banta. Atilano C. MRP213. Pablo Abad. MRP221. Dionisio N. Agapito N. 71. MRP206. Abinguna. Alano. Oscar C. 75 66 76 75 75 76 72 73 75 71 Ambrosio 76 66 70 71 76 76 79 72 70 7 7 75 235. Pedro Abacon. 71 70 62 MRP73. Agapito Abella. Fabian T. 75 Abenojar. Nehemias C. Alandy.7 241. Jose S.4 Belderon. 215. Conceso D. 70 MRP73.85 Barrientos. Bautista. 240. 77 73. 236.4 242. 233. Inocencio C. 71. 211. Filomeno D. 71 70. 224. Roger C.45 Añonuevo.65 Batucan. 208. 72. 73. 219. Geronimo F. 53 MRP70.9 230. Francisco C. Camilo N. 62 237. 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. 73 73 Benaojan. 72 67 70 72 73 Abellera. 71. Agapito C. 212.75 Bejec. 75 238.9 Azucena. Serafin V. Mariano L. Andres R.7 Arteche. 65 MRP71. Isaac M. MRP220.3 243. Jose M. 71. Felicidad Amodia. Jr. Alcantara. Beriña. 72 72 72 65 MRP70. Almonte-Peralta. Almeda. Jose 62 MRP72. MRP204. Ludovico B. 70 MRP72. 214. Baclig. 201. 209. 55 225. Bihis. Aquino. Pablo V. MRP205. Villagonzalo. 222. 217.. Adove. Ricardo Balacuit. MRP207. MRP218. 58 MRP72. Juan T. Atienza. 78 MRP71. 73. Dominador Z.200. 70 75 72 7 73 Page 23 of 43    . 71 64 70 71 70 73 73 70 Barilea. Villa. Marcelo M.7 227. Antonio. Celso J. 73. MRPBeltran. 60 231. Andrada. Balcita. Victor B. MRP210. Gervasio M. 75 Acosta. Aglugub.

Getulio R. 75 MRP73. Vicente M. Paulino N. Herminio 71 65 78 MRP73.75 Cartagena. 82 MRP73. Datu. MRP245. 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. Avelina R.8 MRP62 281. Cabreros. 279. 71. Rosalio B.2 Crisol. MRP252. Calañgi. 260. MRP246. Doroteo M. Mateo C.. Pablo N. 71. 262. 249. 248. MRP264.85 73 7 Gaudencio 70 70 75 68 73 77 Castro. Agustin 71 B. 254.85 Cornejo. 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 80 267.3 276.05 Castro. Cabello. 78 76 68 75 78 73 Calayag. Jr. 72 Page 24 of 43    . MRP251. 80 270.6 Crisostomo. Orlando 69 B. Benjamin S. 269. Colorado. Anastacio F. 70 71 73 70 73 Capacio. Pedro L. MRP266. Campanilla. Pedro R. 73 7 73 72 72 7 82 282. 259. Armando R. 76 56 MRP73. Isabel Cabugao. Alejandro P. B. 71. 285. 71 Cunanan. Arsenio V. 60 71. 253. Alfredo J. Cardoso. Vicente N. Crisanto R. Juan A.5 275. MRP257. Calzada.65 Dacuma. 80 271. Bobila. Chavez. 73 Delgado. Buenafe.9 286. MRP255. 73. 50 277. MRP250. 256. 60 70.15 Dusi. 75 70 72 7 7 Mariano 80 66 Campos. Irineo M. 71 274. Salvador F. Juan A. Cabrera. 247. 72. Angelita G.65 70 91 284. Jose C. Jr. Cesar V. 76 278. 60 72. 57 73. 70. 72. 76 MRP73. 72 73 73 Cobangbang. Bueno. Maximino L. Chavez. Alfredo 75 Caluya. Binaoro. Conrado 67 Capitulo. Melecio F.8 75 283. 70. Borres. de 73 7 Cerio. 258.15 V. 69 Cortez.244. Alfonso R.2 273. Jesus L. Cesar de la Canabal. Cabegin. 70. MRP265. Honorato A. MRPDegamo.25 289. Luis B. 62 MRP70.75 Cauntay. 70 Cimafranca. 288.9 272. Cantoria. 71. Raymundo 75 280.7 Cruz. 75 Calupitan. R. 261.95 Cunanan. MRP263. Daniel T. Canda. Felicisimo R. 76 287.. Florentino R. 70.

70 MRP73. 309. Balbino P.65 Gallos. 73. MRP306. Hilario B. Rosa C. Ducusin. Fajardo.35 Fortich. 72.7 Galman.05 Fohmantes. Alberto I.2 Galang. 73. Delgado. 291. Patrocinio G. 301. Jose A. 298. Enage.9 330. 73. Gilbang. Ernesto A. 304. Agustin A. Jacinto N. 70 328. 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. Abner 73 Domingo. Lope F. Favila. Familara. Raymundo 68 75 MRP72.9 Flores.15 MRPGanete. Guillermo 75 Jr. 73. Benjamin B. Fabros. de la 76 317. MRP307. Jose B. B. 72 MRP68.2 Fuente.5 Garcia. 70 316. Galem. 65 71. Eulalio D. MRP294. MRP295. MRP303.1 Galindo. Gamboa. Dipasupil. 72 73 70 Page 25 of 43    . MRP302. Lorenzo B. 331. MRP297. Nestor R.85 333. 314. Sulpicio Edradan. Alberto M.8 Feliciano. 78 326. Encarnacion. Gallardo. Dominador 70 T. 305. MRPFuggan. 73. Dionisio S. 308. 66 319. Duque. 310.05 Gamalinda. Diolazo. Gannod. 71. 67. 56 MRP73. Manuel L. 68. 75 329. 70. Agapito B. Jose Pe B. 296. 325. MRP293. Z. Victor N. Felicidad 75 P. 65 321. 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. Duque. 75 MRP72. Dionisio 312. Jose S.MRP290. Nazario 72 75 73. Claudio R. 66 MRP72. 72 86 322. Fajardo. 324.25 Fariñas. Gaerlan. Castulo Ebbah. Matias N. Antonio S.4 75 323. 299. MRP292. Antonio G.9 S. Carmelo 332. 76 318. Cesar Estoista. 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. 72 73 7 72 7 70 Evangelista.65 Fernando.. Edisa. 70 75 75 70 65 70 66 78 315. Percival B. Carlos S. Gaudioso R. Dionisio.95 Gabuya. 313. Jesus S. 75 MRP72. 76 327. Genaro P. 70 72.65 75 320. Cirilo B. 300.

Napoleon Marco. de 359. 72. 72. Leones. Jamer. Jomuad. Antonio S. Amando E. 75 Hernandez.3 362. Nestor L. Naterno G. 339. 70. Osmundo P. 70. Salvador T. MRP354. Jr.8 Maloles. Iluminado M. de Grageda. 70. 70 75 65 75 75 70 Maraña. 62 70 73 73 7 72 73 Page 26 of 43    . Cesar L. Mateo de Guzman. 60 360. Justiniano F.. 65 361. Claro C. 73. 72 54 373. Eulalia L. 73.65 MRPMakabenta. 70. MRP336. Majarais. 355. 70.75 MRP76 73. 70 371. 70 69.55 Maniquis. Ines. 80 73. Alipio S. 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. Jose M.7 Mara. 342.7 50 372. MRP337. Geronimo E. Guzman. 340. Emiliano 75 M.9 MRP365. Lauro L. 75 70. Eduardo 75 60 368. 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. Rafael C. Jose S. Llanera. 72. Juan de Guzman. 344. MRP- Gofredo. Quintin B. Jardinico. 73 50 376. Aquilino M. Felipe A. Javier. Justiniano S. Tomas S. Emilio Jaen.9 76 MRP70. 349. A.4 80 MRP69. Ignacio T. Jr. MRP351. Jose P. 346. MRP352. Lorenzo V. Salvador B. Leonilo F.05 Mati-ong.05 Liboro. Arsenio Marasigan. 67 Homeres. Gracia. Gomez. 72 73 7 72 72 67 7 Ibasco. 335. 75 de Habelito.6 364. Lomontod. Horacio T. 76 370.75 366.85 La Q. Constante B. 70. 73. Daniel R. Guillermo L. 343. Brigido C. Jaime P. 73 65 68 73 363. 71 Hedriana. Gosiaoco. Lucito Luz.9 62 357. Gonzales. 377..85 72 MRPMasancay. 43 378. Jaring.75 55 68 73 72 Godofredo 80 73 367. 77 375. 1952 347. 72. Macasaet. MRP338. MRP350. MRP341. 345. 70.75 66 MRP73.6 Malapit.35 Leon.334. 58 71. Mercado. Luna. 73 76 72 75 75 78 72 MRPMartir. Jose M. 54 358. 74 369. 353.8 MRP64 374. 348. V. Rodolfo P. Magbiray. Agustin R. Francisco Jose.

Celso B. 70 Nono. Toribio R. MRPPasion. Ocampo. Olandesca. 396. Opiña. MRP390.65 Peña. MRP395. Filemon Poblete.1 405.9 Pido. Serafin C. Jr. Eugenio P. 401. Jose O. 70 72 79 MRP73. Generoso 78 Mosquera. 70 7 Page 27 of 43    . Nuval.6 70 MRPPelaez. Estanislao 75 L.35 75 67 417. MRP399.. MRP380. 71. Benedicto S. Perez. 410. Jose O. 67 75 71 70 63 69 70 72 66 MRP73. Pacifico G. Anastacio 413. 420. Noguera. Eduardo S. MRP383.15 Pastrana.379. 73. Domiciano R. 83 MRP73. 71 77 77 67 72 68 72 67 419. Nazareno. Monponbanua.8 422. Augusto Oliveros. Vicente V. Mario V. Miculob. Jr. 71. Jose C. 79 416. 70. 398. Fedelino S. Jr. 57 412. 73 Morada. 76 408. Luz 423. 67 78 75 72 76 70 70 72 70 414. Montero. Pablo..7 Pestaño. 388. 71. 385. Santos L.9 73 7 72 7 Nodado.85 79 421. Rafael M. Crispin M. Romeo P. Manuel R. Nadela.45 Puzon. Pinlac. 57 MRP73. Perfecto D. Vicente C. Rodentor P.. 391. Padilla. Apolonio J..15 73 73 75 MRP69.15 Parayno. Estanislao 71 E. 72. Servillano S. 394. Paderna. MRPPaulin. 68 424. 60. Melencio T. MRP389. 72. Orden. 76 71. 66 72. Mison. 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. MRP386. MRP400. MRP392. 415. 65 MRP72.9 70 73 Ortiz.15 Palma. Raymundo 80 70 72 67 69 71 Padilla. Antonio D. Jr.8 403. 76 72. MRP382. Nieto.75 Papa. 407. Macario. 75 Mocorro. 381. Geredion T. 397. 72 7 Leodegario 72 75 406. 72 63.15 Padlan. Rizal R.95 Pacifico. Melquiades 73 70 7 7 73 79 MRP71. 387.45 Piza. 411. Jesus 418. Pedro R. Angel A. Bartolome 409. 70 71. Per O. C. 73.05 Pariña. Motus. Amado A. 384. Pedro Olaviar. 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. MRP393.

Jose V.25 467. 73. Enrique Rodriguez. Quietson.2 463. Quipanes. Josefina D. Aquilino C. Clarita 468. 73.9 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. Abdon L.65 461. 73 Rosario. Domingo B.65 Sañiel. Felix L. 449. Robles. 75 76 75 67 72 75 75 76 73 72 7 7 456. Santillan. Revilla.15 73 7 Tabaque. 72. 435. 54 450. 53 458. 80 72. 460. Cesar V.. MRP432. Jesus B. 446. MRP434. Conrado S.4 Santiago. Mariano S. MRP427. 71. 70.6 464. Rufino A.35 Santos. 73 73 73 Rivero. Emmanuel 75 75 453. Restituto F. Jesus L. Oscar R. Manuela Raro. Raffiñan. 81 MRP73. MRP444. 73. Reyes. Damaso 80 451. Ramirez. 70 MRP73. Buenaventura 72 A. 429. MRP426. Adelaida R. Jose A. Suanding. 438.425. 70 Soriano. Reyes. MRP431.25 Samaniego. 71. Rivera.9 Santos. Aniceto S. MRP440. 65 452. Sulit. 441. Ramos. MRPSybico. 71 77 72 75 72 72 7 72 70 MRPSandoval.55 Rosario. 445. Pablo D. 436.25 M. MRP433. Juanito Ll. 447. 437. 64 73 79 73 7 70 Orestes 76 67 70 465. 439. 50 73. Ruperto M. Lozano M. Reyes. 70 MRP73. 80 Page 28 of 43    . 77 455. 69 81 Roldan. 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. Bantas 70 MRP72. MRP443.35 Santos. MRP430. Arellano 75 Songco. Benjamin R. Quetulio.9 Santos.7 459. Celso Rayos. Rodolfo C. Melchor V.9 Tan Kiang. 70 73. Reyes. Macario D. Patricio S. 457. 75 del 53 MRP72.7 462. 60 73. 71. Racho.55 San Juan.85 70 MRP72.85 Sabelino.7 Suarez.45 Q. Sabas P. 78 72. Rigonan. MRPSanidad. Felicisimo G. 442. 65 454. Bayani R. 466. Francisco M. 71 71. Feliz M. 428. 72. Ramos-Balmori. Reyes. 73 66 73 79 MRP73. Cristobal Emmanuel 71 Jr. Victor S.

Jr. Felipe C.. 484. Pedro O. Varela. 70.4 73 70 Tiongson. MRP476.85 1. Amado T. 67 Emmanuel 71 73 78 69 75 Civ.8 75 501. Amao. Apolonio Trinidad. 50 495. MRP- Tando. 71. 63 492. D. 485. Cecilio C. MRP479. Verzosa. 471. 70 7 7 496. and those who had filed motions for reconsideration which were denied.55 MRP50 498. Yaranon. MRP473.2 66 Page 29 of 43    .15 Villar. indicated by the 70 initials 73. 478. Mariano R.7 UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. Pol. Venal.6 list of those who petitioned for the consolidation of their grades in subjects passed in previous examinations.05 1951 59 73. MRP486. 72 73 7 7 75 A 72. Artemio V. 50 MRP73. Teodoro Zamora. Pedro 63 MRP71. Yulo. 73. 71. MRP490.8 71. MRP472.. Umali. 474. Venus. Venancio M. 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. Udarbe. 77.8 499. MRP475. Alfredo A. Leg. 480.MRP469. Trillana.55MRD.65 77 2. 483. Alberto Rigonan. Crim. 494. Ismael P. 70 Tolentino. Osmundo C. Severo E. Torrijas. Flavio J. Usita. Jose H. 67 1946 71. Int.3 Yasay. Gelacio U. MRP488. 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. Juanito C. 75 77 69 76 66 66 80 68 77 75 72 78 Leonidas 80 80 70 75 73 73 70 70 73 Viterbo. Federico T.45 Villaseñor. showing years in which they took the examinations together with 60 the 71. Umayam. Dominador M. Sulpicio M. Land Merc. Conrado B. MRP482.05 73 1950 73. Villafuerte. 67. Jr. 470. Rem.7 their 60 71 grades and averages. 72 V. Manuel O. Tiburcio. 72 70 65 76 73. 481.85 73. follows: 75 PETITIONERS 73. Francisco M.7 1952 66 67 64 69 Eduardo 75 65 1953 71. Trinidad. Jesus C. Macairog L. 57 497. Tobias. MRP477. de Velasco. Vega. 489. Federico B. Custodio R.8 Ygay. Valino. Baldo. 487. Tasico. Maria E. Artemio M. 73. 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. F.65 54 493. 65 500.

Jesus S. 68.9 17.15 Rementizo. 72. Juan J. Sulpicio M. Jose B. Luna.4 16. Condeno. 67. Placido. Manuel N. Garcia.3. 1951 1952 1953 10. 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. 60. Sr. Lucito A. 1952 60 1953 68.35 86 1953 67. Filemon S. 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    .65 89 14. 1950 1951 1952 11. Maraña.8 50 1952 66. Constantino 75 1952 69..3 Sanchez.25 84 15. Blanco. Macario C. MRD-1949 1950 6. Sevilla.4 78 1953 70.55 75 1951 68. 1949 1952 9. Manuel M.3 81 13.85 Amao. MRD-1949 1950 7. 1951 80 1952 69. Arsenio s.65 18. Mateo 1950 1951 5. 71 MRD-1948 46. 71 1949 66.1 Rodulfa. Salvador H. 64 1951 64.4 66 1950 70.95 1951 92 1952 69.2 50 MRD-1949 66. 1948 69 MRD-1949 66. Juan T. Montano. Santos.4 MRD-1951 69 1953 67. Ducusin.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. 1946 1952 8. Peña. Agapito B. Santos.

Benjamin 77 Civ. Armando G. De Lugtu. Rufino C. Abraham I. 5. 74 43. Arnaiz. 70 75 81 35. Gracia. Antonio S. 972. Padula.4Melocoton.G. while some candidates--85 in all--presented motions for reconsideration of their grades. 75 50. 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 1.45 Mandi. Buenaventura 80 M.95 70 69 69 72 63 73 70 72 70 Fernandez. Benjamin R. Fernando 63 73 39. 2. 65 67 70 75 85 87 54 71 80 32. 71. Baldo.8Rabaino. Florencio F. 71 Sabaot. Dimapuro Castañeda. 69 49. 73. 73. 7. Cariño. 72. Buhay. Gregorio Estrellado. Calixto R. Floriano U. 66. 70 70. de 29.05 74 42. Solomon B. 28. Leovigildo 70 47.95 74 45.95 82 37. Leg. 18. Gen. Alejandro G. others invoked the provisions of Republic Act No. Santiago P. 73. Renovilla. 10. 68 41. 9. 72. Bala. Jr. Julius G. Olegario A. Crim. 74 46. 73 Peña. Benjamin C. Oscar N. 71. Paciano L. 73. 75 69 36. Sisenando B. Mariano A. Gapus. 73. 71. Felipe L. with regards to the examinations of 1953. 77 73 70 68 62 82 51 67 77 31. Burgos. Leopoldo R.8Margete.4Muñoz. Land Merc. Exequiel Andres. 72. 4. 30. Jr. Acenas. Jose M. 21. Dominador C. Casar. Enrique M. Pol. Rodolfo P. Celestino M. 70. Eduardo L.. 76 38. 17. Miguel L.25 Navarro. Rafael B. 8. 11. 65 70 73 69 73 Page 31 of 43    . Rem. 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 33.7Papas. Alcantara. Av. 20. de Bacaiso.7Molina. Alejandro. Bernardo M. 13. Gungon. Ilejay. Fabunan. Manuel C. Maloles. A list of those candidates separating those who filed mere motions for reconsideration (56) from those who invoked the aforesaid Republic act. Asis.65 71 51. Domingo B. 27. Antonio E. 26. 67 Nodado. Barrios. Domiciano R. Lukman. Gutierrez. Maloles. Pedro N.35 Pigar. 14.6Ramos. Gregorio M. is as follows: 1953 PETITIONERS FOR RECONSIDERATION 23.Finally. Int. 19. Nestorio B. Leon. 80 48. 71. 70. 73.1Radaza. 78 34. Rosita S. Benjamin O. (Miss) Garcia. 3. 15.9Ravanera. 25. Andres D. Benjamin La. 78 40. 73. Eldo J. 12. 22. Edilberto C.. 6. 24. 16. 78 44. Feril.35 Pasno. 73. 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.2Publico. Narciso Peralta.

Celestino R. Marcos Ramos. Gen. Calautit. but raising to 75 per cent those who obtained 74 per cent since 1950. 12.8 This caused the introduction in 1951. Salvador H. 28. Page 32 of 43  73 73 Fernandez.35 12 which was intended to amend Sections 5. Federico V. Angela P. In determining the 77 72. 10 per cent. Antonio M. Political Law.75 average. 9.55 77 22. petition. Pol. 70 per cent in 1948. Montano. 64. 10. 73. Villavicencio. Antonio L. 55.5Rivera. 72 21. 13. 18. 12. 15. Constantino P. Land Registration Mortgages. Narciso Alcantara. 4. Jose A. Pedro Garcia. 17. Ruperto G. Figueroa. Mercantile Law. Santos. 972 71 78 84 75 75 61 68 72 73. Crim. 61 80 72. 15 per cent. 77 24. Juan R.65 Criminal Law. 5. 26.3 127 of the Rules of Court. Sevilla. Severino Fernandez. 3. 5 per cent. in the Senate of the Philippines 72of Bill 73 No.05 14. (1952) Nestor 27. 6. this Court reduced to 72 per cent 58the 79 72.8 by this resolution. Santiago R. 73. 14 and 16 of Rule 68 68 72. Rafael F. 56. he 76 must 72. Vera. Manuel M. 78 and 70. Alfredo A. 2. Leg. The proposed is as follows: 69amendment 82 71. but those referring sections 62to 70 71 14 and 16 immediately concern us. Eulogio J. 69. Galema.52.05 As will be observed from Annex I. 76 73 76 73 80 58 68 73 59 73 74 81 77 73.35 The Enactment of Republic Act No. 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. 9. 10 per cent. Torrefiel.45 weights: Civil Law. Manuel M. 54. Land Merc. The 70amendments 75 73. Ricardo S. Luis N. 7. Casuncad. Venancio Bustos Ylaya. 67   . Macalindong.9they reach a total of 1. 70 73 74 70 81 56 69 Civ. 53. Eduardo L. 19. Alejandro Q. de Viray. Santos. 67.5 70 71 There the unsuccessful candidates totaling 604 directly affected 67 70 75 85 87 54 71 80 are 72. Arellano. Pelagio Concepcion Estonina.25 embrace many interesting matters. 60. Ala.05 passing general average in the bar examination of august and November of 1946. 65 23.15 Reyes. Macario C. 69. Reinerio L.1Plomantes. 65 Jacobo. concerning the admission of attorneys-at-law to the practice of the profession. 74 per in 1949. 78 75 70 67 69 77 64 Av. Adding 490 candidates who have not presented 74 66 73 60 78 63 78any72 72. Eugenio R. Passing average. 20 per cent. 972 70 7 70 1.094. 25. (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. Grospe. 16. 14.9Reyes.2 61 y 84 80 70 70 65 69 68 R. 8. 29. Mangubat. Enriquez. Int. 68cent 82 72. Sumaway.4 maintaining the prescribed 75 per cent since 1950. Vicente E. the foregoing subjects shall be given the following 70 relative 71. 73 76 71 91 76 61 74 78 73. Formilleza. — In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed the examinations successfully.3have obtained a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. Sulvio P. 69 per cent in 1947. Buhay. 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.6 75 72 68 62 71 70 SEC. 11. Viray. Rem. Pedro N. Sofronio O.

International Law. the President requested the comments of this Tribunal before acting on the same. although failing to pass the examination. No. 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. 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. 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. the Court said: The next amendment is of section 14 of Rule 127. One part of this amendment provides that if a bar candidate obtains 70 per cent or higher in any subject. 12 having been approved by Congress on May 3. The comment was signed by seven Justices while three chose to refrain from making any and one took no part. that of section 16 of Rule 127. With regards to the matter that interests us. Taxation. 20 per cent. It requires one to be all around." Senate Bill No. 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. Remedial Law. This amendment provides that any application who Page 33 of 43    . 1951. With the bill was an Explanatory Note. on this plan. and the last two subjects the present year. by the time that he has passed the last required subjects. 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. SEC. or who has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar. 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. and prepared in all required legal subjects at the time of admission to the practice of law. xxx xxx xxx We now come to the last amendment. Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises. so as presently to be able to practice the legal profession and adequately render the legal service required by prospective clients. 5 per cent. But this would not hold true of the candidates who may have obtained a passing grade on any five subjects eight years ago. When a person is so admitted. Admission and oath of successful applicants. 5 per cent. The only condition imposed is that a candidate. 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. 8. That if the candidate fails to get a general average of 70 per cent in his third examination. 12). but there is no limitation as to the time or number of years intervening between each examination taken. which may be several years away from the time that he reviewed and passed the firs subjects. shall be allowed to take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office. 5 per cent. This would defeat the object and the requirements of the law and the Court in admitting persons to the practice of law. he need not be examined in said subject in his next examination. 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. 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. This is not the case in any other government examination. (Arts. — 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. 16. however. This is a sort of passing the Bar Examination on the installment plan. must pass the examination in no more that three installments. Social Legislation. one or two or three subjects at a time. 4 and 5. another three subjects one year later. 1946.

ready. In other words. We should not lose sight of the fact that after every bar examinations. As one member of the Court remarked during the discussion. stating the following: I am fully in accord with the avowed objection of the bill. Another aspect of this question to be considered is the fact that members of the bar are officers of the courts. but also rejecting and denying the petitions for reconsideration of those who have failed. nevertheless and in spite of all. 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. the Supreme Court impliedly regards him as a person fit. or resolution already promulgated. that this is another important aspect of the question to be carefully and seriously considered. however. 1947. 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. undeserving and unqualified. shall be allowed to take and subscribed the corresponding oath of office. the subsequent amendment or even repeal of said law or rule may not affect the final decision. to elevate the standard of the legal profession and maintain it on a high level. Moreover. 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. the Supreme Court passes the corresponding resolution not only admitting to the Bar those who have obtained a passing general average grade. Conversely. 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. It is clear that this question involves legal implications.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. 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. 1949 and 1950 bar examinations. the bill contains provisions to which I find serious fundamental objections. shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office. This provision is not only prospective but retroactive in its effects. As to the validity of making such reduction retroactive. benefiting as it does specifically one group of persons. 1946. competent and qualified to be its officer. including the Supreme Court. in the sense of revoking or rendering it void and of no effect. 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. 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. The same provision undertakes to revoke or set aside final resolutions of the Supreme Court made in accordance with the law then in force. and this phase of the amendment if finally enacted into law might have to go thru a legal test. will be admitted to the Bar. namely. the Supreme Court equally and impliedly considered and declared that he was not prepared. 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    . 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. We repeat. 1951. This is not achieved. we have serious legal doubts. 1946. namely. by admitting to practice precisely a special class who have failed in the bar examination. 1948. competent and qualified to be its officer. and even rejected by the Court to be its officer because he was unprepared. When a Bar candidate is admitted to the Bar. the unsuccessful candidates in the 1946. order. must be admitted and allowed by this Court to serve as its officer. The President vetoed the bill on June 16. This provision constitutes class legislation. The present amendment would have the effect of repudiating.

if not improved from those years preceding the last world war. It is believed that by 1956 the preparation of our students as well as the available reading materials will be under normal conditions. 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. 3. 371 was presented in the Senate. 72 per cent in the 1953 bar examinations. SEC. it is proposed in this bill a gradual increase in the general averages for passing the bar examinations as follows. 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. 1946 up to the August 1951 Bar examinations. 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. for 1953 bar examination. 70 per cent. For 1946 to 1951 bar examinations. 73 per cent in the 1954 bar examinations. That for the purpose of this Act. shall be considered as one and included as part of the next whole number. Instead Bill No. Consequently. any exact one-half or more of a fraction. Provided. Rule 127 of the Rules of Court. That 75 per cent passing general average shall be restored in all succeeding examinations. 71 per cent in the 1952 bar examinations. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14. 74 per cent in 1955 bar examinations without a candidate obtaining a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing grade. for 1954 bar examination.denying the petitions for reconsideration of those who have failed. 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. and Provided. 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. shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar. 73 percent. but it was not repassed by 2/3 vote of each House as prescribed by section 20. This bill shall take effect upon its approval. the bill was returned to the Congress of the Philippines. for 1952 bar examination. SEC. finally. architecture and certified public accountancy. any bar candidate who obtained a general average of 70 per cent in any bar examinations after July 4. and for 1955 bar examination. however. In order to cure the apparent arbitrary fixing of passing grades and to give satisfaction to all parties concerned. 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. Page 35 of 43    . 72 per cent. 71 per cent. 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject in any bar examination after July 4. 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. engineering. 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. article VI of the Constitution. 74 per cent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the Philippines. . but also engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training who pass the prescribed examinations as given by the Patent Office. this is the first time that the right of the Director of Patents to do so. 1957. constitutes or is included in the practice of law. in the past. . The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. has been questioned formally. respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27. And we have given it careful thought and consideration. maintains that the prosecution of patent cases "does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and training. 165. members of the Philippine Bar. 1959 PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs. 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. the prosecution of patent cases may be handled not only by lawyers. through the Solicitor General. would appear to have been holding tests or examinations the passing of which was imposed as a required qualification to practice before the Patent Office. the Director of Patents. in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office MONTEMAYOR. respondent Director. It is the contention of the petitioner Philippine Lawyer's Association that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing. . Although as already stated. so much so that. the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf Page 1 of 5    . as a matter of actual practice. J. as stated in the preceding paragraph. It would appear that heretofore. respondent Director has been holding similar examinations. and that consequently. . . is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office.R. is similarly authorized to do so by our Patent Law. . No. whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative. The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in the Philippines1 and to any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law anywhere and before any entity. On may 27. . it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and social proceedings. In his answer. the act of the respondent Director requiring members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office as a condition precedent to their being allowed to practice before said office. engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. which similar to the United States Patent Law.. L-12426 February 16. requires more of an application of scientific and technical knowledge than the mere application of provisions of law. in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular. to our knowledge.: This is the petition filed by the Philippine Lawyer's Association for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava. etc. otherwise known as the Patent Law of the Philippines. the said examination to cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of practice before said office. or any other quasi-judicial body from requiring further condition or qualification from those who would wish to handle cases before the Patent Office which. that the action taken by the respondent is in accordance with Republic Act No. 165. CELEDONIO AGRAVA. that the Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent Office. . is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law. the respondent. Respondent further contends that just as the Patent law of the United States of America authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to prescribe examinations to determine as to who practice before the United States Patent Office. such as representing applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patent. Republic Act No. . the question arises as to whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications. specially as regards members of the bar.G. or otherwise put in issue. Naturally. in accordance with which the United States Patent Office has also prescribed a similar examination as that prescribed by respondent.

and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments. p. Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. and other persons. his heirs. or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. although the transaction of business in the Patent Office involves the use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training. legal representatives or assigns. Automobile Service Assoc. and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects. any person patent on several grounds. as well as other laws. or to public health or welfare. In general. 194 N. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body. the Page 2 of 5    . the Solicitor General is authorized to petition for the cancellation of a patent. can be drawn between that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings.of clients before judges and courts. at any time after the expiration of three years from the day the patent was granted. In the first place. (Emphasis supplied). still. such as. a wide experience with men and affairs. including the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law. but practice before the Patent Office involves the interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles. Section 25 and 26 refer to connection of any mistake in a patent. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill. or if it had been in public use or on sale in the Philippines for more than one year before the application for the patent therefor. citing In re Opinion of the Justices (Mass. of sound moral character. Bar Assoc. 3 (1953 ed. and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law corporation services. all advice to clients. I. In our opinion.). and in addition. or if the demand for the patented article in the Philippines on a commercial scale. conveying. and the prosecution of their applications for patent. Under Section 34. all such business has to be rendered in accordance with the Patent Law. For instance: Section 8 of our Patent Law provides that an invention shall not be patentable if it is contrary to public order or morals. Jur. Comments on the Rules of Court. so far as concerns the question set forth in the order. they are always subject to become involved in litigation. or if the demand for the patented article in the Philippines is not being met to an adequate extent and reasonable terms. (R. 313. their oppositions thereto. 665-666. Section 28 enumerates the grounds for cancellation of a patent. (Emphasis ours). (5 Am. under Section 29. that although any person may apply for such cancellation. 263). the foreclosure of a mortgage. Vol. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings. purchase or use of the patented article or working of the patented process or machine of production. 144). p. ) 179 A. quoted in Rhode Is. Section 9 says that an invention shall not be considered new or patentable if it was known or used by others in the Philippines before the invention thereof by the inventor named in any printed publication in the Philippines or any foreign country more than one year before the application for a patent therefor. if the patented invention is not being worked in the Philippines on a commercial scale. (Moran. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill. Section 31 and 32 provide for a notice of hearing of the petition for cancellation of the patent by the Director of Patents in case the said cancellation is warranted.E. and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. vs. oppositors. and conducting proceedings in attachment. Section 10 provides that the right to patent belongs to the true and actual inventor. No valid distinction. the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office. It embraces conveyancing. Section 30 mentions the requirements of a petition for cancellation. as well as the existence of facts to be established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. 262. and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. or if by reason of the patentee's refusal to grant a license on reasonable terms or by reason of the condition attached by him to the license.). 139. Not only this. the representation of applicants.

. interferences. .S. exercising as he does judicial or quasijudicial functions. Republic Act No. legal principles. But respondent Director claims that he is expressly authorized by the law to require persons desiring to practice or to do business before him to submit an examination. or if the patent or invention relates to food or medicine or is necessary to public health or public safety. then logically. He invites our attention to the following provisions of said Rules of Practice: Registration of attorneys and agents. . . . . If the transaction of business in the Patent Office and the acts. any party to a proceeding to cancel a patent or to obtain a compulsory license. and extensions. . in issuing or withholding patents. (Emphasis supplied). such as. The Commissioner. . . Of course. and any party to any other proceeding in the Office may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director. it is reasonable to hold that a member of the bar. which is not the case. (a) Attorney at law. without further examination or other qualification. may require that members of the bar practising before him enlist the assistance of technical men and scientist in the preparation of papers and documents. on payment of the legal fees. (40 Am. The Commissioner has the only original initiatory jurisdiction that exists up to the granting and delivering of a patent. the very Patent Law. 165. if he deems it advisable or necessary. — Any attorney at law in good standing admitted to practice before any United States Court or the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States who fulfills the requirements and complied with the provisions Page 3 of 5    . Jur. orders and decisions of the Patent Director involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training. (Emphasis supplied). In passing on an application the commissioner should decide not only questions of law. the drawing or technical description of an invention or machine sought to be patented. Section 61. Another aspect of the question involves the consideration of the nature of the functions and acts of the Head of the Patent Office. — A register of an attorneys and a register agents are kept in the Patent Office on which are entered the names of all persons recognized as entitled to represent applicants before the Patent Office in the preparation and prosecution of applicants for patent. . the appeal is taken to this Tribunal. because of his legal knowledge and training. . prepared by a licensed surveyor. Patents are public records. but also questions of fact. The applicant for a patent or for the registration of a design. exercises quasijudicial functions. They call for legal knowledge. but rather to a board of scientists. orders and decisions of the Patent Director involve questions of law or a reasonable and correct evaluation of facts. and it is the duty of the Commissioner to give authenticated copies to any person. (60 C. the Director of Patents. even if they are already members of the bar. . training and experience for which a member of the bar has been prepared. is required to submit a plan and technical description of said land. engineers or technical men. provides that: . in the same way that a lawyer filing an application for the registration of a parcel of land on behalf of his clients. 460). the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body. Registration in the Patent Office under the provisions of these rules shall only entitle the person registered to practice before the Patent Office. . as whether there has been a prior public use or sale of the article invented. 537). In support of the proposition that much of the business and many of the act. Republic Act No.establishment of a new trade or industry in the Philippines is prevented. He contends that our Patent Law.J. All these things involve the applications of laws. and his action in awarding or refusing a patent is a judicial function. is patterned after the United States Patent Law. should be allowed to practice before the Patent Office. . The Director of Patents. In other words. 165. and of the United States Patent Office in Patent Cases prescribes an examination similar to that which he (respondent) has prescribed and scheduled. and it is his duty to decide whether the patent is new and whether it is the proper subject of a patent. practice and procedure. in reissues.

that they shall show they are of good moral character and in good repute.of these rules may be admitted to practice before the Patent Office and have his name entered on the register of attorneys. — The Director subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice. (Emphasis supplied) Respondent Director concludes that Section 78 of Republic Act No. then he is authorized to prescribe the rules and regulations requiring that persons desiring to practice before him should submit to and pass an examination. or attorneys. satisfactory proof of good moral character and repute. before being recognized as representatives of applicants or other persons. The Commissioner of Patents may. 165 being similar to the provisions of law just reproduced. or threaten any applicant or prospective applicant. We reproduce said Section 78.S. are possessed of the necessary qualifications to enable them to render to applicants or other persons valuable service. suspend or exclude. or other person having immediate or prospective business before the office. or other person having immediate or prospective applicant. by word. for purposes of comparison: SEC. or other persons representing applicants or other parties before his office. with intent to defraud in any matter. agents. our Patent Law. Page 4 of 5    . The reasons for any such suspension or exclusion shall be duly recorded. agent or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable. xxx xxx xxx (c) Requirement for registration. which showing may take the form of a test or examination to be held by the Commissioner. subject to the approval of the Secretary of Commerce may prescribe rules and regulations governing the recognition of agents. The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and by far. either generally or in any particular case from further practice before his office any person. The action of the Commissioner may be reviewed upon the petition of the person so refused recognition or so suspended by the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia under such conditions and upon such proceedings as the said court may by its rules determine. or who refuses to comply with the said rules and regulations. The taking of an examination may be waived in the case of any person who has served for three years in the examining corps of the Patent Office. not inconsistent with law. and is otherwise competent to advise and assist him in the presentation and prosecution of their application before the Patent Office. and are likewise to competent to advise and assist applicants or other persons in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other business before the Office. or guilty of gross misconduct. and shall establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he is of good moral character and of good repute and possessed of the legal and scientific and technical qualifications necessary to enable him to render applicants for patent valuable service. which reads as follows: The Commissioner of Patents. circular. Patent Law authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to require attorneys to show that they possess the necessary qualifications and competence to render valuable service to and advise and assist their clients in patent cases. or who shall. In order that the Commissioner may determine whether a person seeking to have his name placed upon either of the registers has the qualifications specified. — No person will be admitted to practice and register unless he shall apply to the Commissioner of Patents in writing on a prescribed form supplied by the Commissioner and furnish all requested information and material. letter. 78. for the conduct of all business in the Patent Office. Rules and regulations. 165. and may require of such persons. mislead. attorneys. Republic Act No. Respondent states that the promulgation of the Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office in Patent Cases is authorized by the United States Patent Law itself. While the U. after notice and opportunity for a hearing. or by advertising. deceive. are different from the provisions of the United States Patent Law as regards authority to hold examinations to determine the qualifications of those allowed to practice before the Patent Office. and of sufficient basic training in scientific and technical matters must be submitted and an examination which is held from time to time must be taken and passed. shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations.

. confiscation. shall first pass an examination to qualify. seizures. known as the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law. to secure the harmonious and efficient administration of his branch of the service and to carry into full effect the laws relating to matters within the jurisdiction of his bureau. Reyes. Paras. Concepcion. Our attention has not been called to any express provision of our Patent Law. 466 as amended. A. Padilla. Were we to allow the Patent Office. subject to the approval of the Department Head. etc.. for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable. as regards the Bureau of Customs. then there would be no reason why other bureaus specially the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Customs. C. etc. and the classification of goods. J.Section 78. the petition for prohibition is granted and the respondent Director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice before the Patent Office. makes all rules and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of said code. Section 338 of the National Internal Revenue Code. upon recommendation of the Collector of Internal Revenue. to require lawyers to submit to and pass on examination prescribed by it before they are allowed to practice before said Patent Office. is silent on this important point. and Endencia. depreciation. we hold that under the present law. Bautista Angelo. Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizes every chief of bureau to prescribe forms and make regulations or general orders not inconsistent with law. these as regards the Bureau of Internal Revenue. such as the presentation of books of accounts. giving such authority to determine the qualifications of persons allowed to practice before the Patent Office. under the law. taken to the Supreme Court. concur...J. Commonwealth Act No. We understand that rules and regulations have been promulgated not only for the Bureau of Customs and Internal Revenue.. shall promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the code. as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved. states that the Secretary of Finance.B. may practice their profession before the Patent Office. Reyes. where the business in the same area are more or less complicated.L. Page 5 of 5    . Bengzon. balance sheets. In conclusion. JJ. that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial. to govern the transaction of business in and to enforce the law for said bureaus. For the foregoing reasons. in the absence of an express and clear provision of law giving the necessary sanction. imposition of customs duties. so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are. assessments exemptions. No costs. and in good standing. but also for other bureaus of the Government. Labrador. Section 608 of Republic Act 1937. provides that the Commissioner of Customs shall. may not also require that any lawyer practising before them or otherwise transacting business with them on behalf of clients.