PART 4.

PRACTICE OF LAW AND REGULATION OF THE LEGAL

PROFESSION
IN RE CUNANAN (CASE DIGEST)
MissIdea Uncategorized October 7, 2014 2 Minutes
(1) Supervision and control over the legal profession
IN RE CUNANAN
Supreme Court: Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5), 1987 Constitution
94 PHIL. 534
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
FACTS:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers
of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for
the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955.”
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and 1946-1951………………70%
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the 1952 …………………….71%
Supreme Court.
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
Congress: Art. XII, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Constitution
1955……………………..74%
ARTICLE XII
National Economy and Patrimony
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than
SECTION 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national 50%.
talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade
craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that
encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the
national benefit. general average in subsequent bar examinations.”

The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to ISSUE:

Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.

RULING:
Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not
being embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should
affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. Section2
establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also struck
down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact
that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared
unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force and
effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the
following reasons:
The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who
flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to
the fact that this was very close to the end of World War II;
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the
court on the petitions of the said candidates;
The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative
to determine who may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in
excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of
Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only
minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court on
who can practice law; and
The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class
legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster
enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to
take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court
resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. The same may
also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or
modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
IN RE CUNANAN
94 PHIL. 534, MARCH 18, 1954
FACTS
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar
Flunkers Act, in 1952. Under the Rules of Court governing admission to
the bar, "in order that a candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be
deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have
obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling
below 50 per cent in any subject."(Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court).
Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those
reconsidered and passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having
been discriminated against (See Explanatory Note to R. A. No. 972),
unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentage
lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress for, and
secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12 which, among others,
reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent
effective since 1946.
The President requested the views of the court on the bill.
Complying with that request, seven members of the court subscribed to
and submitted written comments adverse thereto, and shortly thereafter
the President vetoed it. Congress did not override the veto. Instead, it
approved Senate Bill No. 371 which is 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, embodying substantially the
provisions of the vetoed bill.
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to
admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of
reading materials and inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is
contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had
inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession, as evidenced
by their failure in the exams.
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates
filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while
others whose motions for the revision of their examination papers were
still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for
admission. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first
reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not
they had invoked Republic Act No. 972. Unfortunately, the court has
found no reason to revise their grades. If they are to be admitted to the
bar, it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. 972 which, if declared valid,
should be applied equally to all concerned whether they have filed
petitions or not.
ISSUE
Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.
HELD
RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to
the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading
materials and inadequate preparation.
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the
admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at
law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been
indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in
the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission,
suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the
practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the
functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government.
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 may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the
license.
Reasons for Unconstitutionality: 1. There was a manifest
encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only
the S.C. may revise or alter them, in attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated
the Constitution. 3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter,
and supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since the rules made
by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated
are considered the bare minimum.) 4. It is a class legislation 5. Art. 2 of
R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the
constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1,
the entire law is void.
Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
49 SCRA 22
FACTS:
Republic Act. No. 6397 entitled “An Act Providing for the Integration of
the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds Therefore” was passed in
September 1971, ordaining “Within two years from the approval of this
Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration
of the Philippine Bar.” The Supreme Court formed a Commission on Bar
Integration and in December 1972, the Commission earnestly
recommended the integration of the bar. The Court accepted all
comments on the proposed integration.
ISSUES:
Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine bar?
Would the integration of the bar be constitutional?
Should the Court ordain the integration of the bar at this time?
RULING:

In ruling on the issues raised, the Court first adopted the definition given
by the Commission to “integration” in this wise: “Integration of the
Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer
population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial
support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua
non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court.” The term “Bar” refers to the collectivity
of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An
Integrated Bar (or unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with
power to do so; the State. Bar integration therefore, signifies the setting
up by government authority of a national organization of the legal
profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of the
court.
Designed to improve the positions of the Bar as an instrumentality of
justice and the rule of law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers,
and ensures, through their own organized action and participation, the
promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the
principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and
regulation by the Supreme Court.
On the first issue, the Court held that it may integrate the Bar in the
exercise of its power “to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law.”
Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court’s
constitutional authority over the Bar.
The second issue hinges on the following constitutional rights: freedom
of association and of speech, as well as the nature of the dues exacted
from the lawyer, i.e., whether or not the Court thus levies a tax. The
Court held:
Integration is not violative of freedom of association because it does not
compel a lawyer to become a member of any group of which he is not
already a member. All that it does is “to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group
of which every lawyer is already a member.” The lawyer too is not
compelled to attend meetings, participate of activities, etc. The only
compulsion is the payment of annual dues. Assuming, however, that it
does compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated bar, the court
held that “such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power
of the state”
Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech just because
dues paid b the lawyer may be used for projects or programs, which the
lawyer opposes. To rule otherwise would make every government
exaction a “free speech issue.” Furthermore, the lawyer is free to voice
out his objections to positions taken by the integrated bar.
The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a levy but is purely
for purposes of regulation.
As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the
integration. Survey showed an overwhelming majority of lawyers who
favored integration.
(2) The practice of law and the roles that lawyers play in the
society
Cayetano v. Monsod
G.R. No. 100113 | September 3, 1991
FACTS:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon
C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter
received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on
April 25, 1991. Petitioner Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination
because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years. Atty. Monsod has worked as a lawyer in the law office of
his father (1960-1963); an operations officer with the World Bank
Group (1963-1970); Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank
(1970-1986); legal or economic consultant on various companies
(1986); Secretary General of NAMFREL (1986); member of
Constitutional Commission (1986-1987); National Chairman of
NAMFREL (1987); and member of the quasi-judicial Davide
Commission (1990).
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC.On June 18,
1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office
as Chairman of the COMELEC.Challenging the validity of the
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s
nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent posseses the required qualification
of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Monsod possessed the required
qualification. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs.
Agrava: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or
litigation in court. 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 judicial body, the foreclosure of 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.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out 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. In general, a practice of
law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out
of court. As such, the petition is dismissed.
CAYETANO v MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991
FACTS:
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed by President Corazon
Aquino as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections. His
appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
Monsod’s appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the
ground that he does not qualify for he failed to meet the
Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of the
COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least
ten years.
Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:
1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.
2. Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one
year.
3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in
economics and held various positions in various foreign
corporations.
4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for
various local corporations until 1986.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC.
2. What constitutes practice of law?
RATIO DECIDENDI: number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal
skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested
1. Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist,
parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized
a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-
practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside
negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and
their specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation,
the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement
unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who
— that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the
years. The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted during
work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of
the public hearings on Monsod’s confirmation, implicitly determined
traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document
that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law.
drafting, and negotiation.
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
FALLO:
lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus,
only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the The petition is DISMISSED.
Court interfere with the Commission’s judgment. In the instant case,
there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court’s corrective power,
since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion, that would (3) Requirements for admission to practice of law
amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the (a) Legal Education
issuance of the writs prayed, for has been clearly shown.
Pre-Law: Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 6
RULE 138
2. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training Attorneys and Admission to Bar
and experience. “To engage in the practice of law is to perform those
Section 6. Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar
acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice
examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate
law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or
that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he
service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily
completed in an authorized and recognized university or college,
requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a
court appearances. The members of the bench and bar and the bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following
informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic,
societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law english, spanish, history and economics.
offices than in the courtrooms. 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
Law Proper: Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 5
described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course
of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a
 Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. —
All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the
two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the
examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied
law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed
courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and
recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the
candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or
school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further
evidence may be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations
unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses 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.
R.A. No. 7662 (1993) – Legal Education Reform Act
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION,
CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
The Supreme Court (SC) has declared unconstitutional a requirement
of the Legal Education Board (LEB) for students to pass the
Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) for enrolment in
law schools in the country.
LEB’s PhiLSAT requirement was declared by the SC as “an act
and practice of excluding, restricting and qualifying admissions to
law schools in violation of the institutional academic freedom on
who to admit.”
Specifically, declared unconstitutional was paragraph 9 of LEB’s
Memorandum Order No. 7-2016 which provides that “all college
graduates or graduating students applying for admission to the basic law
course shall be required to pass the PhiLSAT as a requirement for
admission to any law school in the Philippines and that no applicant shall
be admitted for enrolment as a first year student in the basic law courses
leading to a degree of either Bachelor of Laws of Juris Doctor unless
he/she has passed the PhiLSAT taken within two years before the start of
studies for the basic law course.”
With the full court decision written by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes Jr.,
the SC made permanent its temporary restraining order (TRO) issued
last March against the implementation of PhiLSAT.
“The regular admission of students who were conditionally admitted and
enrolled is left to the discretion of the law schools in the exercise of their
academic freedom,” the SC declared.
Also declared unconstitutional were:
“The act and practice of the LEB of dictating the qualifications and
classifications of faculty members, dean, and dean of graduate schools of
law in violation of institutional academic freedom on who may teach.
“The act and practice of the LEB of dictating the policies on the
establishment of legal apprenticeship and legal internship programs in
violation of the institutional academic freedom on what to teach.”
The 107-page SC decision partially granted the petitions filed a group led
by former Makati City regional trial court (RTC) Judge Oscar B. Pimentel
and group of intervenors led by April D. Caballero.
On top of the abolition of LEB and PhiLSAT, Pimentel’s group
also sought the transfer of the regulation of law schools to the SC.
The LEB was created under Republic Act No. 7662, known as the
Legal Education Reform Act of 1993, as an agency separate from the
Department of Education, but attached to it only for budgetary purposes
and administrative support.
Among the powers vested in the LEB by the law were the
administration of legal education system in the country, supervision of
law schools, setting of standards for accreditation of law schools,
prescription of minimum standards for law admission and minimum
qualifications and compensation to faculty members.
 Days before the conduct of the first PhiLSAT in 2017, Pimentel’s
group filed a petition with the SC seeking to declare unconstitutional the
creation of the LEB and to invalidate all the issuances of the board,
particularly the admission test for law students.
The group said the functions of the LEB under the law that created it are
encroachments on the rule-making power of the SC concerning
admissions to the practice of law.
On March 12, 2019, the SC issued a TRO pleaded by Pimentel’s group on
the issue on PhiLSAT.
Among other things, the SC ruled that:
“The PhiLSAT presently operates not only as a measure of an applicant’s
aptitude for law school. The PhiLSAT, as a pass or fail exam, dictates
upon the law schools who among the examinees are to be admitted to
any law program.
“When the PhiLSAT is used to exclude, qualify, and restrict admissions to
law schools, as its present design mandates, the PhiLSAT goes beyond
mere supervision and regulation, violates institutional academic
freedom, becomes unreasonable and therefore, unconstitutional.”
Also declared unconstitutional for encroaching on the power of the
SC were:
Section 2, paragraph 2 of RA 7662 insofar as it unduly includes
“continuing legal education” as an aspect of legal education which is
made subject to executive supervision and control.
Section 3(a)(2) of RA 7662 and Section 7(2) of LEBMO No. 1-2011 on the
objective of legal education to increase awareness among members of
the legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed
sectors of society.
Section 7(g) of RA 7662 and Section 11(g) of LEBMO No. 1-2011 insofar
as it gives the LEB the power to establish a law practice internship as a
requirement for taking the bar.
Section 7(h) of RA 7662 and Section 11 (h) LEBMO No. 1-2011 insofar as
it gives the LEB the power to adopt a system of mandatory continuing
legal education and to provide for the mandatory attendance of
practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration as it may deem
necessary.
(b) Citizenship
Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 14(2)
SECTION 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national
talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and
craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall
encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the
national benefit.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to
Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
R.A. 9225 – Dual Citizenship Act
Petition for Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law by Epifanio
Muneses
IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN
THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO B. MUNESES
B.M. No. 2112 July 24, 2012
Facts:
On June 8, 2009, a petition was filed by Epifanio B. Muneses with the
Office of the Bar Confidant praying that he be granted the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines.
The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the IBP on March 21,
1966; that he lost his privilege to practice law when he became a citizen
of the USA on August 28, 1981; that on September 15, 2006, he re-
acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 or the
"Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003" by taking his
oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate
General in Washington, D.C., USA; that he intends to retire in the
Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of law.
Issue: Whether or not to grant the petition to resume the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines
Ruling:
The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the
practice of law. The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s
membership in the bar;ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of
law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. Thus, a
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-
acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a
member of the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the right
to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides
that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines
must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice.
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the
practice of law, the OBC required the herein petitioner to submit the
original or certified true copies of the following documents in relation to
his petition:
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. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual
membership dues;
7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance,
particularly with the MCLE. After all the requirements were satisfactorily
complied with and finding that the petitioner has met all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications for membership in the
bar, the OBC recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his
practice of law.
(c) Bar Examination
ROC, Rule 138, Sec. 7-16
Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. — All applicants for
admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence
required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the
beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of
this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and
certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4
they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to
practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and
certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at
the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and
citizenship.
Section 8. Notice of Applications. — Notice of applications for
admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in
newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten
(10) days before the beginning of the examination.
Section 9. Examination; subjects. — Applicants, not otherwise by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the
provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be subjected to Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of
examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the
Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional official reports.
Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law
Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No candidate shall endeavor to
(Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal
influence any member of the committee, and during examination the
Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in
candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or
Pleadings and Conveyancing).
receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or
Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination,
writing. — Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary
or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for action, including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the
all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to discretion of the court.
each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally
Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be
without help from anyone.
deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have
Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling
penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the
without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative weights:
to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent;
typewriters shall be allowed to be used. Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and
International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20
The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are
per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other
frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers.
papers. No oral examination shall be given. — Not later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon
thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on
Section 11. Annual examination. — Examinations for admission to the
the result of such examination. The examination papers and notes of the
bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They
committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be examined by
shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the
the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report.
committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as
follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor
and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and
Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal
Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics
and Practical Exercises (afternoon).
Section 12. Committee of examiners. — Examinations shall be
conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the
Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the
Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated
Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. — Candidates
who have failed the bar examinations for three times shall be
disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the
satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular
fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in
a recognized law school.The professors of the individual review subjects
attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that
the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects
under the same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained
by them in the particular subject.
(4) Good Moral Character