Blue Team

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1975

FACTS:

In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there had grown a strong
nationwide sentiment in favour of Bar Integration, the Court created the Commission on
Bar Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of unifying the Philippine
Bar.

The Commission on Bar Integration submitted its report with the earnest
recommendation that "this Honourable Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar
as soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court
Rule." The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the
integration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible
and practicable to existing provincial and other Local Bar Associations.

On September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled "An Act
Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefore."
The bill took effect and known as Republic Act 6397.

ISSUES: 

(1) Whether or not the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar.
(2) Whether or not the integration of the Bar be constitutional.
(3) Whether or not the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time.

RULING:

YES, on all issues.

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 collectively 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.

(1) The Court may integrate the Philippine 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 Republic
Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent
power, but is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will
promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the standards of the
legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

(2) The Court quotes discussion made by the Commission on Bar Integration. To
compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is not violative of his
constitutional freedom to associate (or the corollary right not to associate).
For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean
that the Court levies a tax. A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an
exaction for regulation, while the purpose of a tax is revenue. A lawyer is free,
as he has always been, to voice his views on any subject in any manner he
wishes, even though such views be opposed to positions taken by the Unified
Bar. Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practicing because
although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it will give
the members of the Bar a new system which they hitherto have not had and
through which, by proper work, they will receive benefits they have not
heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their public responsibilities in a more
effective manner than they have been able to do in the past.

The dues exacted from lawyers are not in the nature of a levy but is purely for
purposes of regulation.

(3) As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the integration.
Survey showed an overwhelming majority of lawyers who favored integration.
 IN RE CUNANAN
94 Phil 534 March 18, 1954

FACTS:

Congress passed Republic Act 972 commonly known as the “Bar Flunkers’
Act of 1953.” They believed that they are fully qualified to practice law as those
reconsidered and passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having been
discriminated against of RA 972.

SECTION 1: provided the following passing marks: Provided however, that

the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%

1946-1951………………70%
1952 ……………………...71%
1953………………………..72%
1954………………………..73%
1955………………………..74%

SECTION 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject
in any bar examination after July 4, 1946 shall be deemed to have passed in
such subject/s and such grade/s shall be included in computing the passing
general average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent
examinations that he may take.

In accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and
admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72% by
raising it to 7%. After its approval, many of the unsuccessful post-war
candidates filled petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions,
while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still
pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission.
There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their
grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to
individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration,
irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional

RULING:

We, the eight members of the Court who subscribe to this decision have voted
and resolved, and have decided for the Court, and under the authority of the same: 
1. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No, 972 referring to the examinations
of 1946 to 1952, and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional and, therefore,
void and without force and effect.   
   
2. That for the lack of unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of article 1 which refers to
the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law, that is from 1953 to 1955
inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in conformity with section 10, article
VII of the Constitution.   

Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed
in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and (2) all candidates who in
the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5 per cent or more, without
having a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, are considered as having passed,
whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. After this decision has become
final, 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.
 CAYETANO VS. MONSOD
201 SCRA 210September 1991

FACTS:
Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position
of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly
Monsod does not possess required qualification of having been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 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.

Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman

of the COMELEC and took his oath of office as the Chairman. Cayetano opposed and
challenged the nomination and the subsequent confirmation of the Commission
because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

On the other hand, respondent Monsod has the record of the following:

1. Passed the bar in since 1960

2. Working as a lawyer at his father’s law firm.
3. Had a degree in economics abroad and work at foreign corporation.
4. Returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs at local corporations.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comelec violates

Section 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING:

No it is NOT VIOLATED, Monsod is qualified. In the case of Philippine Lawyers

Association vs. Agrava, 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 proceeding, 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 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. The contention that Atty. Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect
since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator
of both rich and the poor, verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the
position of COMELEC chairman. The respondent has been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years thus in the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
 IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS, MICHAEL A. MEDADO
(petitioner) 705 SCRA 264

FACTS:

Petitioner graduated from UP with the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and
passed the bar on the same year with GWA of 82.7. He took the Attorney’s oath at
PICC and was scheduled to sign in the roll of Attorneys but failed to do so on the
scheduled date, allegedly because he misplaced the notice to sign the Roll of Attorney’s
given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province. Years later, he found the
notice and realized he had not signed in the roll, and what he had signed in the PICC
was just attendance record. He was already working when he realized this and he
operated “under the mistaken belief that since he had already taken the oath, the
signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a
lawyer”, and “the matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and
compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten". Not having a roll number due to his
failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, he filed the instant petition, praying her be
allowed to sign in the roll. The office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the petition
be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit. It
explained that, based on his answers during the clarificatory conference, petitioner
could offer no valid justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys".

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner should be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.

RULING:

Yes, subject to payment of fine and imposition of penalty equivalent to

suspension from practice.

“We note that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin
to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty that we have
reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar. Petitioner
demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he filed the petition". It was
filed by petitioner himself and not a 3rd party. He has also never been subject to any
action for disqualification from practice. For this Court, this fact demonstrates that
petitioner strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the profession and
that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the character required to be a member
of the Philippine Bar. While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, this Court
will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental
fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession. However, we cannot
fully exculpate petitioner from all liability for his years of inaction”
 Republic of the Philippines
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN PHILIPPINES
Tamag,Vigan City
COLLEGE OF LAW
_________________________________________________________________________

CASE DIGEST ON VARIOUS CASES

________________________________
Presented to
Atty. Carmelita P. Crisologo
______________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements of the subject
Basic Legal and Judicial Ethics
________________________________
Presented By
Team Blue
Christopher Sarmiento
Gary Vincent Evangelista
Jeric Ace Abaoag
Jether James Cornita
Roselle Garnace
Ranz Dominique Dameg
Saniata M. Piano
Juris Doctor I-A Students

September 22, 2022