1
Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service Insurance System
from Payment of Legal Fees, 612 SCRA 193
FACTS:
In a Petition dated 24 October 2011, Perpetual Help Community Cooperative (PHCCI), through
counsel, requests for the issuance of a court order to clarify and implement the exemption of
cooperatives from the payment of court and sheriffs fees pursuant to Republic Act No. 6938, as
amended by Republic Act No. 9520, otherwise known as the Philippine Cooperative Act of 2008.
PHCCI contends that as a cooperative it enjoys the exemption provided for under Section 6,
Article 61 of Republic Act No. 9520, which states: (6) Cooperatives shall be exempt from the
payment of all court and sheriffs fees payable to the Philippine Government for and in connection
with all actions brought under this Code, or where such actions is brought by the Authority before
the court, to enforce the payment of obligations contracted in favor of the cooperative.
It avers that despite the exemptions granted by the aforesaid laws and issuances, PHCCI had been
continuously assessed and required to pay legal and other fees whenever it files cases in court.
PHCCI reports that it filed with the Office of the Executive Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, a Motion to implement the exemption of
cooperatives from the payment of court and sheriffs fees in cases filed before the courts in his
jurisdiction, but the Executive Judge ruled that the matter is of national concern and should be
brought to the attention of the Supreme Court for it to come up with a straight policy and uniform
system of collection. In the meantime, the MTCC has continued the assessment of filing fees
against cooperatives.
ISSUE:
Whether cooperatives are exempt from the payment of court and sheriffs fees.
RULING:
Court citing Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, stressed that the 1987 Constitution molded an even
stronger and more independent judiciary; took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or
supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure; and held that the power to
promulgate these Rules is no longer shared by the Court with Congress, more so, with the
Executive, thus: Since the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules promulgated by
this Court concerning pleading, practice and procedure, it cannot be validly annulled, changed or
modified by Congress. As one of the safeguards of this Courts institutional independence, the
power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the Courts exclusive
domain. That power is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, much less with the
Executive.
xxxx
The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of our government has erected an
impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure
within the sole province of this Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they
enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules
promulgated by this Court. Viewed from this perspective, the claim of a legislative grant of
exemption from the payment of legal fees under Section 39 of R.A. 8291 necessarily fails. With
the foregoing categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the exemption
of cooperatives from payment of court and sheriffs fees no longer stands. Cooperatives can no
longer invoke Republic Act No. 6938, as amended by Republic Act No. 9520, as basis for
exemption from the payment of legal fees.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the petition of PHCCI requesting for this
Court to issue an order clarifying and implementing the exemption of cooperatives from the
payment of court and sheriffs fees is hereby DENIED.
The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to issue a circular clarifying that
cooperatives are not exempt from the payment of the legal fees provided for under Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court. SO, ORDERED.
In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995)
FACTS:
This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al
Caparros Argosino was previously involved with hazing which caused the death of Raul
Camaligan a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites but he was convicted for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He was sentenced with 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment
where he applied a probation thereafter which was approved and granted by the court. He took
the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take the oath. He filed for a petition to allow him
to take the lawyers oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law averring that his
probation was already terminated. The court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation
period before it was terminated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyers oath office and admit him to the practice of
law.
HELD:
The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT,
INTELLECTUAL and MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments in
the effective and efficient administration of justice. The court upheld the principle of maintaining
the good moral character of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of greater importance
so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned. Hence, he was
asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed and has become a
responsible member of the community through sworn statements of individuals who have a good
reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to
certify that he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The petitioner is
then allowed to take the lawyers oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and thereafter to practice
the legal profession.
 2
In Re: Vicente Ching
Legal Profession Admission to the Bar Citizenship Requirement
FACT:
In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis University in Baguio City. He
eventually passed the bar but he was advised that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino
citizen before he be allowed to take his oath. Apparently, Chings father was a Chinese citizen but
his mother was a Filipino citizen. His parents were married before he was born in 1963. Under the
1935 Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner, acquires the foreign
citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always considered himself as a
Filipino; that he is a certified public accountant a profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even
served as a councilor in a municipality in La Union.
The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a legitimate child of a Chinese and
a Filipino, Ching should have elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; that
under prevailing jurisprudence, upon reaching the age of majority is construed as within 7 years
after reaching the age of majority (in his case 21 years old because he was born in 1964 while the
1935 Constitution was in place).
Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was preparing for the bar in 1998
or 14 years after reaching the age of majority. Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General recommended
that the rule be relaxed due to the special circumstance of Ching.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyers oath.
HELD:
No. Unfortunately, he belatedly elected Filipino citizenship. The Supreme Court cannot agree with
the recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Fourteen years had lapsed and its way beyond the
allowable 7 year period. The Supreme Court even noted that the period is originally 3 years but it
was extended to 7 years. (It seems it cant be extended any further). Chings special circumstances
cant be considered. It is not enough that he considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that he is a
professional and a public officer (was) serving this country. The rules for citizenship are in place.
Further, Ching didnt give any explanation why he belatedly chose to elect Filipino citizenship
(but I guess its simply because he never thought hes Chinese not until he applied to take the bar).
The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and
painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of
Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Chings
unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over.
Letter of Estelito Mendoza re: Bar Reforms, Bar Matter No. 1153
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 9, 2010
"B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar
Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court). - The Court Resolved to
APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138, to wit:
SEC. 5. Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. All applicants for admission other than
those referred to in the two preceding sections shall, before being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the degree
of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially recognized by
the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree
has been granted.
No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to
the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed the following course in a law
school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law,
criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation,
medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar
examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (a) completion
of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or
accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all the fourth-year
subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the
Philippine Government.
SEC. 6. Pre-Law. An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present a certificate
issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the study of law, he or she had
pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college,
requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of
study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its
equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having completed a separate bachelor's
degree course.
The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, is hereby directed to CIRCULARIZE
this resolution among all law schools in the country."
BM No. 2112, In Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines,
Epifanio B. Muneses
 3
SC allows lawyer who re-acquired Philippine citizenship to practice law. The Supreme Court En
Banc has recently granted the petition of a lawyer to practice law in the Philippines once again
after losing the said privilege to practice law when he became a citizen of the United States of
America in 1981 and then re-acquiring his Philippine citizenship in 2006 pursuant to RA 9225, the
Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.
The Court further directed the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to draft the necessary guidelines
for the re-acquisition of the privilege to resume the practice of law for the guidance of the Bench
and the Bar.
In a six-page resolution penned by Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, the Court unanimously held that
upon favorable recommendation from the OBC, Atty. Epifanio B. Muneses satisfactorily complied
with all the requirements sought by the OBC and met all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications for membership in the Bar. In particular, he had submitted in compliance the
following:
1) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
2) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship);
3) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4) Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship issued by the Bureau of
Immigration, in lieu of the Identification Certificate;
5) Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City Chapter attesting to his good moral
character as well as his updated payment of annual membership dues;
6) Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
7) Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance period; and
8) Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE
Program, University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance with the MCLE.
The Court sees no bar to the petitioners resumption to the practice of law in the Philippines, the
Court declared, subject to the condition that Atty. Muneses re-take the Lawyers Oath and pay the
appropriate fee.
The Court reiterated that ilipino citizenship is a continuing requirement for the practice of law,
loss of which means the termination of ones membership in the Bar and the privilege to engage in
the practice of law. Thus, a ilipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country but later re-
acquires his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar,
it added. It also noted that the right to resume the practice of law, however, is not automatic and
Section 5 of RA 9225 states that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines
must apply with the proper authority for the license or permit to engage in such practice.