1.) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No.

L-1117 March 20, 1944

THE DIRECTOR O RELI!IOUS A AIRS, co"#$a%&a&', vs. ESTANISLAO R. (A)OT, respondent. Office of the Solicitor General De la Costa and Solicitor Feria for complainant. Francisco Claravall for respondent. O*AETA, J.+ The respondent, who is an attorney at law, is char!ed with "alpractice for havin! published an advertise"ent in the #unday Tribune of $une %&, %'(&, which reads as follows) Marria!e license pro"ptly secured thru our assistance * the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and "arria!e arran!ed to wishes of parties. Consultation on any "atter free for the poor. Everythin! confidential. +e!al assistance service %, Escolta, Manila, Roo", %-. Tel. , (% /-. Appearin! in his own behalf, respondent at first denied havin! published the said advertise"ent0 but subse1uently, thru his attorney, he ad"itted havin! caused its publication and prayed for 2the indul!ence and "ercy2 of the Court, pro"isin! 2not to repeat such professional "isconduct in the future and to abide hi"self to the strict ethical rules of the law profession.2 3n further "iti!ation he alle!ed that the said advertise"ent was published only once in the Tribune and that he never had any case at law by reason thereof. 4pon that plea the case was sub"itted to the Court for decision. 3t is undeniable that the advertise"ent in 1uestion was a fla!rant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it bein! a bra5en solicitation of business fro" the public. #ection ,. of Rule %,6 e7pressly provides a"on! other thin!s that 2the practice of solicitin! cases at law for the purpose of !ain, either personally or thru paid a!ents or bro8ers, constitutes "alpractice.2 3t is hi!hly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or s8ill as a "erchant advertises his wares. +aw is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer de!rades hi"self and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of "ercantilis" by advertisin! his services or offerin! the" to the public. As a "e"ber of the bar, he defiles the te"ple of 9ustice with "ercenary activities as the "oney chan!ers of old defiled the te"ple of $ehovah. 2The "ost worth and effective advertise"ent possible, even for a youn! lawyer, . . . is the establish"ent of a well "erited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but "ust be the outco"e of character and conduct.2 :Canon ,6, Code of Ethics.;

3n In re Tagorda, .& Phil., the respondent attorney was suspended fro" the practice of law for the period of one "onth for advertisin! his services and solicitin! wor8 fro" the public by writin! circular letters. That case, however, was "ore serious than this because there the solicitations were repeatedly "ade and were "ore elaborate and insistent. Considerin! his plea for leniency and his pro"ise not to repeat the "isconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, repri"anded. 2.)Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

A.C. No. 2,-7 S.#'."/.r 10, 199CLETO DOCENA, co"plainant, vs. ATT). DOMINADOR 0. LIMON, respondent.

PER CURIAM+ <n April %., %'=,, a co"plaint for disbar"ent was filed by Cleto >ocena a!ainst Atty. >o"inador ?. +i"on, #r., on !rounds of "alpractice, !ross "isconduct, and violation of attorney@s oath. 3t appears that respondent Atty. +i"on was co"plainant@s lawyer on appeal in Civil Case No. (,. for Aorcible Entry. Bhile the appeal was pendin! before the then Court of Airst 3nstance of Eastern #a"ar, Branch 3, respondent re1uired therein defendants appellants >ocena spouses to post a supersedeas bond in the a"ount of P%-,---.-- alle!edly to stay the e7ecution of the appealed decision. To raise the re1uired a"ount co"plainant Cleto >ocena obtained a loan of P&,---.-- fro" the Boron!an, Eastern #a"ar Branch of the >evelop"ent Ban8 of the Philippines0 borrowed P,,%(-.-- fro" a private individual0 and applied for an a!ricultural loan of P(,=/-.-- fro" the Boron!an, #a"ar Branch of the Philippine National Ban8, wherein respondent hi"self acted as !uarantor :tsn, #ession of $uly =, %'=&, pp. && &(;. The a"ount of P(,=/-.-- was produced by co"plainant in response to respondent@s letter dated #epte"ber ,, %'6' :E7h. 2C2, tsn, p. ,/, ibid.; de"andin! delivery of the aforesaid a"ount, thus) >ear Mr. and Mrs. >ocena) 3 wish to re"ind you that today is the last day for the deposit of the balance of P(,=/-.--. Atty. Batica was in court yesterday verifyin! whether you have deposited the said balance and the Conorable $ud!e infor"ed hi" that you have until today to deposit the said a"ount.

3 wish to infor" you also that the Conorable $ud!e will be in #ta. Ae to"orrow for rural service. Be will be waitin! for you to"orrow #epte"ber ,,, %'6', at #ta. Ae as you pro"ised. Dery truly yours, :#i!ned; <n Nove"ber %(, %'=-, the Court of Airst 3nstance of Eastern #a"ar rendered a decision on the appealed case in favor of the >ocena spouses. After receipt of said decision, co"plainant went to the CA3 to withdraw the supersedeas bond of P%-,---.--, but he thereupon discovered that no such bond was ever posted by respondent. Bhen confronted, respondent pro"ised to restitute the a"ount, but he never co"plied with such underta8in! despite repeated de"ands fro" the >ocena spouses. 3n his answer to the herein co"plaint, respondent clai"ed that the P%-,---.-- was his attorney@s fees for representin! the >ocena spouses in their appeal. But this self servin! alle!ation is belied by the letter :1uoted above; of respondent hi"self de"andin! fro" the >ocena spouses the balance of P(,=/-.-- supposedly to be deposited in court to stay the e7ecution of the appealed decision of the MTC. Moreover, the fact that he had pro"ised to return the P%-,---.-- to the >ocena spouses is also an ad"ission that the "oney was never his, and that it was only entrusted to hi" for deposit. After due investi!ation and hearin!, the 3nte!rated Bar of the Philippines reco""ended that respondent be suspended fro" the practice of law for one year and ordered to return the a"ount of P=,.--.-- :he had earlier paid co"plainant P%,.--.--, but nothin! "ore; within % "onth fro" notice, and should he fail to do so, he shall be suspended indefinitely. The Court finds the reco""ended penalty too li!ht. Truly, the a"ount involved "ay be s"all, but the nature of the trans!ression calls for a heavier sanction. The Code of Professional Responsibility "andates that) Canon %. 777 777 777 Rule %.-% E A lawyer shall not en!a!e in unlawful, dishonest, i""oral or deceitful conduct. Canon %/. 777 777 777 Canon %/.-% E A lawyer shall account for all "oney or property collected or received fro" the client. Respondent infrin!ed and breached these rules. Derily, !ood "oral character is not only a condition precedent to ad"ission to the le!al profession, but it "ust also be possessed at all ti"es in order to "aintain one@s !ood standin! in character that e7clusive and honored fraternity :Dillanueva vs. Atty. Teresita #ta. Ana , ,(. #CRA 6-6 F%''.G;. 3t has been said ti"e and a!ain, and this we cannot overe"phasi5e, that the law is not a trade nor a craft but a profession :A!palo, +e!al Ethics, %'=&, p. %;. 3ts basic ideal is to render public

service and to secure 9ustice for those who see8 its aid. FMayer vs. #tate Bar, , Call,d 6%, &' P,d ,-/ :%'&(;, cited in A!palo, id.G 3f it has to re"ain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ran8s should not only "aster its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives, accord continuin! fidelity to the". :A!palo, id.; By e7tortin! "oney fro" his client throu!h deceit and "isrepresentation, respondent +i"on has reduced the law profession to a level so base, so low and dishonorable, and "ost conte"ptible. Ce has sullied the inte!rity of his brethren in the law and has, indirectly, eroded the peoples@ confidence in the 9udicial syste". By his reprehensible conduct, which is reflective of his depraved character, respondent has "ade hi"self unworthy to re"ain in the Roll of Attorneys. Ce should be disbarred. BCEREA<RE, respondent Atty. >o"inador ?. +i"on, #r. is hereby >3#BARRE>. The <ffice of the Cler8 of Court is directed to stri8e out his na"e fro" the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent is li8ewise ordered to return the a"ount of P=,.--.--, the balance of the "oney entrusted to hi" by co"plainant >ocena, within one :%; "onth fro" the finality of this >ecision. #< <R>ERE>. ,.)Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC !.R. No. L-1-727 A1213' ,1, 1944

5ESUS MA. CUI, plaintiff appellee, vs. ANTONIO MA. CUI, defendant appellant, ROMULO CUI, 3ntervenor appellant. Jose W. Dio no for plaintiff!appellee. Jaime ". #uevas and $ector %. $ofile&a for defendant!appellant. "omulo Cui in his o'n behalf as intervenor!appellants. MA6ALINTAL, J.: This is a provin! in (uo 'arranto ori!inally filed in the Court of Airst 3nstance of Cebu. The office in contention is that of Ad"inistrator of the $ospicio de San Jose de )arili. $ud!"ent was rendered on ,6 April %'/% in favor of the plaintiff, $esus Ma. Cui, and appealed to us by the defendant, Antonio Ma. Cui, and by the intervenor, Ro"ulo Cui. The Cospicio is a charitable institution established by the spouses >on Pedro Cui and >oHa Beni!na Cui, now deceased, 2for the care and support, free of char!e, of indi!ent invalids, and incapacitated and helpless persons.2 3t ac1uired corporate e7istence by le!islation :Act No. &,&' of the Philippine +e!islature passed ,6 Nove"ber %',.; and endowed with e7tensive properties by the said spouses throu!h a series of donations, principally the deed of donation e7ecuted on , $anuary %',/. #ection , of Act No. &,&' !ave the initial "ana!e"ent to the founders 9ointly and, in case of their incapacity or death, to 2such persons as they "ay no"inate or desi!nate, in the order prescribed to the".2 #ection , of the deed of donation provides as follows) ?ue en caso de nuestro falleci"iento o incapacidad para ad"inistrar, nos sustituyan nuestro le!iti"e sobrino Mariano Cui, si al tie"po de nuestra "uerte o incapacidad se

hallare residiendo en la caudad de Cebu, y nuestro sobrino politico >ionisio $a8osale". #i nuestro dicho sobrino Mariano Cui no estuviese residiendo entonces en la caudad de Cebu, desi!na"os en su lu!ar a nuestro otro sobrino le!iti"e Mauricio Cui. A"bos sobrinos ad"inistraran con9unta"ente el C<#P3C3< >E #AN $<#E >E BAR3+3. A la "uerte o incapacidad de estos dos ad"inistradores, la ad"inistracion del C<#P3C3< >E #AN $<#E >E BAR3+3 pasara a una sola persona 1ue sera el varon, "ayor de edad, 1ue descienda le!iti"ainente de cual1uiera de nuestros sobrinos le!iti"os Mariano Cui, Mauricio Cui, Dicente Cui y Dictor Cui, y 1ue posea titulo de abo!ado, o "edico, o in!eniero civil, o far"aceutico, o a falta de estos titulos, el 1ue pa!ue al Estado "ayor i"puesto o contribution. En i!ualdad de circu"stancias, sera preferida el varon de "as edad descendiente de 1uien tenia ulti"a"ente la ad"inistracion. Cuando absoluta"ente faltare persona de estas cualificaciones, la ad"inistracion del C<#P3C3< >E #AN $<#E >E BAR3+3 pasara al senor <bispo de Cebu o 1uien sea el "ayor di!natario de la 3!lesia Catolica, apostolica, Ro"ana, 1ue tuviere asiento en la cabecera de esta Provincia de Cebu, y en su defecto, al Iobierno Provincial de Cebu. >on Pedro Cui died in %',/, and his widow continued to ad"inister the $ospicio until her death in %','. Thereupon the ad"inistration passed to Mauricio Cui and >ionisio $a8osale". The first died on = May %'&% and the second on % $uly %'&%. <n , $uly %'&% >r. Teodoro Cui, only son of Mauricio Cui, beca"e the ad"inistrator. Thereafter, be!innin! in %'&,, a series of controversies and court liti!ations ensued concernin! the position of ad"inistrator, to which, in so far as they are pertinent to the present case, reference will be "ade later in this decision. Plaintiff $esus Ma. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. Cui are brothers, bein! the sons of Mariano Cui, one of the nephews of the spouses >on Pedro Cui and >oHa Beni!na Cui. <n ,6 Aebruary %'/the then incu"bent ad"inistrator, >r. Teodoro Cui, resi!ned in favor of Antonio Ma. Cui pursuant to a 2convenio2 entered into between the" and e"bodied in a notarial docu"ent. The ne7t day, ,= Aebruary, Antonio Ma. Cui too8 his oath of office. $esus Ma. Cui, however, had no prior notice of either the 2convenio2 or of his brother@s assu"ption of the position. >r. Teodoro Cui died on ,6 Au!ust %'/-0 on . #epte"ber %'/- the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant de"andin! that the office be turned over to hi"0 and on %& #epte"ber %'/-, the de"and not havin! been co"plied with the plaintiff filed the co"plaint in this case. Ro"ulo Cui later on intervened, clai"in! a ri!ht to the sa"e office, bein! a !randson of Dicente Cui, another one of the nephews "entioned by the founders of the $ospicio in their deed of donation. As between $esus and Antonio the "ain issue turns upon their respective 1ualifications to the position of ad"inistrator. $esus is the older of the two and therefore under e1ual circu"stances would be preferred pursuant to section , of the deed of donation. Cowever, before the test of a!e "ay be, applied the deed !ives preference to the one, a"on! the le!iti"ate descendants of the nephews therein na"ed, 21ue posea titulo de abo!ado, o "edico, o in!eniero civil, o far"aceutico, o a falta de estos titulos el 1ue pa!ue al estado "ayor i"puesto o contribucion.2 The specific point in dispute is the "ealin! of the ter" 2titulo de abo!ado.2 $esus Ma. Cui holds the de!ree of Bachelor of +aws fro" the 4niversity of #anto To"as :Class %',/; but is not a "e"ber of the Bar, not havin! passed the e7a"inations to 1ualify hi" as one. Antonio Ma. Cui, on the other hand, is a "e"ber of the Bar and althou!h disbarred by this Court on ,' March %'.6 :ad"inistrative case No. %(%;, was reinstated by resolution pro"ul!ated on %- Aebruary %'/-, about two wee8s before he assu"ed the position of ad"inistrator of the $ospicio de )arili. The Court a (uo, in decidin! this point in favor of the plaintiff, said that the phrase 2titulo de abo!ado,2 ta8en alone, "eans that of a full fled!ed lawyer, but that has used in the deed of donation and considerin! the function or purpose of the ad"inistrator, it should not be !iven a

strict interpretation but a liberal one,2 and therefore "eans a law de!ree or diplo"a of Bachelor of +aws. This rulin! is assailed as erroneous both by the defendant and by the intervenor. Be are of the opinion, that whether ta8en alone or in conte7t the ter" 2titulo de abo!ado2 "eans not "ere possession of the acade"ic de!ree of Bachelor of +aws but "e"bership in the Bar after due ad"ission thereto, 1ualifyin! one for the practice of law. 3n #panish the word 2titulo2 is defined as 2testi"onies o instru"ento dado para e9ercer un e"pleo, di!nidad o profesion2 :>iccionario de la +en!ua EspaHola, Real Acade"ia Espanola, %'(6 ed., p. %,,(; and the word 2abo!ado,2 as follows) 2Perito en el derecho positivo 1ue se dedica a defender en 9uicio, por escrito o de palabra, los derechos o intereses de los liti!antes, y ta"bien a dar dict"en sobre las cuestiones o puntos le!ales 1ue se le consultan : Id., p..; A Bachelor@s de!ree alone, conferred by a law school upon co"pletion of certain acade"ic re1uire"ents, does not entitle its holder to e7ercise the le!al profession. The En!lish e1uivalent of 2abo!ado2 is lawyer or attorney at law. This ter" has a fi7ed and !eneral si!nification, and has reference to that class of persons who are by license officers of the courts, e"powered to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon who" peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a conse1uence. 3n this 9urisdiction ad"ission to the Bar and to the practice of law is under the authority of the #upre"e Court. Accordin! to Rule %&= such ad"ission re1uires passin! the Bar e7a"inations, ta8in! the lawyer@s oath and receivin! a certificate fro" the Cler8 of Court, this certificate bein! his license to practice the profession. The acade"ic de!ree of Bachelor of +aws in itself has little to do with ad"ission to the Bar, e7cept as evidence of co"pliance with the re1uire"ents that an applicant to the e7a"inations has 2successfully co"pleted all the prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved by the #ecretary of Education.2 Aor this purpose, however, possession of the de!ree itself is not indispensable) co"pletion of the prescribed courses "ay be shown in so"e other way. 3ndeed there are instances, particularly under the for"er Code of Civil Procedure, where persons who had not !one throu!h any for"al le!al education in colle!e were allowed to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations and to 1ualify as lawyers. :#ection %( of that code re1uired possession of 2the necessary 1ualifications of learnin! ability.2; Jet certainly it would be incorrect to say that such persons do not possess the 2titulo de abo!ado2 because they lac8 the acade"ic de!ree of Bachelor of +aws fro" so"e law school or university. The founders of the $ospicio de San Jose de )arili "ust have established the fore!oin! test advisely, and provided in the deed of donation that if not a lawyer, the ad"inistrator should be a doctor or a civil en!ineer or a phar"acist, in that order0 or failin! all these, should be the one who pays the hi!hest ta7es a"on! those otherwise 1ualified. A lawyer, first of all, because under Act No. &,&' the "ana!ers or trustees of the $ospicio shall 2"a8e re!ulations for the !overn"ent of said institution :#ec. &, b;0 shall 2prescribe the conditions sub9ect to which invalids and incapacitated and destitute persons "ay be ad"itted to the institute2 :#ec. &, d;0 shall see to it that the rules and conditions pro"ul!ated for ad"ission are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act0 and shall ad"inister properties of considerable value E for all of which wor8, it is to be presu"ed, a wor8in! 8nowled!e of the law and a license to practice the profession would be a distinct asset. 4nder this particular criterion we hold that the plaintiff is not entitled, as a!ainst the defendant, to the office of ad"inistrator. But it is ar!ued that althou!h the latter is a "e"ber of the Bar he is nevertheless dis1ualified by virtue of para!raph & of the deed of donation, which provides that the ad"inistrator "ay be re"oved on the !round, a"on! others, of ineptitude in the dischar!e of his office or lac8 of evident sound "oral character. Reference is "ade to the fact that the defendant was disbarred by this Court on ,' March %'.6 for i""orality and unprofessional conduct. 3t is also a fact, however, that he was reinstated on %- Aebruary %'/-, before he

assu"ed the office of ad"inistrator. Cis reinstate"ent is a reco!nition of his "oral rehabilitation, upon proof no less than that re1uired for his ad"ission to the Bar in the first place. Bherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the fore!oin! stipulation of facts be ad"itted and approved by this Conorable Court, without pre9udice to the parties adducin! other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. *+'ph,*.&-t Bhether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a !reat e7tent in the sound discretion of the court. The court action will depend, !enerally spea8in!, on whether or not it decides that the public interest in the orderly and i"partial ad"inistration of 9ustice will be conserved by the applicant@s participation therein in the capacity of an attorney and counselor at law. The applicant "ust, li8e a candidate for ad"ission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a person of !ood "oral character E a fit and proper person to practice law. The court will ta8e into consideration the applicant@s character and standin! prior to the disbar"ent, the nature and character of the char!e for which he was disbarred, his conduct subse1uent to the disbar"ent, and the ti"e that has elapsed between the disbar"ent and the application for reinstate"ent. :. A". $ur., #ec. &-%, p. ((&; Evidence of refor"ation is re1uired before applicant is entitled to reinstate"ent, notwithstandin! the attorney has received a pardon followin! his conviction, and the re1uire"ents for reinstate"ent have been held to be the sa"e as for ori!inal ad"ission to the bar, e7cept that the court "ay re1uire a !reater de!ree of proof than in an ori!inal ad"ission. :6 C.$.#., Attorney * Client, #ec. (%, p. =%..; The decisive 1uestions on an application for reinstate"ent are whether applicant is 2of !ood "oral character2 in the sense in which that phrase is used when applied to attorneys at law and is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the privile!es of the office of an attorney, and whether his "ental 1ualifications are such as to enable hi" to dischar!e efficiently his duty to the public, and the "oral attributes are to be re!arded as a separate and distinct fro" his "ental 1ualifications. :6 C.$.#., Attorney * Client, #ec. (%, p. =%/;. As far as "oral character is concerned, the standard re1uired of one see8in! reinstate"ent to the office of attorney cannot be less e7actin! than that i"plied in para!raph & of the deed of donation as a re1uisite for the office which is disputed in this case. Bhen the defendant was restored to the roll of lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resultin! fro" his previous disbar"ent were wiped out. This action "ust fail on one other !round) it is already barred by lapse of ti"e a"ountin! the prescription or laches. 4nder #ection %/ of Rule // :for"erly sec. %/, Rule /=, ta8en fro" section ,%/ of Act %'-;, this 8ind of action "ust be filed within one :%; year after the ri!ht of plaintiff to hold the office arose. Plaintiff $esus Ma. Cui believed hi"self entitled to the office in 1uestion as lon! a!o as %'&,. <n $anuary ,/ of that year he filed a co"plaint in (uo 'arranto a!ainst >r. Teodoro Cui, who assu"ed the ad"inistration of the$ospicio on , $uly %'&%. Mariano Cui, the plaintiff@s father and Antonio Ma. Cui ca"e in as intervenors. The case was dis"issed by the Court of Airst 3nstance upon a de"urrer by the defendant there to the co"plaint and co"plaint in intervention. 4pon appeal to the #upre"e Court fro" the order of dis"issal, the case was re"anded for further proceedin!s :Cui v. Cui, /- Phil. &6, (=;. The plaintiff, however, did not prosecute the case as indicated in the decision of this Court, but acceded to an arran!e"ent whereby Teodoro Cui continued as ad"inistrator, Mariano Cui was na"ed 2le!al adviser2 and plaintiff $esus Ma. Cui accepted a position as assistant ad"inistrator.

#ubse1uently the plaintiff tried to !et the position by a series of e7tra 9udicial "aneuvers. Airst he infor"ed the #ocial Belfare Co""issioner, by letter dated % Aebruary %'.-, that as of the previous % $anuary he had 2"ade clear2 his intention of occupyin! the office of ad"inistrator of the $ospicio.2 Ce followed that up with another letter dated ( Aebruary, announcin! that he had ta8en over the ad"inistration as of % $anuary %'.-. Actually, however, he too8 his oath of office before a notary public only on ( March %'.-, after receivin! a reply of ac8nowled!"ent, dated , March, fro" the #ocial Belfare Co""issioner, who thou!ht that he had already assu"ed the position as stated in his co""unication of ( Aebruary %'.-. The rather "uddled situation was referred by the Co""issioner to the #ecretary of $ustice, who, in an opinion dated & April %'.:op. No. (., #. %'.-;, correctin! another opinion previously !iven, in effect ruled that the plaintiff, not bein!s lawyer, was not entitled to the ad"inistration of the $ospicio. Meanwhile, the 1uestion a!ain beca"e the sub9ect of a court controversy. <n ( March %'.-, the $ospicioco""enced an action a!ainst the Philippine National Ban8 in the Court of Airst 3nstance of Cebu :Civ. No. R %,%/; because the Ban8 had fro5en the $ospicio.s deposits therein. The Ban8 then filed a third party co"plaint a!ainst herein plaintiff appellee, $esus Ma. Cui, who had, as stated above, ta8en oath as ad"inistrator. <n %' <ctober %'.-, havin! been deprived of reco!nition by the opinion of the #ecretary of $ustice he "oved to dis"iss the third party co"plaint on the !round that he was relin1uishin! 2te"porarily2 his clai" to the ad"inistration of the$ospicio. The "otion was denied in an order dated , <ctober %'.&. <n / Aebruary %'.( he was able to ta8e another oath of office as ad"inistrator before President Ma!saysay, and soon afterward filed a second "otion to dis"iss in Civil case No. R %,%/. President Ma!saysay, be it said, upon learnin! that a case was pendin! in Court, stated in a tele!ra" to his E7ecutive #ecretary that 2as far as :he; was concerned the court "ay disre!ard the oath2 thus ta8en. The "otion to dis"iss was !ranted nevertheless and the other parties in the case filed their notice of appeal fro" the order of dis"issal. The plaintiff then filed an e/!parte "otion to be e7cluded as party in the appeal and the trial Court a!ain !ranted the "otion. This was on ,( Nove"ber %'.(. Appellants thereupon instituted a mandamus proceedin! in the #upre"e Court :I.R. No. + =.(-;, which was decided on ,= May %'./, to the effect that $esus Ma. Cui should be included in the appeal. That appeal, however, after it reached this Court was dis"iss upon "otion of the parties, who a!reed that 2the office of ad"inistrator and trustee of the $ospicio ... should be ventilated in (uo 'arranto proceedin!s to be initiated a!ainst the incu"bent by who"soever is not occupyin! the office but believes he has a ri!ht to it2 :I.R. No. + '%-&;. The resolution of dis"issal was issued &% $uly %'./. At that ti"e the incu"bent ad"inistrator was >r. Teodoro Cui, but no action in (uo 'arranto was filed a!ainst hi" by plaintiff $esus Ma. Cui as indicated in the aforesaid "otion for dis"issal. <n %- Aebruary %'/-, defendant Antonio Ma. Cui was reinstated by this Court as "e"ber of the Bar, and on the followin! ,6 Aebruary >r. Teodoro Cui resi!ned as ad"inistrator in his favor, pursuant to the 2convenio2 between the" e7ecuted on the sa"e date. The ne7t day Antonio Ma. Cui too8 his oath of office. The failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his clai" 9udicially after this Court decided the first case of Cui v. Cui in %'&( :/- Phil. &6/';, re"andin! it to the trial court for further proceedin!s0 his acceptance instead of the position of assistant ad"inistrator, allowin! >r. Teodoro Cui to continue as ad"inistrator and his failure to file an action in (uo 'arranto a!ainst said >r. Cui after &% $uly %'./, when the appeal in Civil Case No. R %,%/ of the Cebu Court was dis"issed upon "otion of the parties precisely so that the conflictin! clai"s of the parties could be ventilated in such an action E all these circu"stances "ilitate a!ainst the plaintiff@s present clai" in view of the rule that an action in (uo 'arranto "ust be filed within one year after the ri!ht of the plaintiff to hold the office arose. The e7cuse that the plaintiff did not file an action a!ainst >r. Teodoro Cui after &% $uly %'./ because of the latter@s illness did not interrupt the runnin! of the statutory period. And the fact that this action was filed within one year of the defendant@s assu"ption of office in #epte"ber %'/- does not "a8e the plaintiff@s position any

better, for the basis of the action is his own ri!ht to the office and it is fro" the ti"e such ri!ht arose that the one year li"itation "ust be counted, not fro" the date the incu"bent be!an to dischar!e the duties of said office. )autista v. Fa0ardo, &= Phil. /,(0 %im vs. 1ulo, /, Phil. %/%. Now for the clai" of intervenor and appellant Ro"ulo Cui. This party is also a lawyer, !randson of Dicente Cui, one of the nephews of the founders of the $ospicio "entioned by the" in the deed of donation. Ce is further, in the line of succession, than defendant Antonio Ma. Cui, who is a son of Mariano Cui, another one of the said nephews. The deed of donation provides) 2a la "uerte o incapacidad de estos ad"inistradores :those appointed in the deed itself; pasara a una sola persona 1ue sera el varon, "ayor de edad, 1ue descienda le!iti"a"ente de cual1uiera de nuestros sobrinos le!iti"os Mariano Cui, Mauricio Cui, Dicente Cui, Dictor Cui, y 1ue posea titulo de abo!ado ... En i!ualdad de circu"stancias, sera preferido el varon de "as edad descendiente de 1uien tenia ulti"a"ente la ad"inistration.2 Besides bein! a nearer descendant than Ro"ulo Cui, Antonio Ma. Cui is older than he and therefore is preferred when the circu"stances are otherwise e1ual. The intervenor contends that the intention of the founders was to confer the ad"inistration by line and successively to the descendants of the nephews na"ed in the deed, in the order they are na"ed. Thus, he ar!ues, since the last ad"inistrator was >r. Teodoro Cui, who belon!ed to the Mauricio Cui line, the ne7t ad"inistrator "ust co"e fro" the line of Dicente Cui, to who" the intervenor belon!s. This interpretation, however, is not 9ustified by the ter"s of the deed of donation. 3N D3EB <A TCE A<REI<3NI C<N#3>ERAT3<N#, the 9ud!"ent appealed fro" is reversed and set aside, and the co"plaint as well as the co"plaint in intervention are dis"issed, with costs e1ually a!ainst plaintiff appellee and intervenor appellant. 4.)Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila TC3R> >3D3#3<N

A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P

./r1ar7 24, 1997

SOPHIA ALA8I, co"plainant, vs. ASHAR) M. ALAU)A, C$.r9 o: Co1r' ;I, Shar%<a D%3'r%c' Court, Marawi City, respondent.

NAR;ASA, C.J.: #ophia Alawi was :and presu"ably still is; a sales representative :or coordinator; of E.B. Dillarosa * Partners Co., +td. of >avao City, a real estate and housin! co"pany. Ashari M. Alauya is the incu"bent e7ecutive cler8 of court of the (th $udicial #hari@a >istrict in Marawi City, They were class"ates, and used to be friends. 3t appears that throu!h Alawi@s a!ency, a contract was e7ecuted for the purchase on install"ents by Alauya of one of the housin! units belon!in! to the above "entioned fir" :hereafter, si"ply Dillarosa * Co.;0 and in connection therewith, a housin! loan was also !ranted to Alauya by the National Co"e Mort!a!e Ainance Corporation :NCMAC;.

Not lon! afterwards, or "ore precisely on >ece"ber %., %''., Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Dillarosa * Co. advisin! of the ter"ination of his contract with the co"pany. Ce wrote) . . 3 a" for"ally and officially withdrawin! fro" and notifyin! you of "y intent to ter"inate the ContractKA!ree"ent entered into between "e and your co"pany, as represented by your #ales A!entKCoordinator, #<PC3A A+AB3, of your co"pany@s branch office here in Ca!ayan de <ro City, on the !rounds that "y consent was vitiated by !ross "isrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the aforesaid sales a!ent which "ade said contract void ab initio. #aid sales a!ent actin! in bad faith perpetrated such ille!al and unauthori5ed acts which "ade said contract an <nerous Contract pre9udicial to "y ri!hts and interests. Ce then proceeded to e7pound in considerable detail and 1uite acerbic lan!ua!e on the 2!rounds which could evidence the bad faith. deceit, fraud, "isrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the unscrupulous sales a!ent . . .02 and closed with the plea that Dillarosa * Co. 2a!ree for the "utual rescission of our contract, even as 3 infor" you that 3 cate!orically state on record that 3 a" ter"inatin! the contract . . . 3 hope 3 do not have to resort to any le!al action before said onerous and "anipulated contract a!ainst "y interest be annulled. 3 was actually fooled by your sales a!ent, hence the need to annul the controversial contract.2 Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the Dice President of Dillarosa * Co. at #an Pedro, Iusa, Ca!ayan de <ro City. The envelope containin! it, and which actually went throu!h the post, bore no sta"ps. 3nstead at the ri!ht hand corner above the description of the addressee, the words, 2 Free 2ostage ! 2D 34,2 had been typed. <n the sa"e date, >ece"ber %., %''., Alauya also wrote to Mr. Aer"in T. Ar5a!a, Dice President, Credit * Collection Iroup of the National Co"e Mort!a!e Ainance Corporation :NCMAC; at #alcedo Dilla!e, Ma8ati City, repudiatin! as fraudulent and void his contract with Dillarosa * Co.0 and as8in! for cancellation of his housin! loan in connection therewith, which was payable fro" salary deductions at the rate of P(,&&=.-- a "onth. A"on! other thin!s, he said) . . . :T;hrou!h this written notice, 3 a" ter"inatin!, as 3 hereby annul, cancel, rescind and voided, the 2"anipulated contract2 entered into between "e and the E.B. Dillarosa * Partner Co., +td., as represented by its sales a!entKcoordinator, #<PC3A A+AB3, who "aliciously and fraudulently "anipulated said contract and unlawfully secured and pursued the housin! loan without "y authority and a!ainst "y will. Thus, the contract itself is dee"ed to be void ab initio in view of the attendin! circu"stances, that "y consent was vitiated by "isrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonesty, and abuse of confidence0 and that there was no "eetin! of the "inds between "e and the swindlin! sales a!ent who concealed the real facts fro" "e. And, as in his letter to Dillarosa * Co., he narrated in so"e detail what he too8 to be the ano"alous actuations of #ophia Alawi. Alauya wrote three other letters to Mr. Ar5a!a of the NCMAC, dated Aebruary ,%, %''/, April %., %''/, and May &, %''/, in all of which, for the sa"e reasons already cited, he insisted on the cancellation of his housin! loan and discontinuance of deductions fro" his salary on account thereof. a Ce also wrote on $anuary %=, %''/ to Ms. Cora5on M. <rdoHe5, Cead of the Aiscal Mana!e"ent * Bud!et <ffice, and to the Chief, Ainance >ivision, both of this Court, to stop

deductions fro" his salary in relation to the loan in 1uestion, a!ain assertin! the ano"alous "anner by which he was alle!edly duped into enterin! into the contracts by 2the sche"in! sales a!ent.2 / The upshot was that in May, %''/, the NCMAC wrote to the #upre"e Court re1uestin! it to stop deductions on Alauya@s 4C+P loan 2effective May %''/.2 and be!an ne!otiatin! with Dillarosa * Co. 2 for the buy bac8 of . . . :Alauya@s; "ort!a!e. and . . the refund of . . :his; pay"ents.2 c <n learnin! of Alauya@s letter to Dillarosa * Co. of >ece"ber %., %''., #ophia Alawi filed with this Court a verified co"plaint dated $anuary ,., %''/ E to which she appended a copy of the letter, and of the above "entioned envelope bearin! the typewritten words, 2 Free 2ostage ! 2D 34.2 1 3n that co"plaint, she accused Alauya of) %. 23"putation of "alicious and libelous char!es with no solid !rounds throu!h "anifest i!norance and evident bad faith02 ,. 2Causin! undue in9ury to, and ble"ishin! her honor and established reputation02 &. 24nauthori5ed en9oy"ent of the privile!e of free posta!e . . .02 and (. 4surpation of the title of 2attorney,2 which only re!ular "e"bers of the Philippine Bar "ay properly use. #he deplored Alauya@s references to her as 2unscrupulous swindler, for!er, "anipulator, etc.2 without 2even a bit of evidence to cloth : sic; his alle!ations with the essence of truth,2 denouncin! his i"putations as irresponsible, 2all concoctions, lies, baseless and coupled with "anifest i!norance and evident bad faith,2 and assertin! that all her dealin!s with Alauya had been re!ular and co"pletely transparent. #he closed with the plea that Alauya 2be dis"issed fro" the senice, or be appropriately desciplined : sic; . . .2 The Court resolved to order Alauya to co""ent on the co"plaint, Confor"ably with established usa!e that notices of resolutions e"anate fro" the correspondin! <ffice of the Cler8 of Court, the notice of resolution in this case was si!ned by Atty. Alfredo P. Marasi!an, Assistant >ivision Cler8 of Court. 2 Alauya first sub"itted a 2Preli"inary Co""ent2 , in which he 1uestioned the authority of Atty. Marasi!an to re1uire an e7planation of hi", this power pertainin!, accordin! to hi", not to 2a "ere Asst. >iv. Cler8 of Court investi!atin! an E7ecutive Cler8 of Court.2 but only to the >istrict $ud!e, the Court Ad"inistrator or the Chief $ustice, and voiced the suspicion that the Resolution was the result of a 2stron! lin82 between Ms. Alawi and Atty. Marasi!an@s office. Ce also averred that the co"plaint had no factual basis0 Alawi was envious of hi" for bein! not only 2the E7ecutive Cler8 of Court and e7 officio Provincial #heriff and >istrict Re!istrar.2 but also 2a scion of a "o5al Famil5 . . .2 4 3n a subse1uent letter to Atty. Marasi!an, but this ti"e in "uch less a!!ressive, even obse1uious tones, = Alauya re1uested the for"er to !ive hi" a copy of the co"plaint in order that he "i!ht co""ent thereon. 4 Ce stated that his acts as cler8 of court were done in !ood faith and within the confines of the law0 and that #ophia Alawi, as sales a!ent of Dillarosa * Co. had, by falsifyin! his si!nature, fraudulently bound hi" to a housin! loan contract entailin! "onthly deductions of P(,&&&.%- fro" his salary. And in his co""ent thereafter sub"itted under date of $une ., %''/, Alauya contended that it was he who had suffered 2undue in9ury, "ental an!uish, sleepless ni!hts, wounded feelin!s and untold financial sufferin!,2 considerin! that in si7 "onths, a total of P,/,-,=./- had been

deducted fro" his salary. 7 Ce declared that there was no basis for the co"plaint0 in co""unicatin! with Dillarosa * Co. he had "erely acted in defense of his ri!hts. Ce denied any abuse of the fran8in! privile!e, sayin! that he !ave P,-.-- plus transportation fare to a subordinate who" he entrusted with the "ailin! of certain letters0 that the words) 2 Free 2ostage ! 2D 3462 were typewritten on the envelope by so"e other person, an aver"ent corroborated by the affidavit of Absa"en C. >o"ocao, Cler8 3D :subscribed and sworn to before respondent hi"self, and attached to the co""ent as Anne7 $;0 - and as far as he 8new, his subordinate "ailed the letters with the use of the "oney he had !iven for posta!e, and if those letters were indeed "i7ed with the official "ail of the court, this had occurred inadvertently and because of an honest "ista8e. 9 Alauya 9ustified his use of the title, 2attorney,2 by the assertion that it is 2le7ically synony"ous2 with 2Counsellors at law.2 a title to which #hari@a lawyers have a ri!htful clai", addin! that he prefers the title of 2attorney2 because 2counsellor2 is often "ista8en for 2councilor,2 2 onsehal2 or the Maranao ter" 2consial,2 connotin! a local le!islator beholden to the "ayor. Bithal, he does not consider hi"self a lawyer. Ce pleads for the Court@s co"passion, alle!in! that what he did 2is e7pected of any "an unduly pre9udiced and in9ured.2 10 Ce clai"s he was "anipulated into reposin! his trust in Alawi, a class"ate and friend. 11 Ce was induced to si!n a blan8 contract on Alawi@s assurance that she would show the co"pleted docu"ent to hi" later for correction, but she had since avoided hi"0 despite 2nu"erous letters and follow ups2 he still does not 8now where the property E sub9ect of his supposed a!ree"ent with Alawi@s principal, Dillarosa * Co. E is situated0 12Ce says Alawi so"ehow !ot his I#3# policy fro" his wife, and althou!h she pro"ised to return it the ne7t day, she did not do so until after several "onths. Ce also clai"s that in connection with his contract with Dillarosa * Co., Alawi for!ed his si!nature on such pertinent docu"ents as those re!ardin! the down pay"ent, clearance, lay out, receipt of the 8ey of the house, salary deduction, none of which he ever saw. 1, Averrin! in fine that his acts in 1uestion were done without "alice, Alauya prays for the dis"issal of the co"plaint for lac8 of "erit, it consistin! of 2fallacious, "alicious and baseless alle!ations.2 and co"plainant Alawi havin! co"e to the Court with unclean hands, her co"plicity in the fraudulent housin! loan bein! apparent and de"onstrable. 3t "ay be "entioned that in contrast to his two :,; letters to Assistant Cler8 of Court Marasi!an :dated April %', %''/ and April ,,, %''/;, and his two :,; earlier letters both dated >ece"ber %., %''/ E all of which he si!ned as 27tt5. Ashary M. Alauya2 E in his Co""ent of $une ., %''/, he does not use the title but refers to hi"self as 2 D7T8 A#CARJ M. A+A4JA.2 The Court referred the case to the <ffice of the Court Ad"inistrator for evaluation, report and reco""endation. 14 The first accusation a!ainst Alauya is that in his aforesaid letters, he "ade 2"alicious and libelous char!es :a!ainst Alawi; with no solid !rounds throu!h "anifest i!norance and evident bad faith, resultin! in 2undue in9ury to :her; and ble"ishin! her honor and established reputation.2 3n those letters, Alauya had written inter alia that) %; Alawi obtained his consent to the contracts in 1uestion 2by !ross "isrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence02 ,; Alawi acted in bad faith and perpetrated . . . ille!al and unauthori5ed acts . . . pre9udicial to . . :his; ri!hts and interests02

&; Alawi was an 2unscrupulous :and 2swindlin!2; sales a!ent2 who had fooled hi" by 2deceit, fraud, "isrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of confidence02 and (; Alawi had "aliciously and fraudulently "anipulated the contract with Dillarosa * Co., and unlawfully secured and pursued the housin! loan without . . :his; authority and a!ainst . . :his; will,2 and 2concealed the real facts . . .2 Alauya@s defense essentially is that in "a8in! these state"ents, he was "erely actin! in defense of his ri!hts, and doin! only what 2is e7pected of any "an unduly pre9udiced and in9ured,2 who had suffered 2"ental an!uish, sleepless ni!hts, wounded feelin!s and untold financial sufferin!, considerin! that in si7 "onths, a total of P,/,-,=./- had been deducted fro" his salary. 1= The Code of Conduct and Ethical #tandards for Public <fficials and E"ployees :RA /6%&; inter alia enunciates the #tate policy of pro"otin! a hi!h standard of ethics and ut"ost responsibility in the public service. 14 #ection ( of the Code co""ands that 2:p;ublic officials and e"ployees . . at all ti"es respect the ri!hts of others, and . . refrain fro" doin! acts contrary to law, !ood "orals, !ood custo"s, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.2 17 More than once has this Court e"phasi5ed that 2the conduct and behavior of every official and e"ployee of an a!ency involved in the ad"inistration of 9ustice, fro" the presidin! 9ud!e to the "ost 9unior cler8, should be circu"scribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct "ust at all ti"es be characteri5ed by, a"on! others, strict propriety and decoru" so as to earn and 8eep the respect of the public for the 9udiciary.2 1Now, it does not appear to the Court consistent with !ood "orals, !ood custo"s or public policy, or respect for the ri!hts of others, to couch denunciations of acts believed E however sincerely E to be deceitful, fraudulent or "alicious, in e7cessively inte"perate, insultin! or virulent lan!ua!e. Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a ri!ht of action a!ainst #ophia Alawi. The law re1uires that he e7ercise that ri!ht with propriety, without "alice or vindictiveness, or undue har" to anyone0 in a "anner consistent with !ood "orals, !ood custo"s, public policy, public order, supra0 or otherwise stated, that he 2act with 9ustice, !ive everyone his due, and observe honesty and !ood faith.2 19 Ri!hteous indi!nation, or vindication of ri!ht cannot 9ustify resort to vituperative lan!ua!e, or downri!ht na"e callin!. As a "e"ber of the #hari@a Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is sub9ect to a standard of conduct "ore strin!ent than for "ost other !overn"ent wor8ers. As a "an of the law, he "ay not use lan!ua!e which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, "enacin!, or otherwise i"proper. 20 As a 9udicial e"ployee, it is e7pected that he accord respect for the person and the ri!hts of others at all ti"es, and that his every act and word should be characteri5ed by prudence, restraint, courtesy, di!nity. Cis radical deviation fro" these salutary nor"s "i!ht perhaps be "iti!ated, but cannot be e7cused, by his stron!ly held conviction that he had been !rievously wron!ed. As re!ards Alauya@s use of the title of 2Attorney,2 this Court has already had occasion to declare that persons who pass the #hari@a Bar are not full fled!ed "e"bers of the Philippine Bar, hence "ay only practice law before #hari@a courts. 21 Bhile one who has been ad"itted to the #hari@a Bar, and one who has been ad"itted to the Philippine Bar, "ay both be considered 2counsellors,2 in the sense that they !ive counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an 2attorney.2 The title of 2attorney2 is reserved to those who, havin! obtained the necessary de!ree in the study of law and successfully ta8en the Bar E7a"inations, have been ad"itted to the 3nte!rated Bar of the Philippines and re"ain "e"bers thereof in !ood standin!0 and it is they only who are authori5ed to practice law in this 9urisdiction. Alauya says he does not wish to use the title, 2counsellor2 or 2counsellor at law, 2 because in his re!ion, there are pe9orative connotations to the ter", or it is confusin!ly si"ilar to that !iven to

local le!islators. The ratiocination, valid or not, is of no "o"ent. Cis disinclination to use the title of 2counsellor2 does not warrant his use of the title of attorney. Ainally, respectin! Alauya@s alle!ed unauthori5ed use of the fran8in! privile!e, contains no evidence ade1uately establishin! the accusation.
22

the record

BCEREA<RE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPR3MAN>E> for the use of e7cessively inte"perate, insultin! or virulent lan!ua!e, i.e., lan!ua!e unbeco"in! a 9udicial officer, and for usurpin! the title of attorney0 and he is warned that any si"ilar or other i"propriety or "isconduct in the future will be dealt with "ore severely. #< <R>ERE>. 1.) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC R.3o$1'%o& March 1-, 19=4

I& 'h. Ma''.r o: 'h. P.'%'%o&3 :or A>"%33%o& 'o 'h. (ar o: U&31cc.33:1$ Ca&>%>a'.3 o: 1944 'o 19=,? AL(INO CUNANAN, ET AL., petitioners. Jose 9. 7ruego6 9.$. de Jo5a6 9iguel ". Corne0o6 and 7ntonio :nrile Inton for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Juan ". %i'ag for respondent. DIO6NO, J.+ 3n recent years few controversial issues have aroused so "uch public interest and concern as Republic Act No. '6,, popularly 8nown as the 2Bar Alun8ers@ Act of %'.&.2 4nder the Rules of Court !overnin! ad"ission to the bar, 2in order that a candidate :for ad"ission to the Bar; "ay be dee"ed to have passed his e7a"inations successfully, he "ust have obtained a !eneral avera!e of 6. per cent in all sub9ects, without fallin! below .- per cent in any sub9ect.2 :Rule %,6, sec. %(, Rules of Court;. Nevertheless, considerin! the varyin! difficulties of the different bar e7a"inations held since %'(/ and the varyin! de!ree of strictness with which the e7a"ination papers were !raded, this court passed and ad"itted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an avera!e of only 6, per cent in %'(/, /' per cent in %'(6, 6- per cent in %'(=, and 6( per cent in %'('. 3n %'.- to %'.&, the 6( per cent was raised to 6. per cent. Believin! the"selves as fully 1ualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by this court, and feelin! conscious of havin! been discri"inated a!ainst :#ee E7planatory Note to R.A. No. '6,;, unsuccessful candidates who obtained avera!es of a few percenta!e lower than those ad"itted to the Bar a!itated in Con!ress for, and secured in %'.% the passa!e of #enate Bill No. %, which, a"on! others, reduced the passin! !eneral avera!e in bar e7a"inations to 6- per cent effective since %'(/. The President re1uested the views of this court on the bill. Co"plyin! with that re1uest, seven "e"bers of the court subscribed to and sub"itted written co""ents adverse thereto, and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Con!ress did not override the veto. 3nstead, it approved #enate Bill No. &6%, e"bodyin! substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. Althou!h the "e"bers of this court reiterated their unfavorable views on the "atter, the President allowed the bill to beco"e a law on $une ,%, %'.& without his si!nature. The law, which incidentally was enacted in an election year, reads in full as follows)

REP4B+3C ACT N<. '6, AN ACT T< A3L TCE PA##3NI MARM# A<R BAR ELAM3NAT3<N# AR<M N3NETEEN C4N>RE> AN> A<RTJ #3L 4P T< AN> 3NC+4>3NI N3NETEEN C4N>RE> AN> A3ATJ A3DE. )e it enacted b5 the Senate and $ouse of "epresentatives of the 2hilippines in Congress assembled; #ECT3<N %. Notwithstandin! the provisions of section fourteen, Rule nu"bered one hundred twenty seven of the Rules of Court, any bar candidate who obtained a !eneral avera!e of seventy per cent in any bar e7a"inations after $uly fourth, nineteen hundred and forty si7 up to the Au!ust nineteen hundred and fifty one bar e7a"inations0 seventy one per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty two bar e7a"inations0 seventy two per cent in the in the nineteen hundred and fifty three bar e7a"inations0 seventy three per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty four bar e7a"inations0 seventy four per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty five bar e7a"inations without a candidate obtainin! a !rade below fifty per cent in any sub9ect, shall be allowed to ta8e and subscribe the correspondin! oath of office as "e"ber of the Philippine Bar) 2rovided6 ho'ever, That for the purpose of this Act, any e7act one half or "ore of a fraction, shall be considered as one and included as part of the ne7t whole nu"ber. #EC. ,. Any bar candidate who obtained a !rade of seventy five per cent in any sub9ect in any bar e7a"ination after $uly fourth, nineteen hundred and forty si7 shall be dee"ed to have passed in such sub9ect or sub9ects and such !rade or !rades shall be included in co"putin! the passin! !eneral avera!e that said candidate "ay obtain in any subse1uent e7a"inations that he "ay ta8e. #EC. &. This Act shall ta8e effect upon its approval. Enacted on $une ,%, %'.&, without the E7ecutive approval. After its approval, "any of the unsuccessful post war candidates filed petitions for ad"ission to the bar invo8in! its provisions, while others whose "otions for the revision of their e7a"ination papers were still pendin! also invo8ed the aforesaid law as an additional !round for ad"ission. There are also others who have sou!ht si"ply the reconsideration of their !rades without, however, invo8in! the law in 1uestion. To avoid in9ustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the "otions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invo8ed Republic Act No. '6,. 4nfortunately, the court has found no reason to revise their !rades. 3f they are to be ad"itted to the bar, it "ust be pursuant to Republic Act No. '6, which, if declared valid, should be applied e1ually to all concerned whether they have filed petitions or not. A co"plete list of the petitioners, properly classified, affected by this decision, as well as a "ore detailed account of the history of Republic Act No. '6,, are appended to this decision as Anne7es 3 and 33. And to reali5e "ore readily the effects of the law, the followin! statistical data are set forth) :%; The unsuccessful bar candidates who are to be benefited by section % of Republic Act No. '6, total %,%/=, classified as follows) %'(/ %'(/ %'(6 :Au!ust; :Nove"ber; ,-/ (66 6(' %,% ,,= &(%= (& -

%'(= %'(' %'.%'.% %'., %'.&

='' %,,% = %,&% / ,,-/ =

(-' .&, ='& =6'

%% %/( ,/ %'/ (,/

,,6& %,-& = & ,,.. . T<TA+ '/=

,=(

%,,, .,(, %,%/ &% =

<f the total %,%/= candidates, ', have passed in subse1uent e7a"ination, and only .=/ have filed either "otions for ad"ission to the bar pursuant to said Republic Act, or "ere "otions for reconsideration. :,; 3n addition, so"e other %- unsuccessful candidates are to be benefited by section , of said Republic Act. These candidates had each ta8en fro" two to five different e7a"inations, but failed to obtain a passin! avera!e in any of the". Consolidatin!, however, their hi!hest !rades in different sub9ects in previous e7a"inations, with their latest "ar8s, they would be sufficient to reach the passin! avera!e as provided for by Republic Act No. '6,. :&; The total nu"ber of candidates to be benefited by this Republic Acts is therefore %,-'(, of which only /-( have filed petitions. <f these /-( petitioners, && who failed in %'(/ to %'.% had individually presented "otions for reconsideration which were denied, while %,. unsuccessful candidates of %'.,, and ./ of %'.&, had presented si"ilar "otions, which are still pendin! because they could be favorably affected by Republic Act No. '6,, E althou!h as has been already stated, this tribunal finds no sufficient reasons to reconsider their !rades UNCONSTITUTIONALIT) O REPU(LIC ACT NO. 972

Cavin! been called upon to enforce a law of far reachin! effects on the practice of the le!al profession and the ad"inistration of 9ustice, and because so"e doubts have been e7pressed as to its validity, the court set the hearin! of the afore "entioned petitions for ad"ission on the sole 1uestion of whether or not Republic Act No. '6, is constitutional. Be have been enli!htened in the study of this 1uestion by the brilliant assistance of the "e"bers of the bar who have a"ply ar!ued, orally an in writin!, on the various aspects in which the 1uestion "ay be !leaned. The valuable studies of Messrs. E. Doltaire Iarcia, Dicente $. Arancisco, Dicente Pelae5 and Buenaventura Evan!elista, in favor of the validity of the law, and of the 4.P. Bo"en@s +awyers@ Circle, the #olicitor Ieneral, Messrs. Arturo A. Alafri5, Enri1ue M. Aernando, Dicente Abad #antos, Carlos A. Barrios, Dicente del Rosario, $uan de Blancaflor, Ma"erto D. Ion5ales, and Ro"an <5aeta a!ainst it, aside fro" the "e"oranda of counsel for petitioners, Messrs. $ose M. Arue!o, M.C. de $oya, Mi!uel R. Corne9o and Antonio Enrile 3nton, and of petitioners Cabrera, Macasaet and Iale"a the"selves, has !reatly helped us in this tas8. The le!al researchers of the court have e7hausted al"ost all Philippine and A"erican 9urisprudence on the "atter. The 1uestion has been the ob9ect of intense deliberation for a lon! ti"e by the Tribunal, and finally, after the votin!, the preparation of the "a9ority opinion was assi!ned to a

new "e"ber in order to place it as hu"anly as possible above all suspicion of pre9udice or partiality. Republic Act No. '6, has for its ob9ect, accordin! to its author, to ad"it to the Bar, those candidates who suffered fro" insufficiency of readin! "aterials and inade1uate preparation. ?uotin! a portion of the E7planatory Note of the proposed bill, its author Conorable #enator Pablo An!eles >avid stated) The reason for rela7in! the standard 6. per cent passin! !rade is the tre"endous handicap which students durin! the years i""ediately after the $apanese occupation has to overco"e such as the insufficiency of readin! "aterials and the inade1uacy of the preparation of students who too8 up law soon after the liberation. <f the ',/6. candidates who too8 the e7a"inations fro" %'(/ to %'.,, .,,&/ passed. And now it is clai"ed that in addition /-( candidates be ad"itted :which in reality total %,-'(;, because they suffered fro" 2insufficiency of readin! "aterials2 and of 2inade1uacy of preparation.2 By its declared ob9ective, the law is contrary to public interest because it 1ualifies %,-'( law !raduates who confessedly had inade1uate preparation for the practice of the profession, as was e7actly found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid e7a"inations. The public interest de"ands of le!al profession ade1uate preparation and efficiency, precisely "ore so as le!al proble" evolved by the ti"es beco"e "ore difficult. An ade1uate le!al preparation is one of the vital re1uisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and "aintained fir"ly. To the le!al profession is entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve officially of those inade1uately prepared individuals to dedicate the"selves to such a delicate "ission is to create a serious social dan!er. Moreover, the state"ent that there was an insufficiency of le!al readin! "aterials is !rossly e7a!!erated. There were abundant "aterials. >ecisions of this court alone in "i"eo!raphed copies were "ade available to the public durin! those years and private enterprises had also published the" in "onthly "a!a5ines and annual di!ests. The Official Ga<ette had been published continuously. Boo8s and "a!a5ines published abroad have entered without restriction since %'(.. Many law boo8s, so"e even with revised and enlar!ed editions have been printed locally durin! those periods. A new set of Philippine Reports be!an to be published since %'(/, which continued to be supple"ented by the addition of new volu"es. Those are facts of public 8nowled!e. Notwithstandin! all these, if the law in 1uestion is valid, it has to be enforced. The 1uestion is not new in its funda"ental aspect or fro" the point of view of applicable principles, but the resolution of the 1uestion would have been easier had an identical case of si"ilar bac8!round been pic8ed out fro" the 9urisprudence we daily consult. 3s there any precedent in the lon! An!lo #a7on le!al history, fro" which has been directly derived the 9udicial syste" established here with its lofty ideals by the Con!ress of the 4nited #tates, and which we have preserved and atte"pted to i"prove, or in our conte"poraneous 9udicial history of "ore than half a centuryN Aro" the citations of those defendin! the law, we can not find a case in which the validity of a si"ilar law had been sustained, while those a!ainst its validity cite, a"on! others, the cases of >ay :In re >ay, .( NE /(/;, of Cannon :#tate vs. Cannon, ,(- NB, ((%;, the opinion of the #upre"e Court of Massachusetts in %'&, :=% A+R %-/%;, of IuariHa :,( Phil., &6;, aside fro" the opinion of the President which is e7pressed in his vote of the ori!inal bill and which the postpone"ent of the contested law respects. This law has no precedent in its favor. Bhen si"ilar laws in other countries had been pro"ul!ated, the 9udiciary i""ediately declared the" without force or effect. 3t is not within our power to offer a precedent to uphold the disputed law.

To be e7act, we ou!ht to state here that we have e7a"ined carefully the case that has been cited to us as a favorable precedent of the law E that of Cooper :,, NJ, =%;, where the Court of Appeals of New Jor8 revo8ed the decision of the #upre"e court of that #tate, denyin! the petition of Cooper to be ad"itted to the practice of law under the provisions of a statute concernin! the school of law of Colu"bia Colle!e pro"ul!ated on April 6, %=/-, which was declared by the Court of Appeals to be consistent with the Constitution of the state of New Jor8. 3t appears that the Constitution of New Jor8 at that ti"e provided) They :i.e., the 9ud!es; shall not hold any other office of public trust. All votes for either of the" for any elective office e7cept that of the Court of Appeals, !iven by the +e!islature or the people, shall be void. They shall not e7ercise any power of appoint"ent to public office. Any "ale citi5en of the a!e of twenty one years, of !ood "oral character, and who possesses the re1uisite 1ualifications of learnin! and ability, shall be entitled to ad"ission to practice in all the courts of this #tate. :p. '&;. Accordin! to the Court of Appeals, the ob9ect of the constitutional precept is as follows) Attorneys, solicitors, etc., were public officers0 the power of appointin! the" had previously rested with the 9ud!es, and this was the principal appointin! power which they possessed. The convention was evidently dissatisfied with the "anner in which this power had been e7ercised, and with the restrictions which the 9ud!es had i"posed upon ad"ission to practice before the". The prohibitory clause in the section 1uoted was ai"ed directly at this power, and the insertion of the provision2 e7pectin! the ad"ission of attorneys, in this particular section of the Constitution, evidently arose fro" its connection with the ob9ect of this prohibitory clause. There is nothin! indicative of confidence in the courts or of a disposition to preserve any portion of their power over this sub9ect, unless the #upre"e Court is ri!ht in the inference it draws fro" the use of the word Oad"ission@ in the action referred to. 3t is ur!ed that the ad"ission spo8en of "ust be by the court0 that to ad"it "eans to !rant leave, and that the power of !rantin! necessarily i"plies the power of refusin!, and of course the ri!ht of deter"inin! whether the applicant possesses the re1uisite 1ualifications to entitle hi" to ad"ission. These positions "ay all be conceded, without affectin! the validity of the act. :p. '&.; Now, with respect to the law of April 6, %=/-, the decision see"s to indicate that it provided that the possession of a diplo"a of the school of law of Colu"bia Colle!e conferrin! the de!ree of Bachelor of +aws was evidence of the le!al 1ualifications that the constitution re1uired of applicants for ad"ission to the Bar. The decision does not however 1uote the te7t of the law, which we cannot find in any public or accessible private library in the country. 3n the case of Cooper, supra, to "a8e the law consistent with the Constitution of New Jor8, the Court of Appeals said of the ob9ect of the law) The "otive for passin! the act in 1uestion is apparent. Colu"bia Colle!e bein! an institution of established reputation, and havin! a law depart"ent under the char!e of able professors, the students in which depart"ent were not only sub9ected to a for"al e7a"ination by the law co""ittee of the institution, but to a certain definite period of study before bein! entitled to a diplo"a of bein! !raduates, the +e!islature evidently, and no doubt 9ustly, considered this e7a"ination, to!ether with the preli"inary study re1uired by the act, as fully e1uivalent as a test of le!al re1uire"ents, to the ordinary e7a"ination by the court0 and as renderin! the latter e7a"ination, to which no definite period of preli"inary study was essential, unnecessary and burdenso"e.

The act was obviously passed with reference to the learnin! and ability of the applicant, and for the "ere purpose of substitutin! the e7a"ination by the law co""ittee of the colle!e for that of the court. 3t could have had no other ob9ect, and hence no !reater scope should be !iven to its provisions. Be cannot suppose that the +e!islature desi!ned entirely to dispense with the plain and e7plicit re1uire"ents of the Constitution0 and the act contains nothin! whatever to indicate an intention that the authorities of the colle!e should in1uire as to the a!e, citi5enship, etc., of the students before !rantin! a diplo"a. The only rational interpretation of which the act ad"its is, that it was intended to "a8e the colle!e diplo"a co"petent evidence as to the le!al attain"ents of the applicant, and nothin! else. To this e7tent alone it operates as a "odification of pre e7istin! statutes, and it is to be read in connection with these statutes and with the Constitution itself in order to deter"ine the present condition of the law on the sub9ect. :p.='; 777 777 777

The +e!islature has not ta8en fro" the court its 9urisdiction over the 1uestion of ad"ission, that has si"ply prescribed what shall be co"petent evidence in certain cases upon that 1uestion. :p.'&; Aro" the fore!oin!, the co"plete inapplicability of the case of Cooper with that at bar "ay be clearly seen. Please note only the followin! distinctions) :%; The law of New Jor8 does not re1uire that any candidate of Colu"bia Colle!e who failed in the bar e7a"inations be ad"itted to the practice of law. :,; The law of New Jor8 accordin! to the very decision of Cooper, has not ta8en fro" the court its 9urisdiction over the 1uestion of ad"ission of attorney at law0 in effect, it does not decree the ad"ission of any lawyer. :&; The Constitution of New Jor8 at that ti"e and that of the Philippines are entirely different on the "atter of ad"ission of the practice of law. 3n the 9udicial syste" fro" which ours has been evolved, the ad"ission, suspension, disbar"ent and reinstate"ent of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been disputably a 9udicial function and responsibility. Because of this attribute, its continuous and 5ealous possession and e7ercise by the 9udicial power have been de"onstrated durin! "ore than si7 centuries, which certainly 2constitutes the "ost solid of titles.2 Even considerin! the power !ranted to Con!ress by our Constitution to repeal, alter supple"ent the rules pro"ul!ated by this Court re!ardin! the ad"ission to the practice of law, to our 9ud!"ent and proposition that the ad"ission, suspension, disbar"ent and reinstate"ent of the attorneys at law is a le!islative function, properly belon!in! to Con!ress, is unacceptable. The function re1uires :%; previously established rules and principles, :,; concrete facts, whether past or present, affectin! deter"inate individuals. and :&; decision as to whether these facts are !overned by the rules and principles0 in effect, a 9udicial function of the hi!hest de!ree. And it beco"es "ore undisputably 9udicial, and not le!islative, if previous 9udicial resolutions on the petitions of these sa"e individuals are atte"pted to be revo8ed or "odified. Be have said that in the 9udicial syste" fro" which ours has been derived, the act of ad"ittin!, suspendin!, disbarrin! and reinstatin! attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly 9udicial. A co"prehensive and conscientious study of this "atter had been underta8en in the case of #tate vs. Cannon :%'&,; ,(- NB ((%, in which the validity of a le!islative enact"ent providin! that Cannon be per"itted to practice before the courts was discussed. Aro" the te7t of this decision we 1uote the followin! para!raphs)

This statute presents an assertion of le!islative power without parallel in the history of the En!lish spea8in! people so far as we have been able to ascertain. There has been "uch uncertainty as to the e7tent of the power of the +e!islature to prescribe the ulti"ate 1ualifications of attorney at law has been e7pressly co""itted to the courts, and the act of ad"ission has always been re!arded as a 9udicial function. This act purports to constitute Mr. Cannon an attorney at law, and in this respect it stands alone as an assertion of le!islative power. :p. (((; 4nder the Constitution all le!islative power is vested in a #enate and Asse"bly. :#ection %, art. (.; 3n so far as the prescribin! of 1ualifications for ad"ission to the bar are le!islative in character, the +e!islature is actin! within its constitutional authority when it sets up and prescribes such 1ualifications. :p. (((; But when the +e!islature has prescribed those 1ualifications which in its 9ud!"ent will serve the purpose of le!iti"ate le!islative solicitude, is the power of the court to i"pose other and further e7actions and 1ualifications foreclosed or e7haustedN :p. (((; 4nder our Constitution the 9udicial and le!islative depart"ents are distinct, independent, and coordinate branches of the !overn"ent. Neither branch en9oys all the powers of soverei!nty which properly belon!s to its depart"ent. Neither depart"ent should so act as to e"barrass the other in the dischar!e of its respective functions. That was the sche"e and thou!ht of the people settin! upon the for" of !overn"ent under which we e7ist. #tate vs. Castin!s, %- Bis., .,.0 Attorney Ieneral e7 rel. Bashford vs. Barstow, ( Bis., ./6. :p. ((.; The 9udicial depart"ent of !overn"ent is responsible for the plane upon which the ad"inistration of 9ustice is "aintained. 3ts responsibility in this respect is e7clusive. By co""ittin! a portion of the powers of soverei!nty to the 9udicial depart"ent of our state !overn"ent, under (,a sche"e which it was supposed rendered it i""une fro" e"barrass"ent or interference by any other depart"ent of !overn"ent, the courts cannot escape responsibility fir the "anner in which the powers of soverei!nty thus co""itted to the 9udicial depart"ent are e7ercised. :p. ((.; The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and inti"ate relationship. The bar is an attache of the courts. The 1uality of 9ustice dispense by the courts depends in no s"all de!ree upon the inte!rity of its bar. An unfaithful bar "ay easily brin! scandal and reproach to the ad"inistration of 9ustice and brin! the courts the"selves into disrepute. :p.((.; Throu!h all ti"e courts have e7ercised a direct and severe supervision over their bars, at least in the En!lish spea8in! countries. :p. ((.; After e7plainin! the history of the case, the Court ends thus) <ur conclusion "ay be epito"i5ed as follows) Aor "ore than si7 centuries prior to the adoption of our Constitution, the courts of En!land, concededly subordinate to Parlia"ent since the Revolution of %/==, had e7ercise the ri!ht of deter"inin! who should be ad"itted to the practice of law, which, as was said in Matter of the #er!eant@s at +aw, / Bin!ha"@s New Cases ,&., 2constitutes the "ost solid of all titles.2 3f the courts and 9udicial power be re!arded as an entity, the power to deter"ine who should be ad"itted to practice law is a constituent ele"ent of that entity. 3t "ay be difficult to isolate that ele"ent and say with assurance that it is either a part of the inherent power of the court, or an essential ele"ent of the 9udicial power e7ercised by the court, but that it is a power belon!in! to the 9udicial entity and "ade of not only a soverei!n institution, but "ade of it

a separate independent, and coordinate branch of the !overn"ent. They too8 this institution alon! with the power traditionally e7ercise to deter"ine who should constitute its attorney at law. There is no e7press provision in the Constitution which indicates an intent that this traditional power of the 9udicial depart"ent should in any "anner be sub9ect to le!islative control. Perhaps the do"inant thou!ht of the fra"ers of our constitution was to "a8e the three !reat depart"ents of !overn"ent separate and independent of one another. The idea that the +e!islature "i!ht e"barrass the 9udicial depart"ent by prescribin! inade1uate 1ualifications for attorneys at law is inconsistent with the do"inant purpose of "a8in! the 9udicial independent of the le!islative depart"ent, and such a purpose should not be inferred in the absence of e7press constitutional provisions. Bhile the le!islature "ay le!islate with respect to the 1ualifications of attorneys, but is incidental "erely to its !eneral and un1uestioned power to protect the public interest. Bhen it does le!islate a fi7in! a standard of 1ualifications re1uired of attorneys at law in order that public interests "ay be protected, such 1ualifications do not constitute only a "ini"u" standard and li"it the class fro" which the court "ust "a8e its selection. #uch le!islative 1ualifications do not constitute the ulti"ate 1ualifications beyond which the court cannot !o in fi7in! additional 1ualifications dee"ed necessary by the course of the proper ad"inistration of 9udicial functions. There is no le!islative power to co"pel courts to ad"it to their bars persons dee"ed by the" unfit to e7ercise the prero!atives of an attorney at law. :p. (.-; Aurther"ore, it is an unlawful atte"pt to e7ercise the power of appoint"ent. 3t is 1uite li8ely true that the le!islature "ay e7ercise the power of appoint"ent when it is in pursuance of a le!islative functions. Cowever, the authorities are well ni!h unani"ous that the power to ad"it attorneys to the practice of law is a 9udicial function. 3n all of the states, e7cept New $ersey :In re Reisch, =& N.$. E1. =,, '- A. %,;, so far as our investi!ation reveals, attorneys receive their for"al license to practice law by their ad"ission as "e"bers of the bar of the court so ad"ittin!. Cor. $ur. .6,0 :/ parte #eco"bre, %' Cow. ',%. +. Ed. ./.0 :/ parteIarland, ( Ball. &&&, %= +. Ed. &//0 Randall vs. Bri!ha", 6 Ball. .&, %' +. Ed. ,=.0 Canson vs. Irattan, (= Man, =(&, %%. P. /(/, &( +.R.A. .%'0 >anforth vs. E!an, ,& #. >. (&, %%' N.B. %-,%, %&- A". #t. Rep. %-&-, ,- Ann. Cas. (%&. The power of ad"ittin! an attorney to practice havin! been perpetually e7ercised by the courts, it havin! been so !enerally held that the act of the court in ad"ittin! an attorney to practice is the 9ud!"ent of the court, and an atte"pt as this on the part of the +e!islature to confer such ri!ht upon any one bein! "ost e7ceedin!ly unco""on, it see"s clear that the licensin! of an attorney is and always has been a purely 9udicial function, no "atter where the power to deter"ine the 1ualifications "ay reside. :p. (.%; 3n that sa"e year of %'&,, the #upre"e Court of Massachusetts, in answerin! a consultation of the #enate of that #tate, %=- NE 6,., said) 3t is indispensible to the ad"inistration of 9ustice and to interpretation of the laws that there be "e"bers of the bar of sufficient ability, ade1uate learnin! and sound "oral character. This arises fro" the need of enli!htened assistance to the honest, and restrainin! authority over the 8navish, liti!ant. 3t is hi!hly i"portant, also that the public be protected fro" inco"petent and vicious practitioners, whose opportunity for doin! "ischief is wide. 3t was said by Cardo5, C.+., in People e7 rel. Marlin vs. Cul8in, ,(, N.J. (./, (6-, (6%, %/, N.E. (=6, (=', /- A.+.R. =.%) 2Me"bership in the bar is a privile!e burden with conditions.2 <ne is ad"itted to the bar 2for so"ethin! "ore than private !ain.2 Ce beco"es an 2officer of the court2, and ,li8e the court itself, an instru"ent or a!ency to advance the end of 9ustice. Cis cooperation with the court is due 2whenever 9ustice would be i"periled if cooperation was withheld.2 Bithout such attorneys at law the

9udicial depart"ent of !overn"ent would be ha"pered in the perfor"ance of its duties. That has been the history of attorneys under the co""on law, both in this country and En!land. Ad"ission to practice as an attorney at law is al"ost without e7ception conceded to be a 9udicial function. Petition to that end is filed in courts, as are other proceedin!s invo8in! 9udicial action. Ad"ission to the bar is acco"plish and "ade open and notorious by a decision of the court entered upon its records. The establish"ent by the Constitution of the 9udicial depart"ent conferred authority necessary to the e7ercise of its powers as a coordinate depart"ent of !overn"ent. 3t is an inherent power of such a depart"ent of !overn"ent ulti"ately to deter"ine the 1ualifications of those to be ad"itted to practice in its courts, for assistin! in its wor8, and to protect itself in this respect fro" the unfit, those lac8in! in sufficient learnin!, and those not possessin! !ood "oral character. Chief $ustice Taney stated succinctly and with finality in :/ parte #eco"be, %' Cow. ', %&, %. +. Ed. ./., 23t has been well settled, by the rules and practice of co""on law courts, that it rests e7clusively with the court to deter"ine who is 1ualified to beco"e one of its officers, as an attorney and counselor, and for what cause he ou!ht to be re"oved.2 :p.6,6; 3n the case of >ay and others who collectively filed a petition to secure license to practice the le!al profession by virtue of a law of state :In re >ay, .( NE /(/;, the court said in part) 3n the case of :/ parte Iarland, ( Ball, &&&, %= +. Ed. &//, the court, holdin! the test oath for attorneys to be unconstitutional, e7plained the nature of the attorney@s office as follows) 2They are officers of the court, ad"itted as such by its order, upon evidence of their possessin! sufficient le!al learnin! and fair private character. 3t has always been the !eneral practice in this country to obtain this evidence by an e7a"ination of the parties. 3n this court the fact of the ad"ission of such officers in the hi!hest court of the states to which they, respectively, belon! for, three years precedin! their application, is re!arded as sufficient evidence of the possession of the re1uisite le!al learnin!, and the state"ent of counsel "ovin! their ad"ission sufficient evidence that their private and professional character is fair. The order of ad"ission is the 9ud!"ent of the court that the parties possess the re1uisite 1ualifications as attorneys and counselors, and are entitled to appear as such and conduct causes therein. Aro" its entry the parties beco"e officers of the court, and are responsible to it for professional "isconduct. They hold their office durin! !ood behavior, and can only be deprived of it for "isconduct ascertained and declared by the 9ud!"ent of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded. :/ parte Coyfron, ad"ission or their e7clusion is not the e7ercise of a "ere "inisterial power. 3t is the e7ercise of 9udicial power, and has been so held in nu"erous cases. 3t was so held by the court of appeals of New Jor8 in the "atter of the application of Cooper for ad"ission. Re Cooper ,, N. J. =%. 2Attorneys and Counselors2, said that court, 2are not only officers of the court, but officers whose duties relate al"ost e7clusively to proceedin!s of a 9udicial nature0 and hence their appoint"ent "ay, with propriety, be entrusted to the court, and the latter, in perfor"in! his duty, "ay very 9ustly considered as en!a!ed in the e7ercise of their appropriate 9udicial functions.2 :pp. /.- /.%;. Be 1uote fro" other cases, the followin! pertinent portions) Ad"ission to practice of law is al"ost without e7ception conceded everywhere to be the e7ercise of a 9udicial function, and this opinion need not be burdened with citations in this point. Ad"ission to practice have also been held to be the e7ercise of one of the inherent powers of the court. E Re Bruen, %-, Bash. (6,, %6, Pac. '-/. Ad"ission to the practice of law is the e7ercise of a 9udicial function, and is an inherent power of the court. E A.C. Brydon9ac8, vs. #tate Bar of California, ,=% Pac. %-%=0 #ee Annotation on Power of +e!islature respectin! ad"ission to bar, /., A.+. R. %.%,.

<n this "atter there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the 9udicial and le!islative depart"ents of the !overn"ent. The distinction between the functions of the le!islative and the 9udicial depart"ents is that it is the province of the le!islature to establish rules that shall re!ulate and !overn in "atters of transactions occurrin! subse1uent to the le!islative action, while the 9udiciary deter"ines ri!hts and obli!ations with reference to transactions that are past or conditions that e7ist at the ti"e of the e7ercise of 9udicial power, and the distinction is a vital one and not sub9ect to alteration or chan!e either by le!islative action or by 9udicial decree. The 9udiciary cannot consent that its province shall be invaded by either of the other depart"ents of the !overn"ent. E %/ C.$.#., Constitutional +aw, p. ,,'. 3f the le!islature cannot thus indirectly control the action of the courts by re1uirin! of the" construction of the law accordin! to its own views, it is very plain it cannot do so directly, by settlin! aside their 9ud!"ents, co"pellin! the" to !rant new trials, orderin! the dischar!e of offenders, or directin! what particular steps shall be ta8en in the pro!ress of a 9udicial in1uiry. E Cooley@s Constitutional +i"itations, %',. 3n decreein! the bar candidates who obtained in the bar e7a"inations of %'(/ to %'.,, a !eneral avera!e of 6- per cent without fallin! below .- per cent in any sub9ect, be ad"itted in "ass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a le!islation0 it is a 9ud!"ent E a 9ud!"ent revo8in! those pro"ul!ated by this Court durin! the aforecited year affectin! the bar candidates concerned0 and althou!h this Court certainly can revo8e these 9ud!"ents even now, for 9ustifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the le!islative nor e7ecutive depart"ent, that "ay be so. Any atte"pt on the part of any of these depart"ents would be a clear usurpation of its functions, as is the case with the law in 1uestion. That the Constitution has conferred on Con!ress the power to repeal, alter or supple"ent the rule pro"ul!ated by this Tribunal, concernin! the ad"ission to the practice of law, is no valid ar!u"ent. #ection %&, article D333 of the Constitution provides) #ection %&. The #upre"e Court shall have the power to pro"ul!ate rules concernin! pleadin!, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the ad"ission to the practice of law. #aid rules shall be unifor" for all courts of the sa"e !rade and shall not di"inish, increase or "odify substantive ri!hts. The e7istin! laws on pleadin!, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Court, sub9ect to the power of the #upre"e Court to alter and "odify the sa"e. The Con!ress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supple"ent the rules concernin! pleadin!, practice, and procedure, and the ad"ission to the practice of law in the Philippines. E Constitution of the Philippines, Art. D333, sec. %&. 3t will be noted that the Constitution has not conferred on Con!ress and this Tribunal e1ual responsibilities concernin! the ad"ission to the practice of law. the pri"ary power and responsibility which the Constitution reco!ni5es continue to reside in this Court. Cad Con!ress found that this Court has not pro"ul!ated any rule on the "atter, it would have nothin! over which to e7ercise the power !ranted to it. Con!ress "ay repeal, alter and supple"ent the rules pro"ul!ated by this Court, but the authority and responsibility over the ad"ission, suspension, disbar"ent and reinstate"ent of attorneys at law and their supervision re"ain vested in the #upre"e Court. The power to repeal, alter and supple"ent the rules does not si!nify nor per"it that Con!ress substitute or ta8e the place of this Tribunal in the e7ercise of its pri"ary power on the "atter. The Constitution does not say nor "ean that Con!ress "ay ad"it, suspend, disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law, or a deter"inate !roup of individuals to the practice of law.

3ts power is li"ited to repeal, "odify or supple"ent the e7istin! rules on the "atter, if accordin! to its 9ud!"ent the need for a better service of the le!al profession re1uires it. But this power does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to ad"it, suspend, disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the le!al profession. Bein! coordinate and independent branches, the power to pro"ul!ate and enforce rules for the ad"ission to the practice of law and the concurrent power to repeal, alter and supple"ent the" "ay and should be e7ercised with the respect that each owes to the other, !ivin! careful consideration to the responsibility which the nature of each depart"ent re1uires. These powers have e7isted to!ether for centuries without di"inution on each part0 the har"onious deli"itation bein! found in that the le!islature "ay and should e7a"ine if the e7istin! rules on the ad"ission to the Bar respond to the de"ands which public interest re1uires of a Bar endowed with hi!h virtues, culture, trainin! and responsibility. The le!islature "ay, by "eans of appeal, a"end"ent or supple"ental rules, fill up any deficiency that it "ay find, and the 9udicial power, which has the inherent responsibility for a !ood and efficient ad"inistration of 9ustice and the supervision of the practice of the le!al profession, should consider these refor"s as the "ini"u" standards for the elevation of the profession, and see to it that with these refor"s the lofty ob9ective that is desired in the e7ercise of its traditional duty of ad"ittin!, suspendin!, disbarrin! and reinstatin! attorneys at law is reali5ed. They are powers which, e7ercise within their proper constitutional li"its, are not repu!nant, but rather co"ple"entary to each other in attainin! the establish"ent of a Bar that would respond to the increasin! and e7actin! necessities of the ad"inistration of 9ustice. The case of IuariHa :%'%&; ,( Phil., &6, illustrates our criterion. IuariHa too8 e7a"ination and failed by a few points to obtain the !eneral avera!e. A recently enacted law provided that one who had been appointed to the position of Aiscal "ay be ad"itted to the practice of law without a previous e7a"ination. The Iovern"ent appointed IuariHa and he dischar!ed the duties of Aiscal in a re"ote province. This tribunal refused to !ive his license without previous e7a"inations. The court said) Relyin! upon the provisions of section , of Act No. %.'6, the applicant in this case see8s ad"ission to the bar, without ta8in! the prescribed e7a"ination, on the !round that he holds the office of provincial fiscal for the Province of Batanes. #ection , of Act No. %.'6, enacted Aebruary ,=, %'-6, is as follows) #ec. ,. Para!raph one of section thirteen of Act Nu"bered <ne Cundred and ninety, entitled 2An Act providin! a Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and #pecial Proceedin!s in the Philippine 3slands,2 is hereby a"ended to read as follows) %. Those who have been duly licensed under the laws and orders of the 3slands under the soverei!nty of #pain or of the 4nited #tates and are in !ood and re!ular standin! as "e"bers of the bar of the Philippine 3slands at the ti"e of the adoption of this code0 2rovided, That any person who, prior to the passa!e of this act, or at any ti"e thereafter, shall have held, under the authority of the 4nited #tates, the position of 9ustice of the #upre"e Court, 9ud!e of the Court of Airst 3nstance, or 9ud!e or associate 9ud!e of the Court of +and Re!istration, of the Philippine 3slands, or the position of Attorney Ieneral, #olicitor Ieneral, Assistant Attorney Ieneral, assistant attorney in the office of the Attorney Ieneral, prosecutin! 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, "ay be licensed to practice law in the courts of the Philippine 3slands without an e7a"ination, upon "otion before the #upre"e Court and establishin! such fact to the satisfaction of said court.

The records of this court disclose that on a for"er occasion this appellant too8, and failed to pass the prescribed e7a"ination. The report of the e7a"inin! board, dated March ,&, %'-6, shows that he received an avera!e of only 6% per cent in the various branches of le!al learnin! upon which he was e7a"ined, thus fallin! four points short of the re1uired percenta!e of 6.. Be would be delin1uent in the perfor"ance of our duty to the public and to the bar, if, in the face of this affir"ative indication of the deficiency of the applicant in the re1uired 1ualifications of learnin! in the law at the ti"e when he presented his for"er application for ad"ission to the bar, we should !rant hi" license to practice law in the courts of these 3slands, without first satisfyin! ourselves that despite his failure to pass the e7a"ination on that occasion, he now 2possesses the necessary 1ualifications of learnin! and ability.2 But it is contented that under the provisions of the above cited statute the applicant is entitled as of ri!ht to be ad"itted to the bar without ta8in! the prescribed e7a"ination 2upon "otion before the #upre"e Court2 acco"panied by satisfactory proof that he has held and now holds the office of provincial fiscal of the Province of Batanes. 3t is ur!ed that havin! in "ind the ob9ect which the le!islator apparently sou!ht to attain in enactin! the above cited a"end"ent to the earlier statute, and in view of the conte7t !enerally and especially of the fact that the a"end"ent was inserted as a proviso in that section of the ori!inal Act which specifically provides for the ad"ission of certain candidates without e7a"ination. 3t is contented that this "andatory construction is i"peratively re1uired in order to !ive effect to the apparent intention of the le!islator, and to the candidate@s clai" de 0ure to have the power e7ercised. And after copyin! article ' of Act of $uly %, %'-, of the Con!ress of the 4nited #tates, articles ,, %/ and %6 of Act No. %&/, and articles %& to %/ of Act %'-, the Court continued) Manifestly, the 9urisdiction thus conferred upon this court by the co""ission and confir"ed to it by the Act of Con!ress would be li"ited and restricted, and in a case such as that under consideration wholly destroyed, by !ivin! the word 2"ay,2 as used in the above citation fro" Act of Con!ress of $uly %, %'-,, or of any Act of Con!ress prescribin!, definin! or li"itin! the power conferred upon the co""ission is to that e7tent invalid and void, as transcendin! its ri!htful li"its and authority. #pea8in! on the application of the law to those who were appointed to the positions enu"erated, and with particular e"phasis in the case of IuariHa, the Court held) 3n the various cases wherein applications for the ad"ission to the bar under the provisions of this statute have been considered heretofore, we have accepted the fact that such appoint"ents had been "ade as satisfactory evidence of the 1ualifications of the applicant. But in all of those cases we had reason to believe that the applicants had been practicin! attorneys prior to the date of their appoint"ent. 3n the case under consideration, however, it affir"atively appears that the applicant was not and never had been practicin! attorney in this or any other 9urisdiction prior to the date of his appoint"ent as provincial fiscal, and it further affir"atively appears that he was deficient in the re1uired 1ualifications at the ti"e when he last applied for ad"ission to the bar. 3n the li!ht of this affir"ative proof of his defieciency on that occasion, we do not thin8 that his appoint"ent to the office of provincial fiscal is in itself satisfactory proof if his possession of the necessary 1ualifications of learnin! and ability. Be conclude therefore that this application for license to practice in the courts of the Philippines, should be denied.

3n view, however, of the fact that when he too8 the e7a"ination he fell only four points short of the necessary !rade to entitle hi" to a license to practice0 and in view also of the fact that since that ti"e he has held the responsible office of the !overnor of the Province of #orso!on and presu"ably !ave evidence of such "ar8ed ability in the perfor"ance of the duties of that office that the Chief E7ecutive, with the consent and approval of the Philippine Co""ission, sou!ht to retain hi" in the Iovern"ent service by appointin! hi" to the office of provincial fiscal, we thin8 we would be 9ustified under the above cited provisions of Act No. %.'6 in waivin! in his case the ordinary e7a"ination prescribed by !eneral rule, provided he offers satisfactory evidence of his proficiency in a special e7a"ination which will be !iven hi" by a co""ittee of the court upon his application therefor, without pre9udice to his ri!ht, if he desires so to do, to present hi"self at any of the ordinary e7a"inations prescribed by !eneral rule. E : In re IuariHa, pp. (= ('.; 3t is obvious, therefore, that the ulti"ate power to !rant license for the practice of law belon!s e7clusively to this Court, and the law passed by Con!ress on the "atter is of per"issive character, or as other authorities say, "erely to fi7 the "ini"u" conditions for the license. The law in 1uestion, li8e those in the case of >ay and Cannon, has been found also to suffer fro" the fatal defect of bein! a class le!islation, and that if it has intended to "a8e a classification, it is arbitrary and unreasonable. 3n the case of >ay, a law enacted on Aebruary ,%, %='' re1uired of the #upre"e Court, until >ece"ber &% of that year, to !rant license for the practice of law to those students who be!an studyin! before Nove"ber (, %='6, and had studied for two years and presented a diplo"a issued by a school of law, or to those who had studied in a law office and would pass an e7a"ination, or to those who had studied for three years if they co""enced their studies after the afore"entioned date. The #upre"e Court declared that this law was unconstitutional bein!, a"on! others, a class le!islation. The Court said) This is an application to this court for ad"ission to the bar of this state by virtue of diplo"as fro" law schools issued to the applicants. The act of the !eneral asse"bly passed in %='', under which the application is "ade, is entitled 2An act to a"end section % of an act entitled 2An act to revise the law in relation to attorneys and counselors,2 approved March ,=, %==(, in force $uly %, %=6(.2 The a"end"ent, so far as it appears in the enactin! clause, consists in the addition to the section of the followin!) 2And every application for a license who shall co"ply with the rules of the supre"e court in re!ard to ad"ission to the bar in force at the ti"e such applicant co""end the study of law, either in a law or office or a law school or colle!e, shall be !ranted a license under this act notwithstandin! any subse1uent chan!es in said rules2. E In re >ay et al, .( N.J., p. /(/. . . . After said provision there is a double proviso, one branch of which is that up to >ece"ber &%, %='', this court shall !rant a license of ad"ittance to the bar to the holder of every diplo"a re!ularly issued by any law school re!ularly or!ani5ed under the laws of this state, whose re!ular course of law studies is two years, and re1uirin! an attendance by the student of at least &/ wee8s in each of such years, and showin! that the student be!an the study of law prior to Nove"ber (, %='6, and acco"panied with the usual proofs of !ood "oral 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 ti"e in a law office, 2and part in the aforesaid law school,2 and whose course of study be!an prior to Nove"ber (, %='6, shall be ad"itted upon a satisfactory e7a"ination by the e7a"inin! board in the branches now re1uired by the rules of this court. 3f the ri!ht to ad"ission e7ists at all, it is by virtue of the proviso, which, it is clai"ed, confers substantial ri!hts and privile!es upon the persons na"ed therein, and establishes rules of le!islative creation for their ad"ission to the bar. :p. /(6.;

Considerin! the proviso, however, as an enact"ent, it is clearly a special le!islation, prohibited by the constitution, and invalid as such. 3f the le!islature had any ri!ht to ad"it attorneys to practice in the courts and ta8e part in the ad"inistration of 9ustice, and could prescribe the character of evidence which should be received by the court as conclusive of the re1uisite learnin! and ability of persons to practice law, it could only be done by a !eneral law, persons or classes of persons. Const. art (, section ,. The ri!ht to practice law is a privile!e, and a license for that purpose "a8es the holder an officer of the court, and confers upon hi" the ri!ht to appear for liti!ants, to ar!ue causes, and to collect fees therefor, and creates certain e7e"ptions, such as fro" 9ury services and arrest on civil process while attendin! court. The law conferrin! such privile!es "ust be !eneral in its operation. No doubt the le!islature, in fra"in! an enact"ent for that purpose, "ay classify persons so lon! as the law establishin! classes in !eneral, and has so"e reasonable relation to the end sou!ht. There "ust be so"e difference which furnishes a reasonable basis for different one, havin! no 9ust relation to the sub9ect of the le!islation. Braceville Coal Co. vs. People, %(6 3ll. //, &. N.E. /,0 "itchie vs. 2eople, %.. 3ll. '=, (- N.E. (.(0 "ailroad Co. vs. :llis, %/. 4.#. %.-, %6 #up. Ct. ,... The len!th of ti"e a physician has practiced, and the s8ill ac1uired by e7perience, "ay furnish a basis for classification :Billia"s vs. People %,% 3ll. (=, 33 N.E. ==%;0 but the place where such physician has resided and practiced his profession cannot furnish such basis, and is an arbitrary discri"ination, "a8in! an enact"ent based upon it void :#tate vs. Pennyeor, /. N.E. %%&, %= Atl. =6=;. Cere the le!islature underta8es to say what shall serve as a test of fitness for the profession of the law, and plainly, any classification "ust have so"e reference to learnin!, character, or ability to en!a!e in such practice. The proviso is li"ited, first, to a class of persons who be!an the study of law prior to Nove"ber (, %='6. This class is subdivided into two classes E Airst, those presentin! diplo"as issued by any law school of this state before >ece"ber &%, %=''0 and, second, those who studied law for the period of two years in a law office, or part of the ti"e in a law school and part in a law office, who are to be ad"itted upon e7a"ination in the sub9ects specified in the present rules of this court, and as to this latter subdivision there see"s to be no li"it of ti"e for "a8in! application for ad"ission. As to both classes, the conditions of the rules are dispensed with, and as between the two different conditions and li"its of ti"e are fi7ed. No course of study is prescribed for the law school, but a diplo"a !ranted upon the co"pletion of any sort of course its "ana!ers "ay prescribe is "ade all sufficient. Can there be anythin! with relation to the 1ualifications or fitness of persons to practice law restin! upon the "ere date of Nove"ber (, %='6, which will furnish a basis of classification. Plainly not. Those who be!an the study of law Nove"ber (th could 1ualify the"selves to practice in two years as well as those who be!an on the &rd. The classes na"ed in the proviso need spend only two years in study, while those who co""enced the ne7t day "ust spend three years, althou!h they would co"plete two years before the ti"e li"it. The one who co""enced on the &rd. 3f possessed of a diplo"a, is to be ad"itted without e7a"ination before >ece"ber &%, %='', and without any prescribed course of study, while as to the other the prescribed course "ust be pursued, and the diplo"a is utterly useless. #uch classification cannot rest upon any natural reason, or bear any 9ust relation to the sub9ect sou!ht, and none is su!!ested. The proviso is for the sole purpose of bestowin! privile!es upon certain defined persons. :pp. /(6 /(=.; 3n the case of Cannon above cited, #tate vs. Cannon, ,(- N.B. ((%, where the le!islature atte"pted by law to reinstate Cannon to the practice of law, the court also held with re!ards to its aspect of bein! a class le!islation) But the statute is invalid for another reason. 3f it be !ranted that the le!islature has power to prescribe ulti"ately and definitely the 1ualifications upon which courts "ust ad"it and license those applyin! as attorneys at law, that power can not be e7ercised in the "anner

here atte"pted. That power "ust be e7ercised throu!h !eneral laws which will apply to all ali8e and accord e1ual opportunity to all. #pea8in! of the ri!ht of the +e!islature to e7act 1ualifications of those desirin! to pursue chosen callin!s, Mr. $ustice Aield in the case of Dent. vs. West =irginia6 %,' 4.#. %%(, %,%, ' #. Ct. ,&,, ,&&, &, +. Ed. /,/, said) 23t is undoubtedly the ri!ht of every citi5en of the 4nited #tates to follow any lawful callin!, business or profession he "ay choose, sub9ect only to such restrictions as are i"posed upon all persons of li8e a!e, se7, and condition.2 This ri!ht "ay in "any respects be considered as a distin!uishin! feature of our republican institutions. Cere all vocations are all open to every one on li8e conditions. All "ay be pursued as sources of livelihood, so"e re1uirin! years of study and !reat learnin! for their successful prosecution. The interest, or, as it is so"eti"es ter"ed, the 2estate2 ac1uired in the" E that is, the ri!ht to continue their prosecution E is often of !reat value to the possessors and cannot be arbitrarily ta8en fro" the", any "ore than their real or personal property can be thus ta8en. 3t is funda"ental under our syste" of !overn"ent that all si"ilarly situated and possessin! e1ual 1ualifications shall en9oy e1ual opportunities. Even statutes re!ulatin! the practice of "edicine, re1uirin! "edications to establish the possession on the part of the application of his proper 1ualifications before he "ay be licensed to practice, have been challen!ed, and courts have seriously considered whether the e7e"ption fro" such e7a"inations of those practicin! in the state at the ti"e of the enact"ent of the law rendered such law unconstitutional because of infrin!e"ent upon this !eneral principle. #tate vs. Tho"as Call, %,% N.C. /(&, ,= #.E. .%60 see, also, The #tate e7 rel. Bin8ler vs. Rosenber!, %-% Bis. %6,, 6/ N.B. &(.0 #tate vs. Bhitco", %,, Bis. %%-, '' N.B. (/=. This law sin!les out Mr. Cannon and assu"es to confer upon hi" the ri!ht to practice law and to constitute hi" an officer of this Court as a "ere "atter of le!islative !race or favor. 3t is not "aterial that he had once established his ri!ht to practice law and that one ti"e he possessed the re1uisite learnin! and other 1ualifications to entitle hi" to that ri!ht. That fact in no "atter affect the power of the +e!islature to select fro" the !reat body of the public an individual upon who" it would confer its favors. A statute of the state of Minnesota :+aws %',', c. (,(; co""anded the #upre"e Court to ad"it to the practice of law without e7a"ination, all who had served in the "ilitary or naval forces of the 4nited #tates durin! the Borld Bar and received a honorable dischar!e therefro" and who :were disabled therein or thereby within the purview of the Act of Con!ress approved $une 6th, %',(, 8nown as 2Borld Bar Deteran@s Act, %',( and whose disability is rated at least ten per cent thereunder at the ti"e of the passa!e of this Act.2 This Act was held Punconstitutional on the !round that it clearly violated the 1uality clauses of the constitution of that state. In re Application of Ieor!e B. Cu"phrey, %6= Minn. &&%, ,,6 N.B. %6'. A !ood su""ary of a classification constitutionally acceptable is e7plained in %, A". $ur. %.% %.& as follows) The !eneral rule is well settled by unani"ity of the authorities that a classification to be valid "ust rest upon "aterial differences between the person included in it and those e7cluded and, further"ore, "ust be based upon substantial distinctions. As the rule has so"eti"es avoided the constitutional prohibition, "ust be founded upon pertinent and real differences, as distin!uished fro" irrelevant and artificial ones. Therefore, any law that is "ade applicable to one class of citi5ens only "ust be based on so"e substantial difference between the situation of that class and other individuals to which it does not apply and "ust rest on so"e reason on which it can be defended. 3n other words, there "ust be such a difference between the situation and circu"stances of all the "e"bers of the class and the situation and circu"stances of all other "e"bers of the state in relation to the sub9ects of the discri"inatory le!islation as presents a 9ust and natural cause for the

difference "ade in their liabilities and burdens and in their ri!hts and privile!es. A law is not !eneral because it operates on all within a clause unless there is a substantial reason why it is "ade to operate on that class only, and not !enerally on all. :%, A". $ur. pp. %.% %.&.; Pursuant to the law in 1uestion, those who, without a !rade below .- per cent in any sub9ect, have obtained a !eneral avera!e of /'.. per cent in the bar e7a"inations in %'(/ to %'.%, 6-.. per cent in %'.,, 6%.. per cent in %'.&, and those will obtain 6,.. per cent in %'.(, and 6&.. per cent in %'.., will be per"itted to ta8e and subscribe the correspondin! oath of office as "e"bers of the Bar, notwithstandin! that the rules re1uire a "ini"u" !eneral avera!e of 6. per cent, which has been invariably followed since %'.-. 3s there any "otive of the nature indicated by the above"entioned authorities, for this classification N 3f there is none, and none has been !iven, then the classification is fatally defective. 3t was indicated that those who failed in %'((, %'(% or the years before, with the !eneral avera!e indicated, were not included because the Tribunal has no record of the unsuccessful candidates of those years. This fact does not 9ustify the une7plained classification of unsuccessful candidates by years, fro" %'(/ %'.%, %'.,, %'.&, %'.(, %'... Neither is the e7clusion of those who failed before said years under the sa"e conditions 9ustified. The fact that this Court has no record of e7a"inations prior to %'(/ does not si!nify that no one concerned "ay prove by so"e other "eans his ri!ht to an e1ual consideration. To defend the disputed law fro" bein! declared unconstitutional on account of its retroactivity, it is ar!ued that it is curative, and that in such for" it is constitutional. Bhat does Rep. Act '6, intend to cure N <nly fro" %'(/ to %'(' were there cases in which the Tribunal per"itted ad"ission to the bar of candidates who did not obtain the !eneral avera!e of 6. per cent) in %'(/ those who obtained only 6, per cent0 in the %'(6 and those who had /' per cent or "ore0 in %'(=, 6- per cent and in %'(', 6( per cent0 and in %'.- to %'.&, those who obtained 6( per cent, which was considered by the Court as e1uivalent to 6. per cent as prescribed by the Rules, by reason of circu"stances dee"ed to be sufficiently 9ustifiable. These chan!es in the passin! avera!es durin! those years were all that could be ob9ected to or critici5ed. Now, it is desired to undo what had been done E cancel the license that was issued to those who did not obtain the prescribed 6. per cent N Certainly not. The disputed law clearly does not propose to do so. Concededly, it approves what has been done by this Tribunal. Bhat Con!ress la"ented is that the Court did not consider /'.. per cent obtained by those candidates who failed in %'(/ to %'., as sufficient to 1ualify the" to practice law. Cence, it is the lac8 of will or defect of 9ud!"ent of the Court that is bein! cured, and to co"plete the cure of this infir"ity, the effectivity of the disputed law is bein! e7tended up to the years %'.&, %'.( and %'.., increasin! each year the !eneral avera!e by one per cent, with the order that said candidates be ad"itted to the Bar. This purpose, "anifest in the said law, is the best proof that what the law atte"pts to a"end and correct are not the rules pro"ul!ated, but the will or 9ud!"ent of the Court, by "eans of si"ply ta8in! its place. This is doin! directly what the Tribunal should have done durin! those years accordin! to the 9ud!"ent of Con!ress. 3n other words, the power e7ercised was not to repeal, alter or supple"ent the rules, which continue in force. Bhat was done was to stop or suspend the". And this power is not included in what the Constitution has !ranted to Con!ress, because it falls within the power to apply the rules. This power corresponds to the 9udiciary, to which such duty been confided. Article , of the law in 1uestion per"its partial passin! of e7a"inations, at indefinite intervals. The !rave defect of this syste" is that it does not ta8e into account that the laws and 9urisprudence are not stationary, and when a candidate finally receives his certificate, it "ay happen that the e7istin! laws and 9urisprudence are already different, seriously affectin! in this "anner his usefulness. The syste" that the said law prescribes was used in the first bar e7a"inations of this country, but was abandoned for this and other disadvanta!es. 3n this case,

however, the fatal defect is that the article is not e7pressed in the title will have te"porary effect only fro" %'(/ to %'.., the te7t of article , establishes a per"anent syste" for an indefinite ti"e. This is contrary to #ection ,% :%;, article D3 of the Constitution, which vitiates and annuls article , co"pletely0 and because it is inseparable fro" article %, it is obvious that its nullity affect the entire law. +aws are unconstitutional on the followin! !rounds) first, because they are not within the le!islative powers of Con!ress to enact, or Con!ress has e7ceeded its powers0 second, because they create or establish arbitrary "ethods or for"s that infrin!e constitutional principles0 and third, because their purposes or effects violate the Constitution or its basic principles. As has already been seen, the contested law suffers fro" these fatal defects. #u""ari5in!, we are of the opinion and hereby declare that Republic Act No. '6, is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without any force nor effect for the followin! reasons, to wit) %. Because its declared purpose is to ad"it =%- candidates who failed in the bar e7a"inations of %'(/ %'.,, and who, it ad"its, are certainly inade1uately prepared to practice law, as was e7actly found by this Court in the aforesaid years. 3t decrees the ad"ission to the Bar of these candidates, deprivin! this Tribunal of the opportunity to deter"ine if they are at present already prepared to beco"e "e"bers of the Bar. 3t obli!es the Tribunal to perfor" so"ethin! contrary to reason and in an arbitrary "anner. This is a "anifest encroach"ent on the constitutional responsibility of the #upre"e Court. ,. Because it is, in effect, a 9ud!"ent revo8in! the resolution of this Court on the petitions of these =%- candidates, without havin! e7a"ined their respective e7a"ination papers, and althou!h it is ad"itted that this Tribunal "ay reconsider said resolution at any ti"e for 9ustifiable reasons, only this Court and no other "ay revise and alter the". 3n atte"ptin! to do it directly Republic Act No. '6, violated the Constitution. &. By the disputed law, Con!ress has e7ceeded its le!islative power to repeal, alter and supple"ent the rules on ad"ission to the Bar. #uch additional or a"endatory rules are, as they ou!ht to be, intended to re!ulate acts subse1uent to its pro"ul!ation and should tend to i"prove and elevate the practice of law, and this Tribunal shall consider these rules as "ini"u" nor"s towards that end in the ad"ission, suspension, disbar"ent and reinstate"ent of lawyers to the Bar, inas"uch as a !ood bar assists i""ensely in the daily perfor"ance of 9udicial functions and is essential to a worthy ad"inistration of 9ustice. 3t is therefore the pri"ary and inherent prero!ative of the #upre"e Court to render the ulti"ate decision on who "ay be ad"itted and "ay continue in the practice of law accordin! to e7istin! rules. (. The reason advanced for the pretended classification of candidates, which the law "a8es, is contrary to facts which are of !eneral 8nowled!e and does not 9ustify the ad"ission to the Bar of law students inade1uately prepared. The pretended classification is arbitrary. 3t is undoubtedly a class le!islation. .. Article , of Republic Act No. '6, is not e"braced in the title of the law, contrary to what the Constitution en9oins, and bein! inseparable fro" the provisions of article %, the entire law is void. /. +ac8in! in ei!ht votes to declare the nullity of that part of article % referrin! to the e7a"inations of %'.& to %'.., said part of article %, insofar as it concerns the e7a"inations in those years, shall continue in force.

RESOLUTION 4pon "ature deliberation by this Court, after hearin! and availin! of the "a!nificent and i"passioned discussion of the contested law by our Chief $ustice at the openin! and close of the debate a"on! the "e"bers of the Court, and after hearin! the 9udicious observations of two of our beloved collea!ues who since the be!innin! have announced their decision not to ta8e part in votin!, we, the ei!ht "e"bers of the Court who subscribed to this decision have voted and resolved, and have decided for the Court, and under the authority of the sa"e) %. That :a; the portion of article % of Republic Act No. '6, referrin! to the e7a"inations of %'(/ to %'.,, and :b; all of article , of said law are unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without force and effect. ,. That, for lac8 of unani"ity in the ei!ht $ustices, that part of article % which refers to the e7a"inations subse1uent to the approval of the law, that is fro" %'.& to %'.. inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in confor"ity with section %-, article D33 of the Constitution. Conse1uently, :%; all the above "entioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the e7a"inations of %'(/ to %'., inclusive are denied, and :,; all candidates who in the e7a"inations of %'.& obtained a !eneral avera!e of 6%.. per cent or "ore, without havin! a !rade below .- per cent in any sub9ect, are considered as havin! passed, whether they have filed petitions for ad"ission or not. After this decision has beco"e final, they shall be per"itted to ta8e and subscribe the correspondin! oath of office as "e"bers of the Bar on the date or dates that the chief $ustice "ay set. #o ordered. )eng<on6 9ontema5or6 Jugo6 %abrador6 2ablo6 2adilla6 and "e5es6 JJ.6 concur.

3N RE C4NANAN F'( Phil .&(0 Resolution0 %= Mar %'.(G

ac'3+ Con!ress passed Republic Act Nu"ber '6,, co""only 8nown as the QBar Alun8ersR Act of %'.&.S 3n accordance with the said law, the #upre"e Court then passed and ad"itted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an avera!e of 6, per cent by raisin! it to 6. percent. After its approval, "any of the unsuccessful post war candidates filed petitions for ad"ission to the bar invo8in! its provisions, while other "otions for the revision of their e7a"ination papers were still pendin! also invo8ed the aforesaid law as an additional !round for ad"ission. There are also others who have sou!ht si"ply the reconsideration of their !rades without, however, invo8in! the law in 1uestion. To avoid in9ustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the "otions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invo8ed Republic Act No. '6,.

I331.+ Bhether or Not RA No. '6, is constitutional and valid.

H.$>+ RA No. '6, has for its ob9ect, accordin! to its author, to ad"it to the Bar, those candidates who suffered fro" insufficiency of readin! "aterials and inade1uate preparation. 3n the 9udicial syste" fro" which ours has been evolved, the ad"ission, suspension, disbar"ent and reinstate"ent of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a 9udicial function and responsibility. Be have said that in the 9udicial syste" fro" which ours has been derived, the ad"ission, suspension, disbar"ent or reinstate"ent of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly 9udicial. <n this "atter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the 9udicial and le!islative depart"ents of the !overn"ent. 3t is obvious, therefore, that the ulti"ate power to !rant license for the practice of law belon!s e7clusively to this Court, and the law passed by Con!ress on the "atter is of per"issive character, or as other authorities "ay say, "erely to fi7 the "ini"u" conditions for the license. Republic Act Nu"ber '6, is held to be unconstitutional. 1.) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

5a&1ar7 9, 197, IN THE MATTER O THE INTE!RATION O THE (AR O THE PHILIPPINES.

RE#<+4T3<N

PER CURIAM+ <n >ece"ber %, %'6,, the Co""ission on Bar 3nte!ration 1 sub"itted its Report dated Nove"ber &-, %'6,, with the 2earnest reco""endation2 E on the basis of the said "eport and the proceedin!s had in Ad"inistrative Case No. .,/ 2 of the Court, and 2consistently with the views and counsel received fro" its Fthe Co""ission@sG Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhel"in! nationwide senti"ent of the Philippine Bench and Bar2 E that >this $onorable

Court ordain the integration of the 2hilippine )ar as soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court "ule.> The petition in Ad". Case No. .,/ for"ally prays the Court to order the inte!ration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearin!, !ivin! reco!nition as far as possible and practicable to e7istin! provincial and other local Bar associations. <n Au!ust %/, %'/,, ar!u"ents in favor of as well as in opposition to the petition were orally e7pounded before the Court. Britten oppositions were ad"itted, , and all parties were thereafter !ranted leave to file written "e"oranda. 4 #ince then, the Court has closely observed and followed si!nificant develop"ents relative to the "atter of the inte!ration of the Bar in this 9urisdiction. 3n %'6-, convinced fro" preli"inary surveys that there had !rown a stron! nationwide senti"ent in favor of Bar inte!ration, the Court created the Co""ission on Bar 3nte!ration for the purpose of ascertainin! the advisability of unifyin! the Philippine Bar. 3n #epte"ber, %'6%, Con!ress passed Couse Bill No. &,66 entitled 2An Act Providin! for the 3nte!ration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriatin! Aunds Therefor.2 The "easure was si!ned by President Aerdinand E. Marcos on #epte"ber %6, %'6% and too8 effect on the sa"e day as Rep. Act /&'6. This law provides as follows) #ECT3<N %. Bithin two years fro" the approval of this Act, the #upre"e Court "ay adopt rules of court to effect the inte!ration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the le!al profession, i"prove the ad"inistration of 9ustice, and enable the Bar to dischar!e its public responsibility "ore effectively. #EC. ,. The su" of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such su"s as "ay be necessary for the sa"e purpose shall be included in the annual appropriations for the #upre"e Court. #EC. &. This Act shall ta8e effect upon its approval. The "eport of the Co""ission abounds with ar!u"ent on the constitutionality of Bar inte!ration and contains all necessary factual data bearin! on the advisability :practicability and necessity; of Bar inte!ration. Also e"bodied therein are the views, opinions, senti"ents, co""ents and observations of the ran8 and file of the Philippine lawyer population relative to Bar inte!ration, as well as a proposed inte!ration Court Rule drafted by the Co""ission and presented to the" by that body in a national Bar plebiscite. There is thus sufficient basis as well as a"ple "aterial upon which the Court "ay decide whether or not to inte!rate the Philippine Bar at this ti"e. The followin! are the pertinent issues) :%; >oes the Court have the power to inte!rate the Philippine BarN :,; Bould the inte!ration of the Bar be constitutionalN :&; #hould the Court ordain the inte!ration of the Bar at this ti"eN A resolution of these issues re1uires, at the outset, a state"ent of the "eanin! of Bar inte!ration. 3t will suffice, for this purpose, to adopt the concept !iven by the Co""ission on Bar 3nte!ration on pa!es & to . of its "eport, thus)

3nte!ration of the Philippine Bar "eans the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This re1uires membership and financial support :in reasonable a"ount; of every attorney as conditions sine (ua non to the practice of law and the retention of his na"e in the Roll of Attorneys of the #upre"e Court. The ter" 2Bar2 refers to the collectivity of all persons whose na"es appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An 3nte!rated Bar :or 4nified Bar; perforce "ust include all lawyers. Co"plete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with power to do so) the #tate. Bar inte!ration, therefore, si!nifies the settin! up by Iovern"ent authority of a national or!ani5ation of the le!al profession based on the reco!nition of the lawyer as an officer of the court. >esi!ned to i"prove the position of the Bar as an instru"entality of 9ustice and the Rule of +aw, inte!ration fosters cohesion a"on! lawyers, and ensures, throu!h their own or!ani5ed action and participation, the pro"otion of the ob9ectives of the le!al profession, pursuant to the principle of "a7i"u" Bar autono"y with "ini"u" supervision and re!ulation by the #upre"e Court. The purposes of an inte!rated Bar, in !eneral, are) :%; Assist in the ad"inistration of 9ustice0 :,; Aoster and "aintain on the part of its "e"bers hi!h ideals of inte!rity, learnin!, professional co"petence, public service and conduct0 :&; #afe!uard the professional interests of its "e"bers0 :(; Cultivate a"on! its "e"bers a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood0 :.; Provide a foru" for the discussion of law, 9urisprudence, law refor", pleadin!, practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish infor"ation relatin! thereto0 :/; Encoura!e and foster le!al education0 :6; Pro"ote a continuin! pro!ra" of le!al research in substantive and ad9ective law, and "a8e reports and reco""endations thereon0 and :=; Enable the Bar to dischar!e its public responsibility effectively. 3nte!ration of the Bar will, a"on! other thin!s, "a8e it possible for the le!al profession to) :%; Render "ore effective assistance in "aintainin! the Rule of +aw0 :,; Protect lawyers and liti!ants a!ainst the abuse of tyrannical 9ud!es and prosecutin! officers0 :&; >ischar!e, fully and properly, its responsibility in the disciplinin! andKor re"oval of inco"petent and unworthy 9ud!es and prosecutin! officers0

:(; #hield the 9udiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself e7cept within its own foru", fro" the assaults that politics and self interest "ay level at it, and assist it to "aintain its inte!rity, i"partiality and independence0 :.; Cave an effective voice in the selection of 9ud!es and prosecutin! officers0 :/; Prevent the unauthori5ed practice of law, and brea8 up any "onopoly of local practice "aintained throu!h influence or position0 :6; Establish welfare funds for fa"ilies of disabled and deceased lawyers0 :=; Provide place"ent services, and establish le!al aid offices and set up lawyer reference services throu!hout the country so that the poor "ay not lac8 co"petent le!al service0 :'; >istribute educational and infor"ational "aterials that are difficult to obtain in "any of our provinces0 :%-; >evise and "aintain a pro!ra" of continuin! le!al education for practisin! attorneys in order to elevate the standards of the profession throu!hout the country0 :%%; Enforce ri!id ethical standards, and pro"ul!ate "ini"u" fees schedules0 :%,; Create law centers and establish law libraries for le!al research0 :%&; Conduct ca"pai!ns to educate the people on their le!al ri!hts and obli!ations, on the i"portance of preventive le!al advice, and on the functions and duties of the Ailipino lawyer0 and :%(; Ienerate and "aintain pervasive and "eanin!ful country wide involve"ent of the lawyer population in the solution of the "ultifarious proble"s that afflict the nation. Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it "ay inte!rate the Philippine Bar in the e7ercise of its power, under Article D333, #ec. %& of the Constitution, 2to pro"ul!ate rules concernin! pleadin!, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the ad"ission to the practice of law.2 3ndeed, the power to inte!rate is an inherent part of the Court@s constitutional authority over the Bar. 3n providin! that 2the #upre"e Court "ay adopt rules of court to effect the inte!ration of the Philippine Bar,2 Republic Act /&'6 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court@s inherent power, but is a "ere le!islative declaration that the inte!ration of the Bar will pro"ote public interest or, "ore specifically, will 2raise the standards of the le!al profession, i"prove the ad"inistration of 9ustice, and enable the Bar to dischar!e its public responsibility "ore effectively.2 Resolution of the second issue E whether the unification of the Bar would be constitutional E hin!es on the effects of Bar inte!ration on the lawyer@s constitutional ri!hts of freedo" of association and freedo" of speech, and on the nature of the dues e7acted fro" hi". The Court approvin!ly 1uotes the followin! pertinent discussion "ade by the Co""ission on Bar 3nte!ration pa!es (( to (' of its Report) Constitutionalit5 of )ar Integration

Judicial 2ronouncements. 3n all cases where the validity of Bar inte!ration "easures has been put in issue, the Courts have upheld their constitutionality. The 9udicial pronounce"ents support this reasonin!) E Courts have inherent power to supervise and re!ulate the practice of law. E The practice of law is not a vested ri!ht but a privile!e0 a privile!e, "oreover, clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation0 and ta8es part in one of the "ost i"portant functions of the #tate, the ad"inistration of 9ustice, as an officer of the court. E Because the practice of law is privile!e clothed with public interest, it is far and 9ust that the e7ercise of that privile!e be re!ulated to assure co"pliance with the lawyer@s public responsibilities. E These public responsibilities can best be dischar!ed throu!h collective action0 but there can be no collective action without an or!ani5ed body0 no or!ani5ed body can operate effectively without incurrin! e7penses0 therefore, it is fair and 9ust that all attorneys be re1uired to contribute to the support of such or!ani5ed body0 and, !iven e7istin! Bar conditions, the "ost efficient "eans of doin! so is by inte!ratin! the Bar throu!h a rule of court that re1uires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the 3nte!rated Bar. %. Freedom of 7ssociation. To co"pel a lawyer to be a "e"ber of an inte!rated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedo" to associate :or the corollary ri!ht not to associate;. 3nte!ration does not "a8e a lawyer a "e"ber of any !roup of which he is not already a "e"ber. Ce beca"e a "e"ber of the Bar when he passed the Bar e7a"inations. All that inte!ration actually does is to provide an official national or!ani5ation for the well defined but unor!ani5ed and incohesive !roup of which every lawyer is already a "e"ber. Bar inte!ration does not co"pel the lawyer to associate with anyone. Ce is free to attend or not attend the "eetin!s of his 3nte!rated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The body co"pulsion to which he is sub9ected is the pay"ent of annual dues. <therwise stated, "e"bership in the 4nified Bar i"poses only the duty to pay dues in reasonable a"ount. The issue therefore, is a 1uestion of co"pelled financial support of !roup activities, not involuntary "e"bership in any other aspect. The !reater part of 4nified Bar activities serves the function of elevatin! the educational and ethical standards of the Bar to the end of i"provin! the 1uality of the le!al service available to the people. The #upre"e Court, in order to further the #tate@s le!iti"ate interest in elevatin! the 1uality of professional services, "ay re1uire that the cost of i"provin! the profession in this fashion be shared by the sub9ects and beneficiaries of the re!ulatory pro!ra" E the lawyers.

Assu"in! that Bar inte!ration does co"pel a lawyer to be a "e"ber of the 3nte!rated Bar, such co"pulsion is 9ustified as an e7ercise of the police power of the #tate. The le!al profession has lon! been re!arded as a proper sub9ect of le!islative re!ulation and control. Moreover, the inherent power of the #upre"e Court to re!ulate the Bar includes the authority to inte!rate the Bar. ,. "egulator5 Fee. Aor the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the "e"bers does not "ean that the Court levies a ta7. A "e"bership fee in the 3nte!rated Bar is an e7action for re!ulation, while the purpose of a ta7 is revenue. 3f the Court has inherent power to re!ulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to re!ulation, it "ay i"pose a "e"bership fee for that purpose. 3t would not be possible to push throu!h an 3nte!rated Bar pro!ra" without "eans to defray the conco"itant e7penses. The doctrine of i"plied powers necessarily includes the power to i"pose such an e7action. The only li"itation upon the #tate@s power to re!ulate the Bar is that the re!ulation does not i"pose an unconstitutional burden. The public interest pro"oted by the inte!ration of the Bar far outwei!hs the inconse1uential inconvenience to a "e"ber that "i!ht result fro" his re1uired pay"ent of annual dues. &. Freedom of Speech. A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on any sub9ect in any "anner he wishes, even thou!h such views be opposed to positions ta8en by the 4nified Bar. Aor the 3nte!rated Bar to use a "e"ber@s due to pro"ote "easures to which said "e"ber is opposed, would not nullify or adversely affect his freedo" of speech. #ince a #tate "ay constitutionally condition the ri!ht to practice law upon "e"bership in the 3nte!rated Bar, it is difficult to understand why it should beco"e unconstitutional for the Bar to use the "e"ber@s dues to fulfill the very purposes for which it was established. The ob9ection would "a8e every Iovern"ental e7action the "aterial of a 2free speech2 issue. Even the inco"e ta7 would be suspect. The ob9ection would carry us to len!ths that have never been drea"ed of. The conscientious ob9ector, if his liberties were to be thus e7tended, "i!ht refuse to contribute ta7es in furtherance of war or of any other end conde"ned by his conscience as irreli!ious or i""oral. The ri!ht of private 9ud!"ent has never yet been e7alted above the powers and the co"pulsion of the a!encies of Iovern"ent. (. Fair to 7ll %a'5ers. Bar inte!ration is not unfair to lawyers already practisin! because althou!h the re1uire"ent to pay annual dues is a new re!ulation, it will !ive the "e"bers of the Bar a new syste" which they hitherto have not had and throu!h which, by proper wor8, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore en9oyed, and dischar!e their public responsibilities in a "ore effective "anner than they have been able to do in the past. Because the re1uire"ent to pay dues is a valid e7ercise of re!ulatory power by the Court, because it will apply e1ually to all lawyers, youn!

and old, at the ti"e Bar inte!ration ta8es effect, and because it is a new re!ulation in e7chan!e for new benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not une1ual, it is not unfair. To resolve the third and final issue E whether the Court should ordain the inte!ration of the Bar at this ti"e E re1uires a careful overview of the practicability and necessity as well as the advanta!es and disadvanta!es of Bar inte!ration. 3n "any other 9urisdictions, notably in En!land, Canada and the 4nited #tates, Bar inte!ration has yielded the followin! benefits) :%; i"proved discipline a"on! the "e"bers of the Bar0 :,; !reater influence and ascendancy of the Bar0 :&; better and "ore "eanin!ful participation of the individual lawyer in the activities of the 3nte!rated Bar0 :(; !reater Bar facilities and services0 :.; eli"ination of unauthori5ed practice0 :/; avoidance of costly "e"bership ca"pai!ns0 :6; establish"ent of an official status for the Bar0 :=; "ore cohesive profession0 and :'; better and "ore effective dischar!e by the Bar of its obli!ations and responsibilities to its "e"bers, to the courts, and to the public. No less than these salutary conse1uences are envisioned and in fact e7pected fro" the unification of the Philippine Bar. 4pon the other hand, it has been variously ar!ued that in the event of inte!ration, Iovern"ent authority will do"inate the Bar0 local Bar associations will be wea8ened0 cli1uis" will be the inevitable result0 effective lobbyin! will not be possible0 the Bar will beco"e an i"personal Bar0 and politics will intrude into its affairs. 3t is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils prophesied by opponents of Bar inte!ration have failed to "ateriali5e in over fifty years of Bar inte!ration e7perience in En!land, Canada and the 4nited #tates. 3n all the 9urisdictions where the 3nte!rated Bar has been tried, none of the abuses or evils feared has arisen0 on the other hand, it has restored public confidence in the Bar, enlar!ed professional consciousness, ener!i5ed the Bar@s responsibilities to the public, and vastly i"proved the ad"inistration of 9ustice. Cow do the Ailipino lawyers the"selves re!ard Bar inte!rationN The official statistics co"piled by the Co""ission on Bar inte!ration show that in the national poll recently conducted by the Co""ission in the "atter of the inte!ration of the Philippine Bar, of a total of %.,-'- lawyers fro" all over the archipela!o who have turned in their individual responses, %(,... :or '/.(. per cent; voted in favor of Bar inte!ration, while only &6= :or ,..% per cent; voted a!ainst it, and %.6 :or %.-( per cent; are non co""ital. 3n addition, a total of ei!hty :=-; local Bar association and lawyers@ !roups all over the Philippines have sub"itted resolutions and other e7pressions of un1ualified endorse"ent andKor support for Bar inte!ration, while not a sin!le local Bar association or lawyers@ !roup has e7pressed opposed position thereto. Ainally, of the %&,=-, individual lawyers who cast their plebiscite ballots on the proposed inte!ration Court Rule drafted by the Co""ission, %,,=.. :or '&.%( per cent; voted in favor thereof, //, :or (.=- per cent; vote a!ainst it, and ,=. :or ,.-/ per cent; are non co""ittal. = All these clearly indicate an overwhel"in! nationwide de"and for Bar inte!ration at this ti"e. The Court is fully convinced, after a thorou!h!oin! conscientious study of all the ar!u"ents adduced in Ad". Case No. .,/ and the authoritative "aterials and the "ass of factual data contained in the e7haustive "eport of the Co""ission on Bar 3nte!ration, that the inte!ration of the Philippine Bar is 2perfectly constitutional and le!ally unob9ectionable,2 within the conte7t of conte"porary conditions in the Philippines, has beco"e an i"perative "eans to raise the standards of the le!al profession, i"prove the ad"inistration of 9ustice, and enable the Bar to dischar!e its public responsibility fully and effectively. ACC<R>3NI+J, the Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by #ection %& of Article D333 of the Constitution, hereby ordains the inte!ration of the Bar of the Philippines in accordance with the attached C<4RT R4+E, effective on $anuary %/, %'6&.

Concepcion6 C.J.6 9a alintal6 ?aldivar6 Castillo6 Fernando6 Teehan ee6 )arredo6 9a asiar6 7ntonio and :sguerra6 JJ.6 concur.

IN RE INTE!RATION O FPer Curia"G

THE (AR O

THE PHILIPPINES. @49 3cra 22, 5ANUAR) 9, 197,A

FACTS: FTGhe Co""ission on Bar 3nte!ration sub"itted its Report with the Qearnest reco""endationS E on the basis of the said "eport and the proceedin!s had in Ad"inistrative Case No. .,/ of the Court, and Qconsistently with the views and counsel received fro" its Fthe Co""ission@sG Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhel"in! nationwide senti"ent of the Philippine Bench and BarS E that @AtheB $onorable ASupremeB Court ordain the integration of the 2hilippine )ar as soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court "ule.C The petition in Ad". Case No. .,/ for"ally prays the Court to order the inte!ration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearin!, !ivin! reco!nition as far as possible and practicable to e7istin! provincial and other local Bar associations. ISSUES: :%; >oes the Court have the power to inte!rate the Philippine BarN :,; Bould the inte!ration of the Bar be constitutionalN :&; #hould the Court ordain the inte!ration of the Bar at this ti"eN HELD: JE#. <n all issues. RATIO: FTGhe Court is of the view that it "ay inte!rate the Philippine Bar in the e7ercise of its power, under Article D333, #ec. %& of the Constitution, Qto pro"ul!ate rules concernin! 7 7 7 the ad"ission to the practice of law.S The Court is fully convinced, after a thorou!h!oin! conscientious study of all the ar!u"ents adduced in Ad". Case No. .,/ and the authoritative "aterials and the "ass of factual data contained in the e7haustive "eport of the Co""ission on Bar 3nte!ration, that the inte!ration of the Philippine Bar is Qperfectly constitutional and le!ally unob9ectionable,S within the conte7t of conte"porary conditions in the Philippines, has beco"e an i"perative "eans to raise the standards of the le!al profession, i"prove the ad"inistration of 9ustice, and enable the Bar to dischar!e its public responsibility fully and effectively. FTGhe Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by #ection %& of Article D333 of the Constitution, ordained the inte!ration of the Bar of the Philippines effective $anuary %/, %'6&. A.M. No. 1142 A1213' 29, 197= IN RE+ ;ICTORIO D. LANUE;O, :or".r (ar Co&:%>a&' a&> D.#1'7 C$.r9 o: Co1r', respondent.

A.C. No. 114, A1213' 29, 197= IN RE+ RAMON E. !ALAN!, a$%a3 ROMAN E. !ALAN!, 1971 (ar EBa"%&.., respondent. A.M. No. 1144 A1213' 29, 197= IN RE+ HON. (ERNARDO PARDO, HON. RAMON PAMATIAN, ATT). MANUEL TOMACRU*, ATT). IDEL MANALO a&> ATT). !UILLERMO PA(LO, 5R., M."/.r3, 1971 (ar EBa"%&%&2 Co""%''.., respondent.

MA6ASIAR, J.: Ad"inistrative proceedin!s a!ainst Dictorio >. +anuevo E for disbar"ent0 Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan! E for disbar"ent0 Con. Bernardo Pardo, Con. Ra"on Pa"atian, Atty. Manuel C. To"acru50 Atty. Manuel I. Montecillo, Atty. Aidel Manalo and Atty. Iuiller"o Pablo, $r. E for disciplinary action E for their acts and o"issions durin! the %'6% Bar E7a"inations. 3n his re1uest dated March ,', %'6, contained in a confidential letter to the Court for re correction and re evaluation of his answer to the %'6% Bar E7a"inations 1uestion, <scar +andicho E who flun8ed in the %'6%, %'/= and %'/6 Bar E7a"inations with a !rade of 6-..T, /..&.T and /6...T, respectively E invited the attention of the Court to >The starling fact that the grade in one e/amination ACivil %a'B of at least one bar candidate 'as raised for one reason or another6 before the bar results 'ere released this 5ear> :Confidential +etter, p. ,. Dol. 3, rec.;. This was confir"ed, accordin! to hi", by the Civil +aw E7a"iner hi"self :Con. Ra"on C. Pa"atian; as well as by Bar Confidant Dictorio >. +anuevo. Ce further therein stated 2that there are stron! reasons to believe that the !rades in other e7a"ination noteboo8s in other sub9ects also underwent alternations E to raise the !rades E prior to the release of the results. Note that this was without any for"al "otion or re1uest fro" the proper parties, i.e., the bar candidates concerned. 3f the e7a"iners concerned reconsidered their !rades 'ithout formal motion, there is no reason why they "ay not do so now when proper re1uest answer "otion therefor is "ade. 3t would be contrary to due process postulates. Mi!ht not one say that so"e candidates !ot unfair and un9ust treat"ent, for their !rades were not as8ed to be reconsidered @unofficially@N Bhy the discri"inationN >oes this not afford sufficient reason for the Court en banc to !o into these "atters by its conceded power to ulti"ately decide the "atter of ad"ission to the barN2 :p. ,, Confidential +etter, Dol. 3, rec.;. Actin! on the aforesaid confidential letter, the Court chec8ed the records of the %'6% Bar E7a"inations and found that the !rades in five sub9ects E Political +aw and Public 3nternational +aw, Civil +aw, Mercantile +aw, Cri"inal +aw and Re"edial +aw E of a successful bar candidate with office code No. '.( underwent so"e chan!es which, however, were duly initialed and authenticated by the respective e7a"iner concerned. Aurther chec8 of the records revealed that the bar candidate with office code No. '.( is one Ra"on E. Ialan!, a perennial bar candidate, who flun8ed in the *D4D6 *D446 *D4E6 *D4F, and *D43 bar e7a"inations with a !rade of 4G.HHI6 4J.4HI6 G3.GHI6 4J.3I6 H4.EHI and HG.FI6 respectively. Ce passed in the %'6% bar e7a"inations with a !rade of 6(.%.T, which was considered as 6.T by virtue of a Court of 6(.%.T, which was considered as 6.T as the passin! "ar8 for the %'6% bar e7a"inations. 4pon the direction of the Court, the %'6% Bar E7a"ination Chair"an re1uested Bar Confidant Dictorio >. +anuevo and the five :.; bar e7a"iners concerned to sub"it their sworn state"ents on the "atter, with which re1uest they co"plied.

3n his sworn state"ent dated April %,, %'6,, said Bar Confidant admitted havin! brou!ht the five e7a"ination noteboo8s of Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ra"on E. Ialan!, bac8 to the respective e7a"iners for re evaluation andKor re chec8in!, statin! the circu"stances under which the sa"e was done and his reasons for doin! the sa"e. Each of the five :.; e7a"iners in his individual sworn state"ent admitted havin! re evaluated andKor re chec8ed the noteboo8 involved pertainin! to his sub9ect upon the representation to hi" by Bar Confidant +anuevo that he has the authority to do the sa"e and that the e7a"inee concerned failed only in his particular sub9ect andKor was on the borderline of passin!. Aindin! a prima facie case a!ainst the respondents warrantin! a for"al investi!ation, the Court re1uired, in a resolution dated March ., %'6&, Bar Confidant Dictorio +anuevo 2to show cause within ten :%-; days fro" notice'h5 his name should not be stric en from the "oll of 7ttorne5s> :Ad". Case No. %%/,, p. &(, rec.;. Considerin! that the re evaluation of the e7a"ination papers of Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, was unauthori<ed, and therefore he did not obtain a passin! avera!e in the %'6% bar e7a"inations, the Court li8ewise resolved on March ., %'6% to re1uires hi" 2to show cause within ten :%-; days fro" notice 'h5 his name should not be stric en from the "oll of 7ttorne5s> :Ad". Case No. %%/&, p. '', rec.;. The five e7a"iners concerned were also re1uired by the Court 2to show cause within ten :%-; days fro" notice why no disciplinar5 action should be ta en against them 2 :Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. &%, rec.;. Respondent To"acru5 filed his answer on March %,, %'6& :Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. 6-, rec.;. while respondents Pardo, Pa"atian, Montecillo, Manalo and +anuevo filed theirs on March %', %'6& :Ad". Case No. %%/,, pp. /- /&, &, &., (- (%, &/ &' and &. &=, rec.;. At the hearin! on Au!ust ,6, %'6&, respondent +anuevo filed another sworn state"ent in addition to, and in a"plication of, his answer filed on March %', %'6& :Ad". Case No. %%/,, pp. (. (6, rec.;. Respondent Ialan! filed his unverified answer on March %/, %'6& :Ad". Case No. %%/&, pp. %-%-(, rec.;. Ce was re1uired by the Court to verify the sa"e and co"plaince ca"e on May %=, %'6& :Ad". Case No. %%/&, pp. %-/ %%-,; rec.;. 3n the course of the investi!ation, it was found that it was not respondent Bernardo Pardo who re evaluated andKor re chec8ed e7a"ination boo8let with <ffice Code No. '.( in Political +aw and Public 3nternational +aw of e7a"inee Ra"on Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, but Iuiller"o Pablo, $r., e7a"iner in +e!al Ethics and Practical E7ercise, who was as8ed to help in the correction of a nu"ber of e7a"ination noteboo8s in Political +aw and Public 3nternational +aw to "eet the deadline for sub"ission :pp. %6 ,(, Dol. D, rec.;. Because of this develop"ent, Atty. Iuiller"o Pablo, $r. was li8ewise included as respondent in Ad"inistrative Case No. %%/(. Con. Bernardo Pardo re"ainded as a respondent for it was also discovered that another paper in Political +aw and Public 3nternational +aw also underwent re evaluation andKor re chec8in!. This noteboo8 with <ffice Code No. %//, turned out to be owned by another successful candidate by the na"e of :rnesto Kuitaleg. Aurther investi!ation resulted in the discovery of another re evaluation andKor re chec8in! of a noteboo8 in the sub9ect of Mercantile +aw resultin! in the chan!e of the !rade fro" (T to .-T This noteboo8 bearin! <ffice Code No. %%- is owned by another successful candidate by the na"e of 7lfredo T5 dela Cru<. ?uitale! and Ty dela Cru5 and the latter@s father were su""oned to testify in the investi!ation. An investi!ation conducted by the National Bureau of 3nvesti!ation upon re1uest of the Chair"an of the %'6% Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee as 3nvesti!ation <fficer, showed that one Ro"y Ialan! y Es!uerra, alias Ra"on E. Ialan!, a student in the #chool of +aw of Manuel +. ?ue5on 4niversity, was, on #epte"ber =, %'.', char!ed with the cri"e of sli!ht physical in9uries in the Municipal Court of Manila co""itted on Eufrosino A. de Dera, another student of the sa"e university. Confronted with this infor"ation at the hearin! of Au!ust %&, %'6& :Dol. D, pp. ,- ,%,

&,, rec.;, respondent Ialan! declared that he does not re"e"ber havin! been char!ed with the cri"e of sli!ht physical in9uries in that case. :Dol. D3, pp. (. /-, rec.;. Respondent Ialan!, in all his application to ta8e the bar e7a"inations, did not "a8e "ention of this fact which he is re1uired under the rules to do. The 9oint investi!ation of all the cases co""enced on $uly %6, %'6& and was ter"inated on <ctober ,, %'6&. Thereafter, parties respondents were re1uired to sub"it their "e"oranda. Respondents +anuevo, Ialan! and Pardo sub"itted their respective "e"orandu" on Nove"ber %(, %'6&. Before the 9oint hearin! co""enced, <scar +andicho too8 up per"anent residence in Australia, where he is believed to be !ainfully e"ployed. Cence, he was not su""oned to testify. At the 9oint investi!ation, all respondents, e7cept respondent Pablo, who offered as evidence only his oral testi"ony, sub"itted as their direct evidence only his oral testi"ony, sub"itted as their direct evidence the affidavits and answers earlier sub"itted by the" to the Court. The sa"e beca"e the basis for their cross e7a"ination. 3n their individual sworn state"ents and answer, which they offered as their direct testi"ony in the investi!ation conducted by the Court, the respondent e7a"iners recounted the circu"stances under which they re evaluated andKor re chec8ed the e7a"ination noteboo8s in 1uestion. 3n Cis affidavit dated April %%, %'6,, respondent $ud!e :later Associate $ustice of the Court of Appeals; Ra"on C. Pa"atian, e7a"iner in Civil +aw, affir"ed) ,. That one evenin! so"eti"e in >ece"ber last year, while 3 was correctin! the e7a"ination noteboo8s, Atty. +anuevo, )ar Confidant6 e/plained to me that it is the practice and the polic5 in bar e/aminations that he A7tt5. %anuevoB ma e a revie' of the grades obtained in all sub0ects and if he finds that candidate obtained an e/traordinar5 high grade in one sub0ect and a rather lo' one in another6 he 'ill bring bac the latter to the e/aminer concerned for re!evaluation and change of grade0 &. That so"eti"e in the latter part of Januar5 of this 5ear6 he brought bac to me an e/amination boo let in Civil %a' for re!evaluation6 because according to him the o'ner of the paper is on the borderline and if I could reconsider his grade to GHI the candidate concerned 'ill get passing mar 0 (. That ta ing his 'ord for it and under the belief that it 'as reall5 the practice and polic5 of the Supreme Court to do so in the further belief that 3 was 9ust "anifestin! cooperation in doin! so, 3 re!evaluated the paper and reconsidered the grade to GHI0 .. That only one noteboo8 in Civil +aw was brou!ht bac8 to "e for such re evaluation and upon verifyin! "y files 3 found that the noteboo8 is nu"bered @'.0 /. That the ori!inal !rade was 4EI and "y re evaluation of the answers were based on the sa"e standard used in the correction and evaluation of all others0 thus, Nos. & and ( with ori!inal !rades of 6T each was reconsidered to %-T0 No. . with (T to .T0 No. 6 with &T to .T0 and No. = with =T to %-T :e"phasis supplied;.

Cis answer dated March %', %'6& substantially reiterated his alle!ations in his April %%, %'6, affidavit with followin! additional state"ents) 777 777 777 &. ... Cowever the !rades in Nos. %, ,, /, ' and %-, were not reconsidered as it is no lon!er to "a8e the reconsideration of these answers because of the sa"e evaluation and standard0 hence, Nos. %, , and %- re"ainded at .T and Nos. / and ' at %-T0 (. That at the ti"e 3 "ade the reconsideration of e7a"ination boo8let No. '.% 3 did not 8now the identity of its owner until 3 received this resolution of the Conorable #upre"e Court nor the identities of the e7a"iners in other sub9ects0 .. That the above re!evaluation 'as made in good faith and under the belief that I am authori<ed to do so in vie' of the misrepresentation of said 7tt5. %anuevo , based on the followin! circu"stances) a; #ince 3 started correctin! the papers on or about <ctober %/, %'6%, relationship between Atty. +anuevo and "yself had developed to the point that with respect to the correction of the e7a"ination boo8lets of bar candidates 3 have always followed hi" and considered his instructions as reflectin! the rules and policy of the Conorable #upre"e Court with respect to the sa"e0 that 3 have no alternative but to ta8e his words0 b; That considerin! this relationship and considering his misrepresentation to me as reflecting the real and polic5 of the $onorable Supreme Court, 3 did not bother any "ore to !et the consent and per"ission of the Chair"an of the Bar Co""ittee. Besides, at that ti"e, 3 was isolatin! "yself fro" all "e"bers of the #upre"e Court and specially the chair"an of the Bar Co""ittee for fear that 3 "i!ht be identified as a bar e7a"iner0 777 777 777 e; That no consideration whatsoever has been received by "e in return for such recorrection, and as proof of it, 3 declined to consider and evaluate one boo8let in Re"edial +aw aforesaid because 3 was not the one who "ade the ori!inal correction of the sa"e :Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. &, &., rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. Then Assistant #olicitor Ieneral, now CA3 $ud!e, Bernardo Pardo, e7a"iner in Political +aw and Public 3nternational +aw, confir"ed in his affidavit of April =, %'6, that) <n a day or two after the Bar Confidant went to "y residence to obtain fro" "e the last ba! of two hundred noteboo8s :bearin! e7a"iner@s code nu"bers %,-- to %(--; which accordin! to "y record was on Aebruary ., %'6,, he ca"e to "y residence at about 6)&- p.". ridin! in a Do8swa!en panel of the #upre"e Court, with at least two co"panions. The bar confidant had with hi" an e7a"inee@s noteboo8 bearin! code nu"ber //%, and, after the usual a"enties, he re(uested me if it 'as possible for me to revie' and re!e/amine the said noteboo because it appears that the e/aminee obtained a grade of HG6 'hereas6 according to the )ar Confidant6 the said e/aminee had obtained higher grades in other sub0ects6 the highest of 'hich 'as JE6 if I recall correctl56 in remedial la' .

I as ed the )ar Confidant if I 'as allo'ed to receive or re!e/aminee the noteboo as I had submitted the same beforehand6 and he told me that I 'as authori<ed to do so because the same 'as still 'ithin m5 control and authorit5 as long as the particular e/aminee.s name had not been identified or that the code number decode and the e/aminee.s name 'as revealed . The Bar Confidant told "e that the na"e of the e7a"inee in the case present bearin! code nu"ber //% had not been identified or revealed0 and that it "i!ht have been possible that 3 had !iven a particularly low !rade to said e7a"inee. 7ccepting at face value the truth of the )ar Confidant.s representations to me6 and as it 'as humanl5 possible that I might have erred in the grading of the said noteboo 6 I re!e/amined the same , carefully read the answer, and !raded it in accordance with the sa"e standards 3 had used throu!hout the !radin! of the entire noteboo8s, 'ith the result that the e/aminee deserved an increased grade of 44. 7fter again clearing 'ith the )ar Confidant m5 authorit5 to correct the grades6 and as he had assured me that the code number of the e/aminee in (uestion had not been decoded and his name no'n6 ... I therefore corrected the total grade in the noteboo8 and the !rade card attached thereto, and properly initia:l;ed the sa"e. 3 also corrected the ite"i5ed !rades :fro" ite" No. % to ite" No. %-; on the two sets of !radin! sheets, "y personal copy thereof, and the Bar Confidant brou!ht with hi" the other copy thereof, and the Bar Confidant brou!ht with hi" the other copy the !radin! sheet2 :Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. .= .'0 rec.0 e"phasis supplied; 3n his answer dated March %6, %'6& which he deno"inated as 2E7planation2, respondent Bernardo P. Pardo adopted and replaced therein by reference the facts stated in his earlier sworn state"ent and in additional alle!ed that) 777 777 777 &. At the ti"e 3 reviewed the e7a"inee@s noteboo8 in political and international law, code numbered 44*, 3 did 8now the na"e of the e7a"inee. 3n fact, 3 ca"e to 8now his na"e only upon receipt of the resolution of March ., %'6&0 now 8nowin! his na"e, 3 wish to state that 3 do not 8now hi" personally, and that 3 have never "et hi" even up to the present0 (. At that ti"e, I acted under the impression that I 'as authori<ed to ma e such revie'6 and had repeatedl5 as ed the )ar Confidant 'hether I 'as authori<ed to ma e such revision and 'as so assured of m5 authorit5 as the name of the e/aminee had not 5et been decoded or his identit5 revealed. The )ar Confidant.s assurance 'as apparentl5 regular and so appeared to be in the regular course of e/press prohibition in the rules and guidelines given to me as an e/aminer6 and the )ar Confidant 'as m5 official liaison 'ith the Chairman6 as, unless called, 3 refrained as "uch as possible fro" fre1uent personal contact with the Chair"an lest 3 be identified as an e7a"iner. ...0 .. At the ti"e the Bar Confidant ca"e to see "e at about 6)&- o@cloc8 in the evenin! at "y residence, 3 felt it inappropriate to verify his authority with the Chair"an. It did not appear to me that his representations 'ere unauthori<ed or suspicious. 3ndeed, the Bar Confidant was ridin! in the official vehicle of the #upre"e Court, a Dol8swa!en panel, acco"panied by two co"panions, which was usual, and thus loo8ed li8e a re!ular visit to "e of the Bar Confidant, as it was about the sa"e hour that he used to see "e)

777 777 777 6. 3ndeed, the noteboo8 code nu"bered //% was still in the sa"e condition as when 3 sub"itted the sa"e. In agreeing to revie' the said noteboo code numbered 44*6 m5 aim 'as to see if I committed an error in the correction6 not to ma e the e/aminee pass the sub0ect. 3 considered it entirely hu"anly possible to have erred, because 3 corrected that particular noteboo8 on >ece"ber &%, %'6%, considering especiall5 the representation of the )ar Confidant that the said e/aminee had obtained higher grades in other sub0ects6 the highest of 'hich 'as JEI in remedial la', if 3 recall correctly. <f course, it did not stri8e "e as unusual that the Bar Confidant 8new the !rades of the e7a"inee in the position to 8now and that there was nothin! irre!ular in that) =. 3n political and international law, the ori!inal !rade obtained by the e7a"inee with noteboo8 code nu"bered //% was .6T. After review, it was increased by ' points, resultin! in a final !rade of //T. #till, the e7a"inee did not pass the sub9ect, and, as heretofore stated, "y ai" was not to "a8e the e7a"inee pass, notwithstandin! the representation that he had passed the other sub9ects. ... '. 3 1uite recall that durin! the first "eetin! of the Bar E7a"iners@ Co""ittee consensus was that where an e7a"inee failed in only one sub9ect and passed the rest, the e7a"iner in said sub9ect would review the noteboo8. Nobody ob9ected to it as irre!ular. At the ti"e of the Co""ittee@s first "eetin!, we still did not 8now the na"es of the candidates. %-. In fine6 I 'as a victim of deception6 not a part5 to it . 3t had absolutely no 8nowled!e of the "otives of the Bar Confidant or his "alfeasance in office, and did not 8now the e7a"inee concerned nor had 3 any 8ind of contract with hi" before or rather the review and even up to the present :Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. /- /&0 rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. Atty. Manuel To"acru5, e7a"iner in Cri"inal +aw, affir"ed in his affidavit dated April %,, %'6,) %. 777 777 777 ,. That about wee8ly, the Bar Confidant would deliver and collect e7a"ination boo8s to "y residence at '.% +una Mencias, Mandaluyon!, Ri5al. &. That towards the end when 3 had already co"pleted correction of the boo8s in Cri"inal +aw and was helpin! in the correction of so"e of the papers in another sub9ect, the Bar Confidant brought bac to me one A*B paper in Criminal %a' sa5ing that that particular e/aminee had missed the passing grade b5 onl5 a fraction of a percent and that if his paper in Criminal %a' 'ould be raised a fe' points to GHI then he would "a8e the !eneral passin! avera!e. (. That seein! the 9urisdiction, 3 raised the !rade to 6.T, that is, !ivin! a raise of, if 3 re"e"ber correctly, , or & points, initialled the revised "ar8 and revised also the "ar8 and revised also the "ar8 in the !eneral list. .. That 3 do not recall the nu"ber of the boo8 of the e7a"inee concerned2 :Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. /', rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. 3n his answer dated March %,, %'6&, respondent To"acru5 stated that >I accepted the 'ord of the )ar Confidant in good faith and 'ithout the slightest in ling as to the identit5 of the

e/aminee in 1uestion who up to now re"ains a total stran!er and without e7pectation of nor did 3 derive any personal benefit2 :Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. 6-, rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. Atty. Aidel Manalo, e7a"iner in Re"edial +aw, stated in his affidavit dated April %(, %'6,, that) 777 777 777 ,. #o"eti"e about the late part of $anuary or early part of Aebruary %'6,, Attorney +anuevo, Bar Confidant of the #upre"e Court, saw "e in "y house at No. %=.( Asuncion #treet, Ma8ati, Ri5al. Ce produced to "e an e7a"inee@s noteboo8 in Re"edial +aw which 3 had previously !raded and sub"itted to hi". Ce informed me that he and others :he used the words 2we2; had revie'ed the said noteboo . $e re(uested me to revie' the said noteboo and possibl5 reconsider the grade that I had previousl5 given. $e e/plained that the e/amine concerned had done 'ell in other sub0ects6 but that because of the comparativel5 lo' grade that I had given him in "emedial %a' his general average 'as short of passing . Mr. +anuevo re"ar8ed that he thou!ht that if the paper were reviewed 3 "i!ht find the e7a"inee deservin! of bein! ad"itted to the Bar. As far as 3 can recall, Mr. +anuevo particularly called "y attention to the fact in his answers the e7a"inee e7pressed hi"self clearly and in !ood enou!h En!lish. 9r. %anuevo ho'ever informed me that 'hether I 'ould reconsider the grades I had previousl5 given and submitted 'as entirel5 'ithin m5 discretion. &. )elieving full5 that it 'as 'ithin 9r. %anuevo.s authorit5 as )ar Confidant to address such a re(uest to me and that the said re(uest 'as in order6 I6 in the presence of 9r. %anuevo6 proceeded tore!read and re!evaluate each and ever5 item of the paper in (uestion. 3 recall that in "y re evaluation of the answers, 3 increased the !rades in so"e ite"s, "ade deductions in other ite"s, and "aintained the sa"e !rades in other ite"s. Cowever, 3 recall that after Mr. +anuevo and 3 had totalled the new !rades that 3 had !iven after re evaluation, the total !rade increased by a few points, but still short of the passin! "ar8 of 6.T in "y sub9ect. 777 777 777 :Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. 6( 6., rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. 3n his answer :response; dated March %=, %'6&, respondent Manalo reiterated the contents of his sworn state"ent, addin! the followin!) 777 777 777 .. 3n a!reein! to re evaluate the noteboo8, with resulted in increasin! the total !rade of the e7a"inee concerned in Re"edial +aw fro" 4F.GHI to GE.HI, herein respondent acted in !ood faith. 3t "ay well be that he could be faulted for not havin! verified fro" the Chair"an of the Co""ittee of Bar E7a"iners the le!iti"acy of the re1uest "ade by Mr. +anuevo. Cerein respondent, however, pleads in attenuation of such o"ission, that E a; Cavin! been appointed an E7a"iner for the first ti"e, he was not aware, not havin! been apprised otherwise, that it was not within the authority of the Bar Confidant of the #upre"e Court to re1uest or su!!est that the !rade of a particular e7a"ination noteboo8 be revised or reconsidered. $e had ever5 right to presume6 o'ing to the highl5 fiduciar5 nature of the position of the )ar Confidant6 that the re(uest 'as legitimate.

777 777 777 c; 3n revisin! the !rade of the particular e7a"inee concerned, herein respondent carefully evaluated each and every answer written in the noteboo8. Testin! the answers by the criteria laid down by the Court, and giving the said e/aminee the benefit of doubt in vie' of 9r. %anuevo.s representation that it 'as onl5 in that particular sub0ect that the said e/amine failed, herein respondent beca"e convinced that the said e7a"inee deserved a hi!her !rade than that previously !iven to hi", but that he did not deserve, in herein respondent@s honest appraisal, to be !iven the passin! !rade of 6.T. 3t should also be "entioned that, in reappraisin! the answers, herein respondent down!raded a previous ratin! of an answer written by the e7a"inee, fro" '.,.T to 'T :Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. &/ &', rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. Atty. Manuel Montecillo, e7a"iner in Mercantile +aw, affir"ed in his affidavit dated April %6, %'6,) 777 777 777 That durin! one of the deliberations of the Bar E7a"iners@ Co""ittee after the Bar E7a"inations were held, 3 was infor"ed that one Bar e7a"inee passed all other sub9ects e7cept Mercantile +aw0 That 3 infor"ed the Bar E7a"iners@ Co""ittee that 3 would be willin! to re evaluate the paper of this particular Bar candidate0. That the ne7t day, the Bar Confidant handed to "e a Bar candidate@s noteboo8 :No. %/%&; showin! a !rade of 4*I0 That 3 reviewed the whole paper and after re evaluatin! the answers of this particular Bar candidate 3 decided to increase his final grade to G*I0 That conse1uently, 3 a"ended "y report and duly initialed the chan!es in the !rade sheet :Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. 6,, rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. 3n his answer dated March %', %'6&, respondent Montecillo restated the contents of his sworn state"ent of April %6, %'6,, and 777 777 777 ,. #upple"entary to the fore!oin! sworn state"ent, 3 hereby state that 3 re! evaluated the e7a"ination noteboo8 of Bar Candidate No. %/%& in Mercantile +aw in absolute good faith and in direct compliance 'ith the agreement made during one of the deliberations of the )ar :/aminers Committee that 'here a candidate fails in onl5 one sub0ect6 the :/aminer concerned should ma e a re!evaluation of the ans'ers of the candidate concerned, which 3 did. &. Ainally, 3 hereby state that 3 did not 8now at the ti"e 3 "ade the afore"entioned re evaluation that noteboo8 No. %/%& in Mercantile +aw pertained to bar e7a"ine Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, and that 3 have never "et up to this ti"e this particular bar e7a"inee :Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. (- (%, rec.0 e"phasis supplied;.

3n his sworn state"ent dated April %,, %'6,, Bar Confidant +anuevo stated) 777 777 777 7s I 'as going over those noteboo s6 chec ing the entries in the grading sheets and the posting on the record of ratings6 I 'as impressed of the 'riting and the ans'ers on the first noteboo . This led me to scrutini<e all the set of noteboo s . Believin! that those five "erited re evalation on the basis of the "e"orandu" circulari5ed to the e7a"iners shortly earlier to the effect that ... in the correction of the papers, substantial wei!ht should then be !iven to clarify of lan!ua!e and soundness of reasonin!@ :par. (;, I too it upon m5self to bring them bac to the respective e/aminers for re! evaluation andLor re!chec ing. 3t is our e7perience in the Bar >ivision that i""ediately after the release of the results of the e7a"inations, we are usually swar"ed with re1uests of the e7a"inees that they be shown their noteboo8s. Many of the" would copy their answers and have the" chec8ed by their professors. Eventually so"e of the" would file "otions or re1uests for re correction andKor re evaluation. Ri!ht now, we have so"e %' of such "otions or re1uests which we are readin! for sub"ission to the Conorable Court. <ften we feel that a few of the" are "eritorious, but 9ust the sa"e they have to be denied because the result of the e7a"inations when released is final and irrevocable. 3t was to at least "ini"i5e the occurrence of such instances that "otivated "e to brin! those noteboo8s bac8 to the respective e7a"iners for re evaluation2 :Ad". Case No. %%/,, p. ,(, rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. 3n his answer dated March %', %'6&, respondent +anuevo avers) That he submitted the noteboo s in (uestion to the e/aminers concerned in his hotest belief that the same merited re!evaluation 0 that in so doin!, it was not his intention to forsa8e or betray the trust reposed in hi" as bar confidant but on the contrary to do 9ustice to the e7a"inee concerned0 that neither did he act in a presu"ptuous "anner, because the "atter of whether or not re evaluation was inorder was left alone to the e7a"iners@ decision0 and that, to his 8nowled!e, he does not re"e"ber havin! "ade the alle!ed "isrepresentation but that he re"e"bers havin! brou!ht to the attention of the Co""ittee durin! the "eetin! a "atter concernin! another e7a"inee who obtained a passin! !eneral avera!e but with a !rade below .-T in Mercantile +aw. As the Co""ittee a!reed to re"ove the dis1ualification by way of raisin! the !rade in said sub9ect, respondent brou!ht the noteboo8 in 1uestion to the E7a"iner concerned who thereby raised the !rade thus enablin! the said e7a"inee to pass. 3f he re"e"bers ri!ht, the e7a"inee concerned is one surna"ed 2de la Cru52 or 2Ty de la Cru52. Jour Conors, respondent never entertained a notion that his act would stir such serious char!es as would tend to under"ine his inte!rity because he did it in all !ood faith. 777 777 777 :Ad". Case No. %%/,, p. &., rec.0 e"phasis supplied;.

<n Au!ust ,6, %'6&, durin! the course of the investi!ation, respondent +anuevo filed another sworn state"ent in addition to, and in a"plification of, his answer, statin!) 777 777 777 %. That 3 vehe"ently deny havin! deceived the e7a"iners concerned into believin! that the e7a"inee involved failed only in their respective sub9ects, the fact of the "atter bein! that the noteboo8s in 1uestion were sub"itted to the respective e7a"iners for re evaluation believin! in all !ood faith that they so "erited on the basis of the Confidential Me"orandu" :identified and "ar8ed as E7h. % +anuevo, particularly that portion "ar8ed as E7h. % a +anuevo;which was circulated to all the e7a"iners earlier, leavin! to the" entirely the "atter of whether or not re evaluation was in order, ,. That the followin! coincidence pro"pted "e to pry into the noteboo8s in 1uestion) #o"eti"e durin! the latter part of $anuary and the early part of Aebruary, %'6,, on "y way bac8 to the office :Bar >ivision; after lunch, 3 thou!h of buyin! a sweepsta8e tic8et. 3 have always "ade it a point that the "o"ent 3 thin8 of so buyin!, 3 pic8 a nu"ber fro" any ob9ect and the first nu"ber that co"es into "y si!ht beco"es the basis of the tic8et that 3 buy. At that "o"ent, the first nu"ber that 3 saw was 2'.(2 boldly printed on an electrical contribance :evidently belon!in! to the MERA+C<; attached to a post standin! alon! the ri!ht sidewal8 of P. Aaura street towards the #upre"e Court buildin! fro" #an Marcelino street and al"ost ad9acent to the south eastern corner of the fence of the Araullo Ci!h #chool:photo!raph of the nu"ber @'.(@, the contrivance on which it is printed and a portion of the post to which it is attached is identified and "ar8ed as E7hibit ( +anuevo and the nu"ber 2'.(2 as E7h. ( a +anuevo;. Bith this nu"ber :'.(; in "ind, 3 proceeded to Pla5a #ta. Cru5 to loo8 for a tic8et that would contain such nu"ber. Eventually, 3 found a tic8et, which 3 then bou!ht, whose last three di!its corresponded to 2'.(2. This nu"ber beca"e doubly i"pressive to "e because the su" of all the si7 di!its of the tic8et nu"ber was 2,62, a nu"ber that is so si!nificant to "e that everythin! 3 do 3 try so"ewhat instinctively to lin8 or connect it with said nu"ber whenever possible. Thus even in assi!nin! code nu"bers on the Master +ist of e7a"inees fro" %'/= when 3 first too8 char!e of the e7a"inations as Bar Confidant up to %'6%, 3 either started with the nu"ber 2,62 :or 2,,62; or end with said nu"ber. :%'/= Master +ist is identified and "ar8ed as E7h. . +anuevo and the fi!ure 2,62 at the be!innin! of the list, as E7h. . a +anuevo0 %'/' Master +ist as E7h. / +anuevo and the fi!ure 2,,62 at the be!innin! of the list, as E7h. / a +anuevo0 %'6- Master +ist as E7h. 6 +anuevo and the fi!ure 2,,62 at the be!innin! of the list as E7h. 6 a +anuevo0 and the %'6% Master +ist as E7h. = +anuevo and the fi!ure 2,,62 at the end of the list as E7h. = a +anuevo;. The si!nificance to "e of this nu"ber :,6; was born out of these incidents in "y life, to wit) :a; <n Nove"ber ,6, %'(% while with the Philippine Ar"y stationed at Ca"p Manacnac, Cabanatuan, Nueva Eci9a, 3 was stric8en with pneu"onia and was hospitali5ed at the Nueva

Eci9a Provincial Cospital as a result. As will be recalled, the last Pacific Bar bro8e out on >ece"ber =, %'(%. Bhile 3 was still confined at the hospital, our ca"p was bo"bed and strafed by $apanese planes on >ece"ber %&, %'(% resultin! in "any casualties. Aro" then on, 3 re!arded Nove"ber ,6, %'(% as the be!innin! of a new life for "e havin! been saved fro" the possibility of bein! a"on! the casualties0 :b; <n Aebruary ,6, %'(/, 3 was able to !et out of the ar"y byway of honorable dischar!e0 and :c; on Aebruary ,6, %'(6, 3 !ot "arried and since then we be!ot children the youn!est of who" was born on Aebruary ,6, %'.6. Returnin! to the office that sa"e afternoon after buyin! the tic8et, 3 resu"ed "y wor8 which at the ti"e was on the chec8in! of the noteboo8s. Bhile thus chec8in!, 3 ca"e upon the noteboo8s bearin! the office code nu"ber 2'.(2. As the nu"ber was still fresh in "y "ind, it aroused "y curiosity pro"ptin! "e to pry into the contents of the noteboo8s. 3"pressed by the clarity of the writin! and lan!ua!e and the apparent soundness of the answers and, thereby, believin! in all !ood faith on the basis of the afore"entioned Confidential Me"orandu" :E7h. % +anuevo and E7h. % a +anuevo; that they "erited re evaluation, 3 set the" aside and later on too8 the" bac8 to the respective e7a"iners for possible review recallin! to the" the said Confidential Me"orandu" but leavin! absolutely the "atter to their discretion and 9ud!"ent. &. That the alle!ed "isrepresentation or deception could have reference to either of the two cases which 3 brou!ht to the attention of the co""ittee durin! the "eetin! and which the Co""ittee a!reed to refer bac8 to the respective e7a"ines, na"ely) :a; That of an e7a"inee who obtained a passin! !eneral avera!e but with a !rade below .-T :(6T; in Mercantile +aw:the noteboo8s of this e7a"inee bear the <ffice Code No. %%-, identified and "ar8ed as E7h. ' +anuevo and the noteboo8 in Mercantile +aw bearin! the E7a"iner@s Code No. '.% with the ori!inal !rade of (T increased to .-T after re evaluation as E7h. ' a +anuevo;0 and :b; That of an e7a"inee who obtained a borderline !eneral avera!e of 6&.%.T with a !rade below /-T :.6T; in one sub9ect which, at the ti"e, 3 could not pinpoint havin! inadvertently left in the office the data thereon. 3t turned out that the sub9ect was Political and 3nternational +aw under Asst. #olicitor Ieneral Bernardo Pardo :The noteboo8s of this e7a"inee bear the <ffice Code No. %/,, identified and "ar8ed as E7h. %- +anuevo and the noteboo8 in Political and 3nternational +aw bearin! the E7a"iner@s Code No. //% with the ori!inal !rade of .6T increased to //T after re evaluation, as E7h. %a +anuevo;. This noteboo8 in Political and 3nternational +aw is precisely the sa"e noteboo8 "entioned in the sworn state"ent of Asst. #olicitor Ieneral Bernardo Pardo:E7h. Pardo;. (. That in each of the two cases "entioned in the ne7t precedin! para!raph, only one :%; sub9ect or noteboo8 was reviewed or re evaluated, that is, only Mercantile +aw in the for"er0 and only Political and 3nternational +aw in the latter, under the facts and circu"stances 3 "ade 8nown to the Co""ittee and pursuant to which the

Co""ittee authori5ed the referral of the noteboo8s involved to the e7a"iners concerned0 .. That at that 9uncture, the e7a"iner in Ta7ation even volunteered to review or re chec8 so"e %', or so, noteboo8s in his sub9ect but that 3 told the Co""ittee that there was very little ti"e left and that the increase in !rade after re evaluation, unless very hi!hly substantial, "ay not alter the outco"e since the sub9ect carries the wei!ht of only %-T :Ad". Case No. %%/,, pp. (. (6, rec.;. The fore!oin! last "inute e"bellish"ent only serves to accentuate the fact that +anuevo@s story is devoid of truth. 3n his sworn state"ent of April %,, %'6,, he was 2led to scrutini5e all the set of noteboo8s2 of respondent Ialan!, because he 2was i"pressed of the writin! and the answers on the first noteboo8 2as he 2was !oin! over those noteboo8s, chec8in! the entries in the !radin! sheets and the postin! on the record of ratin!s.2 3n his affidavit of Au!ust ,6, %'6&, he stated that the nu"ber '.( on a Meralco post provo8ed hi" 2to pry into the contents of the noteboo8s2 of respondent Ialan! 2bearin! office code nu"ber @'.(.2 Respondent Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, asserted, a"on! others0 %. That herein respondent is not ac1uainted with for"er BarConfidant Dictorio +anuevo and never "et hi" before e7cept once when, as re1uired by the latter respondent sub"itted certain papers necessary for ta8in! the bar e7a"inations. 777 777 777 (. That it has been the consistent policy of the #upre"e Court not to reconsider 2failure2 cases0 after the official release thereof0 why should it now reconsider a 2passin!2 case, especially in a situation where the respondent and the bar confidant do not 8now each other and, indeed, "et only once in the ordinary course of official businessN 3t is not inevitable, then, to conclude that the entire situation clearly "anifests a reasonable doubt to which respondent is richly entitledN .. That respondent, before readin! a copy of this Conorable Court@s resolution dated March ., %'6&, had no 8nowled!e whatsoever of for"er Bar Confidant Dictorio +anuevo@s actuations which are stated in particular in the resolution. 3n fact, the respondent never 8new this "an inti"ately nor, had the herein respondent utili5ed anyone to contact the Bar Confidant +anuevo in his behalf. But, assu"in! as true, the said actuations of Bar Confidant +anuevo as stated in the Resolution, which are evidently purported to show as havin! redounded to the benefit of herein respondent, these 1uestions arise) Airst, was the re evaluation of Respondent@s e7a"ination papers by the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee done only or especially for hi" and not done !enerally as re!ards the paper of the other bar candidates who are supposed to have failedN 3f the re evaluation of Respondent@s !rades was done a"on! those of others, then it "ust have been done as a "atter of policy of the Co""ittee to increase the percenta!e of passin! in that year@s e7a"ination and, therefore, the insinuation that only respondent@s papers were re evaluated upon the influence of Bar Confidant +anuevo would be un9ustifiable, if not far fetched. #econdly, is the fact that BarConfidant +anuevo@s actuations resulted in herein Respondent@s benefit an evidence per se of Respondent@s havin! caused actuations of Bar confidant +anuevo to be done in for"er@s behalfN To assu"e this could be disastrous in effect because that would be presu"in! all the "e"bers of

the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee as devoid of inte!rity, unfit for the bar the"selves and the result of their wor8 that year, as also unworthy of anythin!. All of these inferences are deductible fro" the narration of facts in the resolution, and which only !oes to show said narration of facts an unworthy of credence, or consideration. 777 777 777 6. This Conorable Tribunal@s Resolution of March ., %'6& would "a8e this Respondent Account or answer for the actuations of Bar Confidant +anuevo as well as for the actuations of the Bar E7a"iners i"plyin! the e7istence of so"e conspiracy between the" and the Respondent. The evident i"putation is denied and it is contended that the Bar E7a"iners were in the perfor"ance of their duties and that they should be re!arded as such in the consideration of this case. 777 777 777 :Ad". Case No. %%/&, pp. %-- %-(, rec.;. 3 The evidence thus disclosed clearly de"onstrates how respondent +anuevo syste"atically and cleverly initiated and prepared the sta!e leadin! to the re evalation andKor recorrection of the answers of respondent Ialan! by deceivin! separately and individually the respondents e7a"iners to "a8e the desired revision without prior authority fro" the #upre"e Court after the corrected noteboo8s had been sub"itted to the Court throu!h the respondent Bar Confidant, who is si"ply the custodian thereof for and in behalf of the Court. 3t appears that one evenin!, so"eti"e around the middle part of December6 *DG*, 9ust before Christ"as day, respondent +anuevo approached Civil +aw e7a"iner Pa"atian while the latter was in the process of correctin! e7a"ination boo8lets, and then and there "ade the representations that as BarConfidant, he "a8es a review of the !rades obtained in all sub9ects of the e7a"inees and if he finds that a candidate obtains an e7traordinarily hi!h !rade in one sub9ect and a rather low one on another, he will brin! bac8 to the e7a"iner concerned the noteboo8 for re evaluation and chan!e of !rade:E7h. , Pa"atian, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. .. ./0 Dol. D, pp. & (, rec.;. #o"eti"e in the latter part of Januar56 *DG3, respondent +anuevo brou!ht bac8 to respondent e7a"iner Pa"atian an e7a"ination boo8let in Civil +aw for re evaluation, representin! that the e7a"inee who owned the particular noteboo8 is on the borderline of passin! and if his grade in said sub0ect could be reconsidered to GHI6 the said e/amine 'ill get a passing average . Respondent e7a"iner Pa"atian too8 respondent +anuevo@s word and under the belief that was really the practice and policy of the #upre"e Court and in his further belief that he was 9ust "anifestin! cooperation in doin! so, he re evaluated the paper and reconsidered the e7a"inee@s !rade in said sub9ect to 6.T fro" /(T. The particular noteboo8 belon!ed to an e7a"inee with E7a"iner@s Code Nu"ber '. and with <ffice Code Nu"ber '.(. This e7a"inee is Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!. Respondent Pa"atian did not 8now the identity of the e7a"inee at the ti"e he re evaluated the said boo8let :E7hs. % Pa"atian, , Pa"atian, and & Pa"atian, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. &, &&, .. ./, .60 Dol. D, pp. & (, rec.;. Before $ustice Pa"atian "ade the revision, E7a"inee Ialan! failed in seven sub9ects includin! Civil +aw. After such revision, e7a"inee Ialan! still failed in si7 sub9ects and could not obtain the passin! avera!e of 6.T for ad"ission to the Bar. Thereafter, about the latter part of Januar56 *DG3 or earl5 part of Februar56 *DG3 , respondent +anuevo went to the residence of respondent e7a"iner Aidel Manalo at %=.( Asuncion #treet, Ma8ati, Ri5al, with an e7a"inee@s noteboo8 in Re"edial +aw, which respondent Manalo and

previously corrected and !raded. Respondent +anuevo then re1uested respondent Manalo to review the said noteboo8 and possibly to reconsider the !rade !iven, e7plainin! and representin! that 2they2 has reviewed the said noteboo8 and that the e/aminee concerned had done 'ell in other sub0ects6 but that because of the comparativel5 lo' grade given said e/aminee b5 respondent 9analo in "emedial %a'6 the general average of said e/aminee 'as short of passing. Respondent +anuevo li8ewise "ade the re"ar8 and observation that he thou!ht that if the noteboo8 were reviewed, respondent Manalo "i!ht yet find the e7a"inee deservin! of bein! ad"itted to the Bar. Respondent +anuevo also particularly called the attention of respondent Manalo to the fact that in his answers, the e7a"inee e7pressed hi"self clearly and in !ood En!lish. Aurther"ore, respondent +anuevo called the attention of respondent Manalo to Para!raph ( of the Confidential Me"orandu" that read as follows) (. E7a"ination 1uestions should be "ore a test of lo!ic, 8nowled!e of le!al funda"entals, and ability to analy5e and solve le!al proble"s rather than a test of "e"ory0 in the correction of papers, substantial wei!ht should be !iven to clarify of lan!ua!e and soundness of reasonin!. Respondent Manalo was, however, infor"ed by respondent +anuevo that the "atter of reconsideration was entirely within his :Manalo@s; discretion. Respondent Manalo, believin! that respondent +anuevo, as Bar Confidant, had the authority to "a8e such re1uest and further believin! that such re1uest was in order, proceeded to re evaluate the e7a"inee@s answers in the presence of +anuevo, resultin! in an increase of the e7a"inee@s !rade in that particular sub9ect, Re"edial +aw, fro" /&.,.T to 6(..T. Respondent Manalo authenticated with his si!nature the chan!es "ade by hi" in the noteboo8 and in the !radin! sheet. The said noteboo8 e7a"iner@s code nu"ber is %&/, instead of &%- as earlier "entioned by hi" in his affidavit, and belon!ed to Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan! :E7hs. % * , Manalo, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. &/ &', 6( 6.0 Dol. D, pp. .- .&, rec.;. But even after the re evaluation by Atty. Manalo, E7a"inee Ialan! could not "a8e the passin! !rade due to his failin! "ar8s in five sub9ects. +i8ewise, in the latter part of $anuary, %'6,, on one occasion when respondent +anuevo went to deliver to respondent Iuiller"o Pablo, $r. in the latter@s house a new batch of e7a"ination papers in Political +aw and Public 3nternational +aw to be corrected, respondent +anuevo brou!ht out a noteboo8 in Political +aw bearin! :/aminer.s Code #umber *GH3 :E7h. . Pardo, Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. //, rec.;, infor"in! respondent Pablo that particular e/aminee who owns the said noteboo8 seems to have passed in all other sub0ects e/cept in 2olitical %a' and 2ublic International %a'M and that if the said noteboo 'ould be re!evaluated and the mar be increased to at least GHI6 said e/aminee 'ill pass the bar e/aminations. 7fter satisf5ing himself from respondent that this is possible N the respondent )ar Confidant informing him that this is the practice of the Court to help out e/aminees 'ho are failing in 0ust one sub0ect N respondent 2ablo acceded to the re1uest and thereby told the Bar Confidant to 9ust leave the said noteboo8. Respondent Pablo thereafter re evaluated the answers, this ti"e with leniency. After the re evaluation, the !rade was increased to GJI from 4JI, or an increase of %-T. Respondent Pablo then "ade the correspondin! corrections in the !radin! sheet and accordin!ly initialed the char!es "ade. This noteboo8 with <ffice Code Nu"ber '.( also belon!ed to Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan! :Dol. D, pp. (& (/, rec.;. After the re evaluation by Atty. Pablo, $r., e7a"inee Ialan!@s !eneral avera!e was still below the passin! !rade, because of his failin! "ar8s in four sub9ects. Towards the end of the correction of e7a"ination noteboo8s, respondent +anuevo brou!ht bac8 to respondent To"acru5 one e7a"ination boo8let in Cri"inal +aw, with the for"er infor"in! the latter, who was then helpin! in the correction of papers in Political +aw and Public 3nternational

+aw, as he had already finished correctin! the e7a"ination noteboo8s in his assi!ned sub9ect E Cri"inal +aw E that the e7a"inee who owns that particular noteboo8 had "issed the passin! !rade by only a fraction of a percent and that if his !rade in Cri"inal +aw would be raised a few points to 6.T, then the e7a"inee would "a8e the passin! !rade. Acceptin! the words of respondent +anuevo, and seein! the 9ustification and because he did not want to be the one causin! the failure of the e7a"inee, respondent Tomacru< raised the grade from 4EI to GHI and thereafter, he initialed the revised "ar8 and also revised the "ar8 in the !eneral list and li8ewise initialed the sa"e. The e7a"inee@s E7a"iner Code Nu"ber is 6(/ while his <ffice Code Nu"ber is '.(. This e7a"inee is Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan! :E7hs. %, , * & To"acru5, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. /., // and 6%0 Dol. D, pp. ,( ,., /- /%, rec.;. Respondent To"acru5 does not recall havin! been shown any "e"o by respondent +anuevo when the latter approached hi" for this particular re evaluation0 but he remembers %anuevo declaring to him that 'here a candidate had almost made the passing average but had failed in one sub0ect6 as a matter of polic5 of the Court6 lenienc5 is applied in revie'ing the e/aminee.s noteboo in the failing sub0ect . Ce recalls, however, that he was provided a copy of the Confidential Me"orandu" but this was lon! before the re evaluation re1uested by respondent +anuevo as the sa"e was received by hi" before the e7a"ination period :Dol. D, p. /%, rec.;. Cowever, such revision by Atty. To"acru5 could not raise Ialan!@s !eneral avera!e to a passin! !rade because of his failin! "ar8 in three "ore sub9ects, includin! Mercantile +aw. Aor the revision of e7a"inee Ialan!@s noteboo8 in Mercantile +aw, respondent +anuevo neatly set the last phase of his 1uite in!enious sche"e E by securin! authori5ation fro" the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee for the e7a"iner in Mercantile +aw tore evaluate said noteboo8. At the first "eetin! of the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee on Aebruary =, %'6,, respondent +anuevo su!!ested that where an e/aminee failed in onl5 one sub0ect and passed the rest6 the e/aminer concerned 'ould revie' the noteboo . Nobody ob9ected to it as irre!ular and the Co""ittee adopted the su!!estion :E7hs. A * B Montecillo, E7h. , Pardo, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. (%, 6,, /&0 Dol. Di, p. %/, rec.;. At a subse1uent "eetin! of the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee, respondent Montecillo was infor"ed by respondent +anuevo that a candidate passed all other sub9ects e7cept Mercantile +aw. This infor"ation was "ade durin! the "eetin! within hearin! of the order "e"bers, who were all closely seated to!ether. Respondent Montecillo "ade 8nown his willin!ness tore evaluate the particular paper. The ne7t day, respondent +anuevo handed to respondent Montecillo a bar candidate@s noteboo8 with E7a"iner@s Code Nu"ber %/%& with a grade of 4*I. Respondent Montecillo then reviewed the whole paper and after re evaluatin! the answers, decided to increase the final grade to G*I. The "atter was not however thereafter officially brou!ht to the Co""ittee for consideration or decision :E7hs. A* B Montecillo, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. (- (%, 6- 6%0 Dol. D, pp. && &(, rec.;. "espondent 9ontecillo declared that 'ithout being given the information that the particular e/aminee failed onl5 in his sub0ect and passed all the others6 he 'ould not have consented to ma e the re!evaluation of the said paper:Dol. D, p. &&, rec.;.Respondent Montecillo li8ewise added that there was only one instance he re"e"bers, which is substantiated by his personal records, that he had to chan!e the !rade of an e7a"inee after he had sub"itted his report, referrin! to the noteboo8 of e7a"inee Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, with E7a"iner@s Code Nu"ber %/%& and with <ffice Code Nu"ber '.( :Dol. D, pp. &( &., rec.;. 7 da5 or t'o after Februar5 H6 *DG3, when respondent +anuevo went to the residence of respondent e7a"iner Pardo to obtain the last ba! of ,-- noteboo8s, respondent +anuevo returned to the residence of respondent Pardo ridin! in a Dol8swa!en panel of the #upre"e Court of the Philippines with two co"panions. Accordin! to respondent +anuevo, this was around

the second wee8 of Aebruary, %'6,, after the first "eetin! of the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee. respondent +anuevo had with hi" on that occasion an e7a"inee@s noteboo8 bearin! E7a"iner@s Code No. //%. "espondent %anuevo, after the usual a"enities, re(uested respondent 2ardo to revie' and re!e/amine6 if possible6 the said noteboo because , accordin! to respondent +anuevo, the e/amine 'ho o'ns that particular noteboo obtained higher grades in other sub0ects, the hi!hest of which is =(T in Re"edial +aw. After clearin! with respondent +anuevo his authority to reconsider the !rades, respondent 2ardo re!evaluated the answers of the e7a"ine concerned, resulting in an increase of grade from HGI of 44I . #aid noteboo8 has nu"ber %/,, as office code nu"ber. 3t belon!ed to e7a"inee Ernesto ?uitale! :E7hs. % * , Pardo, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. .= /&0 Dol. D, pp. %, ,(, ,' &-, rec.;. 33 Re) Ad"inistrative Case No. %%/,, Dictorio >. +anuevo, respondent. A 4NA4TC<R3UE> RE EDA+4AT3<N <A TCE AN#BER# <A ELAM3NE RAM<N E. IA+ANI, alias R<MAN E. IA+ANI, 3N A++ A3DE :.; MA$<R #4B$ECT#. Respondent Dictorio >. +anuevo ad"itted havin! re1uested on his own initiative the five e7a"iners concerned to re evaluate the five noteboo8s of Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, that eventually resulted in the increase of Ialan!@s avera!e fro" //.,.T to the passin! !rade 6(.%.T, or a total increase of ei!ht :=; wei!hted points, "ore or less, that enabled Ialan! to hurdle the %'6% Bar e7a"inations via a resolution of the Court "a8in! 6(T the passin! avera!e for that year@s e7a"ination without any !rade below fifty percent :.-T; in any sub9ect. Ialan! thereafter too8 his lawyer@s oath. 3t is li8ewise beyond dispute that he had no authority fro" the Court or the Co""ittee to initiate such steps towards the said re evaluation of the answers of Ialan! or of other e7a"inees. >enyin! that he "ade representations to the e7a"iners concerned that respondent Ialan! failed only in their respective sub9ects andKor was on the borderline of passin!, Respondent +anuevo sou!ht to 9ustify his actuations on the authority of the afore1uoted para!raph ( of the Confidential Me"orandu":E7hs. % and % A +anuevo, Ad". Cases Nos. %%/, * %%/(, p. .%, Ad". Case No. %%/,0 Dol. D33, p. (, rec.; distributed to the "e"bers of the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee. Ce "aintains that he acted in !ood faith and 2in his honest belief that the sa"e "erited re evaluation0 that in doin! so, it was not his intention to forsa8e or betray the trust reposed in hi" as BarConfidant but on the contrary to do 9ustice to the e7a"inee concerned0 and that neither did he act in a presu"ptuous "anner because the "atter of whether or not re evaluation was in order was left alone to the e7a"iners@ decision ...2 :E7h. , +anuevo, Ad". Case No. %%/,, pp. &. &6, rec.;. But as openly ad"itted by hi" in the course of the investi!ation, the said confidential "e"orandu" was intended solely for the e7a"iners to !uide the" in the initial correction of the e7a"ination papers and never as a basis for hi" to even su!!est to the e7a"iners the re evaluation of the e7a"ination papers of the e7a"inees :Dol. D33, p. ,&, rec.;. Any such su!!estion or re1uest is not only presu"ptuous but also offensive to the nor"s of delicacy. Be believe the E7a"iners E Pablo, Manalo, Montecillo, To"acru5, Pardo and Pa"atian E whose declarations on the "atter of the "isrepresentations and deceptions co""itted by respondent +anuevo, are clear and consistent as well as corroborate each other. Aor indeed the facts unfolded by the declarations of the respondents e7a"iners :Ad". Case No. %%/(; and clarified by e7tensive cross e7a"ination conducted durin! the investi!ation and

hearin! of the cases show how respondent +anuevo adroitly "aneuvered the passin! of e7a"inee Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan! in the %'6% Bar E7a"inations. 3t is patent li8ewise fro" the records that respondent +anuevo too undue advanta!e of the trust and confidence reposed in hi" by the Court and the E7a"iners i"plicit in his position as BarConfidant as well as the trust and confidence that prevailed in and characteri5ed his relationship with the five "e"bers of the %'6% Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee, who were thus deceived and induced into re evaluatin! the answers of onl5respondent Ialan! in five sub9ects that resulted in the increase of his !rades therein, ulti"ately enablin! hi" to be ad"itted a "e"ber of the Philippine Bar. 3t was plain, si"ple and un"iti!ated deception that characteri5ed respondent +anuevo@s well studied and well calculated "oves in successively representin! separately to each of the five e7a"iners concerned to the effect that the e7a"inee failed only in his particular sub9ect andKor was on the borderline of passin!. To repeat, the before the unauthori5ed re evaluations were "ade, Ialan! failed in the five :.; "a9or sub9ects and in two :,; "inor sub9ects while his !eneral avera!e was only //.,.T E which under no circu"stances or standard could it be honestly clai"ed that the e7a"inee failed only in one, or he was on the borderline of passin!. 3n fact, before the first noteboo8 of Ialan! was referred bac8 to the e7a"iner concerned for re evaluation, Ialan! had only one passin! "ar8 and this was in +e!al Ethics and Practical E7ercises, a "inor sub9ect, with !rade of =%T. The avera!es and individual !rades of Ialan! before and after the unauthori5ed re evaluation are as follows) )7I %. Political +aw Public 3nternational +aw /=T 6=T V %- pts. or &- wei!hted points )7I +abor +aws and #ocial +e!islations /6T /6T V no re evaluation "ade. ,. Civil +aw /(T 6.T V % points or && wei!hted points. Ta7ation 6(T 6(T V no re evaluation "ade. &. Mercantile +aw /%T 6%T V %- pts. or &- wei!hted points. (. Cri"inal +aw /(T 6.T V %% pts. or ,, wei!hted points. .. Re"edial +aw /&.6.T :/(; 6...T :6.T; V %% pts. or (( wei!hted points. +e!al Ethics and Practical E7ercises =%T =%T V no re evaluation "ade. EEEEEEEEEEEE

Ieneral Bei!hted Avera!es //.,.T 6(.%.T Cence, by the si"ple e7pedient of initiatin! the re evaluation of the answers of Ialan! in the five :.; sub9ects under the circu"stances already narrated, Ialan!@s ori!inal avera!e of //.,.T was increased to 6(.%.T or an increase of 6.' wei!hted points, to the !reat da"a!e and pre9udice of the inte!rity of the Bar e7a"inations and to the disadvanta!e of the other e7a"inees. Ce did this in favor only of e7a"inee Ialan!, with the possible addition of e7a"inees Ernesto ?uitale! and Alfredo Ty dela Cru5. But only one noteboo8 was re evaluated for each of the latter who E Political +aw and Public 3nternational +aw for ?uitale! and Mercantile +aw for Ty dela Cru5. The <ffice of the Bar Confidant, it "ust be stressed, has absolutely nothin! to do in the re evaluation or reconsideration of the !rades of e7a"inees who fail to "a8e the passin! "ar8 before or after their noteboo8s are sub"itted to it by the E7a"iners. After the corrected noteboo8s are sub"itted to hi" by the E7a"iners, his only function is to tally the individual !rades of every e7a"inee in all sub9ects ta8en and thereafter co"pute the !eneral avera!e. That done, he will then prepare a co"parative data showin! the percenta!e of passin! and failin! in relation to a certain avera!e to be sub"itted to the Co""ittee and to the Court and on the basis of which the Court will deter"ine the passin! avera!e, whether 6. or 6( or 6&, etc. The Bar Confidant has no business evaluatin! the answers of the e7a"inees and cannot assu"e the functions of passin! upon the appraisal "ade by the E7a"iners concerned. Ce is not the over all E7a"iner. Ce cannot presu"e to 8now better than the e7a"iner. Any re1uest for re evaluation should be done by the e7a"inee and the sa"e should be addressed to the Court, which alone can validly act thereon. A Bar Confidant who ta8es such initiative, e7poses hi"self to suspicion and thereby co"pro"ises his position as well as the i"a!e of the Court. Respondent +anuevo@s clai" that he was "erely doin! 9ustice to Ialan! without any intention of betrayin! the trust and confidence reposed in hi" by the Court as Bar Confidant, can hardly invite belief in the fact of the incontrovertible fact that he sin!led out Ialan!@s papers for re evaluation, leavin! out the papers of "ore than ninety :'-; e7a"inees with far better avera!es ran!in! fro" 6-T to 6&.'T of which he was fully aware :Dol. D3, pp. (/ (6, %-%, rec.;, which could be "ore properly clai"ed as borderline cases. This fact further betrays respondent +anuevo@s clai" of absolute !ood faith in referrin! bac8 the papers of Ialan! to the E7a"iners for re evaluation. Aor certainly, as a!ainst the ori!inal wei!hted avera!e of //.,.T of Ialan!, there can hardly be any dispute that the cases of the aforesaid "ore than ninety :'-; e7a"inees were "ore deservin! of reconsideration. Cence, in tryin! to do 9ustice to Ialan!, as clai"ed by respondent +anuevo, !rave in9ustice was inflicted on the other e7a"inees of the %'6% Bar e7a"inations, especially the said "ore than ninety candidates. And the une7plained failure of respondent +anuevo to apprise the Court or the Co""ittee or even the Bar Chair"an of the fact of re evaluation before or after the said re evaluation and increase of !rades, precludes, as the sa"e is inconsistent with, any pretension of !ood faith. Cis re1uest for the re evaluation of the noteboo8 in Political +aw and 3nternational +aw of Ernesto ?uitale! and the noteboo8 in Mercantile +aw of Alfredo Ty dela Cru5 to !ive his actuations in the case of Ialan! a se"blance of i"partiality, hopin! that the over ninety e7a"inees who were far better situated than Ialan! would not !ive hi" away. Even the re evaluation of one noteboo8 of ?uitale! and one noteboo8 of Ty dela Cru5 violated the a!ree"ent of the "e"bers of the %'6% Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee to re evaluate when the e7a"inee concerned fails only in one sub9ect. ?uitale! and Ty dela Cru5 failed in four :(; and three :&; sub9ects respectively E as hereinafter shown. The stran!e story concernin! the fi!ures '.(, the office code nu"ber !iven to Ialan!@s noteboo8, unveiled for the first ti"e by respondent +anuevo in his suple"ental sworn state"ent:E7h. & +anuevo, Ad". Case No. %%/,, pp. (. (6. rec.; filed durin! the investi!ation with this Court as to why he pried into the papers of Ialan! deserves scant consideration. 3t only

serves to picture a "an desperately clutchin! at straws in the wind for support. Aurther"ore, it was revealed by respondent +anuevo for the first ti"e only on Au!ust ,6, %'6& or a period of "ore than five '.; "onths after he filed his answer on March %', %'6&:E7h. , +anuevo, Ad". Case No. %%/,, pp. &. &/, rec.;, showin! that it was 9ust an after thou!ht. B REAERRA+ <A ELAM3NEE A+ARE>< TJ >E+A CR4U N<TEB<<M 3N MERCCANT3+E +AB T< RA3#E C3# IRA>E <A (6T T< .-T T< ELAM3NER MAN4E+ M<NTEC3++< AN> <A ELAM3NEE ERNE#T< ?43TA+EI@# N<TEB<<M 3N P<+3T3CA+ +AB T< ELAM3NER BERNAR>< PAR>< A<R RE EDA+4AT3<N, RE#4+T3NI 3N TCE 3NCREA#E <A C3# IRA>E 3N TCAT #4B$ECT AR<M .6T T< //T. +i8ewise, respondent Dictorio >. +anuevo ad"itted havin! referred bac8 the aforesaid noteboo8s on Mercantile +aw and Political +aw respectively of Alfredo Ty dela Cru5 and Ernesto ?uitale! to the E7a"iners concerned. The records are not clear, however, under what circu"stances the noteboo8s of Ty dela Cru5 and ?uitale! were referred bac8 to the E7a"iners concerned. Respondent +anuevo clai"ed that these two cases were officially brou!ht to the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee durin! its first "eetin! :Dol. D3, pp. .- .%, rec.; and the latter decided to refer the" bac8 to the E7a"iners concerned for re evaluation with respect to the case of ?uitale! and to re"ove the dis1ualification in the case of Ty dela Cru5:Dol. D3, pp. && &', =( =/, rec.;. Respondent +anuevo further clai"ed that the date of these two cases were contained in a sheet of paper which was presented at the said first "eetin! of the Co""ittee :Dol. D3, pp. &' (&, (' .%, rec.;. +i8ewise a record of the dates of every "eetin! of the Co""ittee was "ade by respondent +anuevo :Dol. D3, p. ,=, rec.;. The alle!ed sheet containin! the date of the two e7a"inees and record of the dates of the "eetin! of the Co""ittee were not presented by respondent +anuevo as, accordin! to hi", he left the" inadvertently in his des8 in the Confidential Roo" when he went on leave after the release of the Bar results :Dol. D3, pp. ,=, (% (., rec.;. 3t appears, however, that the inventory conducted by officials of the Court in the Confidential Roo" of respondent +anuevo did not yield any such sheet of record :E7h. L, Ad". Case No. %%/,, p. 6(, rec.0 Dol. D333, pp. %% %&, ,- ,,, ,' &%, rec.;. Respondent E7a"iner Montecillo, Mercantile +aw, "aintained that there was only one noteboo8 in Mercantile +aw which was officially brou!ht to hi" and this is substantiated by his personal file and record :Dol. D3, pp. &( &., rec.;. Accordin! to hi", this noteboo8@s e7a"iner code nu"ber is %/%& :Dol. D, p.&., rec.; and is owned by Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!. 3t appears, however, that the ori!inal !rade of (6T in Mercantile +aw of Ty dela Cru5 was chan!ed to .-T as appearin! in the cover of the noteboo8 of said e7a"inee and the chan!e is authenticated with the initial of E7a"iner Montecillo. Ce was present when respondent +anuevo presented in evidence the noteboo8 of Ty dela Cru5 bearin! E7a"iner code nu"ber '.% and <ffice Code Nu"ber %%- as E7hibit ' +anuevo in Ad"inistrative Case No. %%/,, and the fi!ures (6 crossed out, replaced by the fi!ures .- bearin! the initial of E7a"iner Montecillo as E7hibit ' a +anuevo :Ad". Case No. %%/,, p. (=, rec.0 Dol. D3, pp. ,& ,(, Dol. D333, p. (, rec.;0 but Atty. Montecillo did not interpose any ob9ection to their ad"ission in evidence. 3n this connection, respondent E7a"iner Pardo testified that he re"e"bers a case of an e7a"inee presented to the Co""ittee, who obtained passin! "ar8s in all sub9ects e7cept in one and the Co""ittee a!reed to refer bac8 to the E7a"iner concerned the noteboo8 in the sub9ect in which the e7a"inee failed :Dol. D, pp. %. %/, rec.;. Ce cannot recall the sub9ect, but he is certain that it was not Political +aw :Dol. D, p. %/, rec.;.Aurther, Pardo declared that he is not aware of any case of an e7a"inee who was on the borderline of passin! but who !ot a !rade below .-T in one sub9ect that was ta8en up by the Co""ittee :Dol. D, pp. %/ %6, rec.;.

E7a"iner Montecillo testified that it was the noteboo8 with E7a"iner Code Nu"ber %/%& :belon!in! to Ialan!; which was referred to the Co""ittee and the Co""ittee a!reed to return it to the E7a"iner concerned. The day followin! the "eetin! in which the case of an e7a"inee with Code Nu"ber %/%& was ta8en up, respondent +anuevo handed hi" said noteboo8 and he accordin!ly re evaluated it. This particular noteboo8 with <ffice Code Nu"ber '.( belon!s to Ialan!. E7a"iner To"acru5 recalled a case of an e7a"inee whose proble" was Mercantile +aw that was ta8en up by the Co""ittee. Ce is not certain of any other case brou!ht to the Co""ittee :Dol. D, pp. .' /%, rec.;. Pardo declared that there was no case of an e7a"inee that was referred to the Co""ittee that involved Political +aw. Ce re evaluated the answers of Ernesto ?uitale! in Political +aw upon the representation "ade by respondent +anuevo to hi". As heretofore stated, it was this consensus at the "eetin! on Aebruary =, %'6, of the "e"bers of the Co""ittee that where an e7a"inee failed in only one sub9ect and passed all the others, the E7a"iner in whose sub9ect the e7a"inee failed should re evaluate or rechec8 the noteboo8 :Dol. D, p. %/, rec.) E7h. , Pardo, alle!ation No. ', Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. /- /&, E7h. A Montecillo, Alle!ation No. ,, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. (- (%, and E7h. B Montecillo, Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. 6,, rec.;. At the ti"e the noteboo8 of Ernesto ?uitale! in Political +aw with a !rade of .6T was referred bac8 to E7a"iner Pardo, said e7a"inee had other failin! !rades in three :&; sub9ects, as follows) +abor +aws &T Ta7ation /'T Mercantile +aw /=T Ernesto ?uitale!@s !rades and avera!es before and after the re evaluation of his !rade in Political +aw are as follows) BA Political +aw .6T //T V ' pts. or ,6 wei!hted points +abor +aws 6&T 6&T V No reevaluation Civil +aw 6.T 6.T V 2 Ta7ation /'T /'T V 2 Mercantile +aw /=T /=T V 2 Cri"inal +aw 6=T 6=T V 2 Re"edial +aw =.T =.T V 2 +e!al Ethics =&T =&T V 2 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Avera!e :wei!hted; 6&.%.T 6(..T :Dol. D3, pp. ,/ ,60 E7hs. %- and %- A +anuevo, Ad". Case No. %%/,, rec.; Alfredo Ty dela Cru5, at the ti"e his noteboo8 in Mercantile +aw was referred to E7a"iner Montecillo to re"ove the dis1ualification !rade of (6T in said sub9ect, had two :,; other failin! !rades. These are)

Political +aw 6-T Ta7ation 6,T Cis !rades and avera!es before and after the dis1ualifyin! !rade was re"oved are as follows) BA Political +aw 6-T 6-T V No reevaluation +abor +aws 6.T 6.T V 2 Civil +aw ='T ='T V 2 Ta7ation 6,T 6,T V 2 Mercantile +aw (6T .-T V & pts. or ' wei!hted points Cri"inal +aw 6=T 6=T V no reevaluation Re"edial +aw ==T ==T V 2 +e!al Ethics 6'T 6'T V 2 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Bei!hted Avera!es 6(.'.T 6..(T :Dol. D3, pp. ,/ ,6, rec.;. The re evaluation of the answers of ?uitale! in Political +aw and the answers of Ty dela Cru5 in Mercantile +aw, violated the consensus of the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee in Aebruary, %'6%, which violation was due to the "isrepresentation of respondent +anuevo. 3t "ust be stated that the referral of the noteboo8 of Ialan! in Mercantile +aw to E7a"iner Montecillo can hardly be said to be covered by the consensus of the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee because even at the time of said referral, which was after the unauthori5ed re evaluation of his answers of four :(; sub9ects, Ialan! had still failin! !rades in Ta7ation and +abor +aws. Cis re evaluated !rade of 6(..T in Re"edial +aw was considered 6.T under the Confidential Me"orandu" and was so entered in the record. Cis !rade in Mercantile +aw as subse1uently re evaluated by E7a"iner Montecillo was 6%T. Respondent +anuevo is therefore !uilty of serious "isconduct E of havin! betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in hi" as Bar Confidant, thereby i"pairin! the inte!rity of the Bar e7a"inations and under"inin! public faith in the #upre"e Court. Ce should be disbarred. As to whether Ernesto ?uitale! and Alfredo Ty dela Cru5 should be disbarred or their na"es stric8en fro" the Roll of Attorneys, it is believed that they should be re1uired to show cause and the correspondin! investi!ation conducted. 333 Re) Ad"inistrative Case No. %%/&, Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, respondent. A The na"e of respondent Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, should li8ewise be stric8en off the Roll of Attorneys. This is a necessary conse1uence of the un authori5ed re evaluation of his answers in five:.; "a9or sub9ects E Civil +aw, Political and 3nternational +aw, Cri"inal +aw, Re"edial +aw, and Mercantile +aw.

The 9udicial function of the #upre"e Court in ad"ittin! candidates to the le!al profession, which necessarily involves the e7ercise of discretion, re1uires) :%; previous established rules and principles0 :,; concrete facts, whether past or present, affectin! deter"inate individuals0 and :&; a decision as to whether these facts are !overned by the rules and principles :3n re) Cunanan E Alun8ers@ Petition for Ad"ission to the Bar '( Phil. .&(, .(( .(.;. The deter"ination of whether a bar candidate has obtained the re1uired passin! !rade certainly involves discretion :+e!al and $udicial Ethics, $ustice Martin, %'/' ed., p. %&;. 3n the e7ercise of this function, the Court acts throu!h a Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee, co"posed of a "e"ber of the Court who acts as Chair"an and ei!ht :=; "e"bers of the Bar who act as e7a"iners in the ei!ht :=; bar sub9ects with one sub9ect assi!ned to each. Actin! as a sort of liaison officer between the Court and the Bar Chair"an, on one hand, and the individual "e"bers of the Co""ittee, on the other, is the Bar Confidant who is at the sa"e ti"e a deputy cler8 of the Court. Necessarily, every act of the Co""ittee in connection with the e7ercise of discretion in the ad"ission of e7a"inees to "e"bership of the Bar "ust be in accordance with the established rules of the Court and "ust always be sub9ect to the final approval of the Court. Bith respect to the Bar Confidant, whose position is pri"arily confidential as the desi!nation indicates, his functions in connection with the conduct of the Bar e7a"inations are defined and circu"scribed by the Court and "ust be strictly adhered to. The re evaluation by the E7a"iners concerned of the e7a"ination answers of respondent Ialan! in five :.; sub9ects, as already clearly established, was initiated by Respondent +anuevo without any authority fro" the Court, a serious breach of the trust and confidence reposed by the Court in hi" as Bar Confidant. Conse1uently, the re evaluation that enabled respondent Ialan! to pass the %'6% Bar e7a"inations and to be ad"itted to the Bar is a co"plete nullity. The Bar Confidant does not possess any discretion with respect to the "atter of ad"ission of e7a"inees to the Bar. Ce is not clothed with authority to deter"ine whether or not an e7a"inee@s answers "erit re evaluation or re evaluation or whether the E7a"iner@s appraisal of such answers is correct. And whether or not the e7a"inee benefited was in connivance or a privy thereto is i""aterial. Bhat is decisive is whether the proceedin!s or incidents that led to the candidate@s ad"ission to the Bar were in accordance with the rules. B #ection , of Rule %&= of the Revised Rules of Court of %'/(, in connection, a"on! others, with the character re1uire"ent of candidates for ad"ission to the Bar, provides that 2every applicant for ad"ission as a "e"ber of the Bar "ust be ... of !ood "oral character ... and "ust produce before the #upre"e Court satisfactory evidence of !ood "oral character, and that no char!es a!ainst hi" involvin! "oral turpitude, have been filed or are pendin! in any court in the Philippines.2 Prior to %'/(, or under the old Rules of Court, a bar applicant was re1uired to produce before the #upre"e Court satisfactory testi"onials of !ood "oral character :#ec. ,, Rule %,6;. 4nder both rules, every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his involve"ent in any cri"inal case, pendin! or otherwise ter"inated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain or deter"ine applicant@s "oral character. Aurther"ore, as to what cri"e involves "oral turpitude, is for the supre"e Court to deter"ine. Cence, the necessity of layin! before or infor"in! the Court of one@s personal record E whether he was cri"inally indicted, ac1uitted, convicted or the case dis"issed or is still pendin! E beco"es "ore co"pellin!. The for"s for application to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations provided by the #upre"e Court be!innin! the year %'/. re1uire the disclosure not only of cri"inal cases involvin! "oral turpitude filed or pendin! a!ainst the applicant but also of all other cri"inal cases of which he has been accused. 3t is of course true that the application for" used by respondent Ialan! when he too8 the Bar for the first ti"e in %'/, did not e7pressly re1uire the disclosure of the applicant@s cri"inal records, if any. But as already inti"ated, i"plicit in his tas8 to show satisfactory evidence or proof of !ood "oral character is his obli!ation to reveal to the Court all

his involve"ent in any cri"inal case so that the Court can consider the" in the ascertain"ent and deter"ination of his "oral character. And undeniably, with the applicant@s cri"inal records before it, the Court will be in a better position to consider the applicant@s "oral character0 for it could not be !ainsaid that an applicant@s involve"ent in any cri"inal case, whether pendin! or ter"inated by its dis"issal or applicant@s ac1uittal or conviction, has a bearin! upon his character or fitness for ad"ission to the Bar. 3n %'/& and %'/(, when respondent Ialan! too8 the Bar for the second and third ti"e, respectively, the application for" provided by the Court for use of applicants already re1uired the applicant to declare under oath that 2he has not been accused of, indicted for or convicted by any court or tribunal of any offense involvin! "oral turpitude0 and that there is no pendin! case of that nature a!ainst hi".2 By %'//, when Ialan! too8 the Bar e7a"inations for the fourth ti"e, the application for" prepared by the Court for use of applicants re1uired the applicant to reveal all his cri"inal cases whether involvin! "oral turpitude or not. 3n para!raph ( of that for", the applicant is re1uired under oath to declare that 2he has not been char!ed with any offense before a Aiscal, Municipal $ud!e, or other officer0 or accused of, indicted for or convicted by any court or tribunal of any cri"e involvin! "oral turpitude0 nor is there a pendin! case a!ainst hi"2 :Ad". Case No. %%/&, p. ./, rec.;. Jet, respondent Ialan! continued to intentionally withhold or conceal fro" the Court his cri"inal case of sli!ht physical in9uries which was then and until now is pendin! in the City Court of Manila0 and thereafter repeatedly o"itted to "a8e "ention of the sa"e in his applications to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations in %'/6, %'/' and %'6%. All told, respondent Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, is !uilty of fraudulently concealin! and withholdin! fro" the Court his pendin! cri"inal case for physical in9uries in %'/,, %'/&, %'/(, %'//, %'/6, %'/' and %'6%0 and in %'//, %'/6,%'/' and %'6%, he co""itted per9ury when he declared under oath that he had no pendin! cri"inal case in court. By falsely representin! to the Court that he had no cri"inal case pendin! in court, respondent Ialan! was allowed unconditionally to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations seven :6; ti"es and in %'6, was allowed to ta8e his oath. That the conceal"ent of an attorney in his application to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations of the fact that he had been char!ed with, or indicted for, an alle!ed cri"e, is a !round for revocation of his license to practice law is well E settled :see %/. A+R %%.%, 6 C$# 6(%;. Thus) F%G 3t re1uires no ar!u"ent to reach the conclusion that the respondent, in withholdin! fro" the board of law e7a"iners and fro" the 9ustice of this court, to who" he applied for ad"ission, infor"ation respectin! so serious a "atter as an indict"ent for a felony, was !uilty of fraud upon the court :cases cited;. F,G 3t is e1ually clear that, had the board of law e7a"iners, or the 9ud!e to who" he applied for ad"ission, been apprised of the true situation, neither the certificate of the board nor of the 9ud!e would have been forthco"in! :#tate e7 rel. Board of +aw E7a"iners v. Podell, ,-6 N E B E 6-' E 6%-;. The license of respondent Podell was revo8e and annulled, and he was re1uired to surrender to the cler8 of court the license issued to hi", and his na"e was stric8en fro" the roll of attorneys :p. 6%-;. +i8ewise in Re Carpel, it was declared that) F%G The power to ad"it to the bar on "otion is conferred in the discretion of the Appellate >ivision.@ 3n the e7ercise of the discretion, the court should be infor"ed truthfully and fran8ly of "atters tendin! to show the character of the applicant and his standin! at the bar of the state fro" which he co"es. The findin! of indict"ents a!ainst hi", one of which was still outstandin! at the ti"e of his "otion, were facts

which should have been sub"itted to the court, with such e7planations as were available. #ilence respectin! the" was reprehensible, as tendin! to deceive the court :%/. NJ#, %-,, %-(0 e"phasis supplied;. Carpel@s ad"ission to the bar was revo8ed :p. %-.;. Aurther"ore, respondent@s persistent denial of his involve"ent in any cri"inal case despite his havin! been apprised by the 3nvesti!ation of so"e of the circu"stances of the cri"inal case includin! the very na"e of the victi" in that case:he finally ad"itted it when he was confronted by the victi" hi"self, who was called to testify thereon;, and his continued failure for about thirteen years to clear his na"e in that cri"inal case up to the present ti"e, indicate his lac8 of the re1uisite attributes of honesty, probity and !ood de"eanor. Ce is therefore unworthy of beco"in! a "e"ber of the noble profession of law. Bhile this aspect of the investi!ation was not part of the for"al resolution of the Court re1uirin! hi" to e7plain why his na"e should not be stric8en fro" the Roll of Attorneys, respondent Ialan! was, as early as Au!ust, %'6&, apprised of his o"ission to reveal to the Court his pendin! cri"inal case. Jet he did not offer any e7planation for such o"ission. 4nder the circu"stances in which respondent Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, was allowed to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations and the hi!hly irre!ular "anner in which he passed the Bar, BE have no other alternative but to order the surrender of his attorney@s certificate and the stri8in! out of his na"e fro" the Roll of Attorneys. Aor as BE said in Re Aelipe del Rosario) The practice of the law is not an absolute ri!ht to be !ranted every one who de"ands it, but is a privile!e to be e7tended or withheld in the e7ercise of sound discretion. The standards of the le!al profession are not satisfied by conduct which "erely enables one to escape the penalties of the cri"inal law. 3t would be a dis!race to the $udiciary to receive one whose inte!rity is 1uestionable as an officer of the court, to clothe hi" with all the presti!e of its confidence, and then to per"it hi" to hold hi"self as a duly authori5ed "e"ber of the bar :citin! A"erican cases; F., Phil. &'' (-%G. Bhat BE now do with respondent Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, in this present case is not without any precedent in this 9urisdiction. BE had on several occasions in the past nullified the ad"ission of successful bar candidates to the "e"bership of the Bar on the !rounds, a"on! others, of :a;"isrepresentations of, or false pretenses relative to, the re1uire"ent on applicant@s educational attain"ent FTapel vs. Publico, resolution of the #upre"e Court stri8in! off the na"e of $uan T. Publico fro" the Roll of Attorneys on the basis of the findin!s of the Court 3nvesti!ators contained in their report and reco""endation, Aeb. ,&, %'/,0 3n re) Telesforo A. >iao, 6 #CRA (6. (6=0 :b; lac8 of !ood "oral character F3n re) Peralta, %-% Phil. &%& &%(G0 and :c; fraudulent passin! of the Bar e7a"inations FPeople vs. Ro"ualde5 re) +uis Mabunay, .6 Phil. %.%0 3n re) >el Rosario, ., Phil. &'' and People vs. Castro and >oe, .( Phil. (,G. 3n the cases of Ro"ualde5 :Mabunay; and Castro, the Court found that the !rades of Mabunay and Castro were falsified and they were convicted of the cri"e of falsification of public docu"ents. 3D RE) Ad"inistrative Case No. %%/(, Assistant #olicitor Ieneral Bernardo Pardo :now CA3 $ud!e;, $ud!e Ra"on Pa"atian:+ater Associate $ustice of the Court of Appeals, now deceased;Atty. Manuel I. Montecillo, Atty. Aidel Manalo, Atty. Manuel To"acru5 and Atty. Iuiller"o Pablo, $r., respondents.

All respondents Bar e7a"iners candidly ad"itted havin! "ade the re evaluation andKor re correction of the papers in 1uestion upon the "isrepresentation of respondent BarConfidant +anuevo. All, however, professed !ood faith0 and that they re evaluated or increased the !rades of the noteboo8s without 8nowin! the identity of the e7a"inee who owned the said noteboo8s0 and that they did the sa"e without any consideration or e7pectation of any. These the records clearly de"onstrate and BE are of the opinion and BE so declare that indeed the respondents e7a"iners "ade the re evaluation or re correcion in !ood faith and without any consideration whatsoever. Considerin! however the vital public interest involved in the "atter of ad"ission of "e"bers to the Bar, the respondents bar e7a"iners, under the circu"stances, should have e7ercised !reater care and caution and should have been "ore in1uisitive before accedin! to the re1uest of respondent Bar Confidant +anuevo. They could have as8ed the Chair"an of the Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee, who would have referred the "atter to the #upre"e Court. At least the respondents e7a"iners should have re1uired respondent +anuevo to produce or show the" the co"plete !rades andKor the avera!e of the e7a"inee represented by respondent +anuevo to have failed only in their respective and particular sub9ect andKor was on the borderline of passin! to fully satisfy the"selves that the e7a"inee concerned was really so circu"stances. This they could have easily done and the stain on the Bar e7a"inations could have been avoided. Respondent Bar e7a"iners Montecillo, Pa"atian, and Manalo clai"ed and so declared under oath that the answers of respondent Ialan! really deserved or "erited the increased !rades0 and so with respondent Pardo in connection with the re evaluation of Ernesto ?uitale!@s answers in Political +aw. Bith respect to respondents To"acru5 and Pablo, it would appear that they increased the !rades of Ialan! in their respective sub9ect solely because of the "isrepresentations of Respondent +anuevo. Cence, in the words of respondent To"acru5) 2Jou brou!ht to "e one paper and you said that this particular e7a"inee had al"ost passed, however, in "y sub9ect he received /- so"ethin!, 3 cannot re"e"ber the e7act avera!e and if he would !et a few points hi!her, he would !et a passin! avera!e. I agreed to do that because I did not 'ish to be the one causing his failure . ...2 :Dol. D, pp. /- /%, rec.0 see also alle!ations & and (, E7h. % To"acru5, Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. /', rec.0 e"phasis ours;. And respondent Pablo) 2... he told "e that this particular e7a"inee see"s to have passed in allot her sub9ect e7cept this sub9ect and that if 3 can re evaluate this e7a"ination noteboo8 and increase the "ar8 to at least 6., this particular e7a"inee will pass the bar e7a"inations so 3 believe 3 as8ed hi" @3s this bein! doneN@ and he said @Jes, that is the practice used to be done before to help out e7a"inees who are failin! in 9ust one sub9ect@ so 3 readily acceded to his re1uest and said @$ust leave it with "e and 3 will try to re evaluate@ and he left it with "e and what i did was to !o over the boo8 and tried to be as lenient as 3 could. While I did not mar correct the ans'ers 'hich 'ere 'rong6 'hat I did 'as to be more lenient and if the ans'ers 'as correct although it 'as not complete I raise the grade so I had a total of GJ instead of 4J and 'hat I did 'as to correct the grading sheet accordingl5 and initial the changes 2 :Dol. D, pp. (( (., rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. 3t could not be seriously denied, however, that the favorable re evaluations "ade by respondents Pa"atian, Montecillo, Manalo and Pardo notwithstandin! their declarations that the increases in !rades they !ave were deserved by the e7a"inee concerned, were to a certain e7tent influenced by the "isrepresentation and deception co""itted by respondent +anuevo. Thus in their own words) Montecillo E ? And by reason of that infor"ation you "ade the re evaluation of the paperN A Jeas, your Conor.

? Bould you have re evaluated the paper of your own accord in the absence of such infor"ationN A No, your Conor, because 3 have sub"itted "y report at that ti"e2 :Dol. D, p. &&, rec.0 see also alle!ations in para!raphs ,, &, ( * ., Affidavit of April %6, %'6,, E7h. B Montecillo0 alle!ation No. ,, Answer dated "arch %', %'6&, E7h. A Montecillo, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. ((%, and 6,, rec.;. Pa"atian E &. That so"eti"e in the later part of $anuary of this year, he brou!ht bac8 to "e an e7a"ination boo8let in Civil +aw for re evaluation because accordin! to hi" the owner of the paper is on the borderline and if 3 could reconsider his !rade to 6.T the candidate concerned will !et passin! "ar80 (. That ta8in! his word for it and under the belief that it was really the practice and policy of the #upre"e Court to do so and in the further belief that 3 was 9ust "anifestin! cooperation in doin! so, 3 re evaluated the paper and reconsidered the !rade to 6.T0 ...2 :E7h. , Pa"atian, Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. .., rec.;0 and .. That the above re evaluation was "ade in !ood faith and under the belief that 3 a" authori5ed to do so in view of the" is representation of said Atty. Dictorio +anuevo, ...2 :E7h. % Pa"atian, Ad". Case No. %%/(, pp. && &(, rec.;. Manalo E :c; 3n revisin! the !rade of the particular e7a"inee concerned, herein respondent carefully evaluated each and every answer written in the noteboo8. Testin! the answer by the criteria laid down by the Court, and !ivin! the said e7a"inee the benefit of the doubt in view of Mr. +anuevo@s representation that it was only in that particular sub9ect that said e7a"inee failed, herein respondent beca"e convinced that the said e7a"inee deserved a hi!her !rade than that previously !iven hi", but he did not deserve, in herein respondent@s honest appraisal, to be !iven the passin! !rade of 6.T. ...2:alle!ation . c, p. &=, E7h. % Manalo, rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. Pardo E ... 3 considered it entirely hu"anly possible to have erred, because 3 corrected that particular noteboo8 on >ece"ber &%,%'6%, considerin! especially the representation of the Bar Confidant that the said e7a"inee had obtained hi!her !rades in other sub9ects, the hi!hest of which was =(T in Re"edial +aw, if 3 recall correctly. ... :alle!ation 6, E7h. , Pardo, Ad". Case No. %%/(, p. /,, rec.0 e"phasis supplied;. Bith the "isrepresentations and the circu"stances utili5ed by respondent +anuevo to induce the herein e7a"iners to "a8e the re evaluation adverted to, no one a"on! the" can truly clai" that the re evaluation effected by the" was i"partial or free fro" any i"proper influence, their conceded inte!rity, honesty and co"petence notwithstandin!. Conse1uently, Ialan! cannot 9ustifiably clai" that he deserved the increased !rades !iven after the said re evaluations:Ialan!@s "e"o attached to the records, Ad". Case No. %%/&;.

At any rate, BE are convinced, in the li!ht of the e7planations of the respondents e7a"iners, which were earlier 1uoted in full, that their actuations in connection with the re evaluation of the answers of Ialan! in five :.; sub9ects do not warrant or deserve the i"position of any disciplinary action. BE find their e7planations satisfactory. Nevertheless, BE are constrained to re"ind herein respondents e7a"iners that their participation in the ad"ission of "e"bers to the Bar is one i"pressed with the hi!hest consideration of public interest E absolute purity of the proceedin!s E and so are re1uired to e7ercise the !reatest or ut"ost case and vi!ilance in the perfor"ance of their duties relative thereto. D Respondent Atty. Dictorio >. +anuevo, in his "e"orandu" filed on Nove"ber %(, %'6&, clai"ed that respondent e7a"iner Pa"atian 2in brin!in! up this unfounded cause, or lendin! undue assistance or support thereto ... was "otivated with vindictiveness due to respondent@s refusal to be pressured into helpin! his :e7a"iner@s; alle!ed friend E a participant in the %'6% Bar E7a"inations who" said e7a"iner na"ed as <scar +andicho and who, the records will show, did not pass said e7a"inations :p. ', +anuevo@s "e"o, Ad". Case No. %%/,;. 3t "ust be stated that this is a very serious char!e a!ainst the honor and inte!rity of the late $ustice Ra"on Pa"atian, who passed away on <ctober %=, %'6& and therefore cannot refute +anuevo@s insinuations. Respondent Dictorio >. +anuevo did not brin! this out durin! the investi!ation which in his words is 2essential to his defense. 2Cis pretension that he did not "a8e this char!e durin! the investi!ation when $ustice Pa"atian was still alive, and deferred the filin! of such char!e a!ainst $ustice Pa"atian and possibly also a!ainst <scar +andicho before the latter departed for Australia 2until this case shall have been ter"inated lest it be "isread or "isinterpreted as bein! intended as a levera!e for a favorable outco"e of this case on the part of respondent or an act of reprisal2, does not invite belief0 because he does not i"pu!n the "otives of the five other "e"bers of the %'6% Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee, who also affir"ed that he deceived the" into re evaluatin! or revisin! the !rades of respondent Ialan! in their respective sub9ects. 3t appears, however, that after the release of the results of the %'6% Bar e7a"inations, <scar +andicho, who failed in that e7a"inations, went to see and did see Civil +aw e7a"iner Pa"atian for the purpose of see8in! his help in connection with the %'6% Bar E7a"inations. E7a"iner Pa"atian advised +andicho to see the Chair"an of the %'6% Bar E7a"ination Co""ittee. E7a"iner Pa"atian "entioned in passin! to +andicho that an e7a"ination boo8let was re evaluated by hi" :Pa"atian; before the release of the said bar results :Dol. D, pp. / 6, rec;. Even thou!h such infor"ation was divul!ed by respondent Pa"atian after the official release of the bar results, it re"ains an indecorous act, hardly e7pected of a "e"ber of the $udiciary who should e7hibit restraint in his actuations de"anded by resolute adherence to the rules of delicacy. Cis unsee"ly act tended to under"ine the inte!rity of the bar e7a"inations and to i"pair public faith in the #upre"e Court. D3 The investi!ation failed to unearth direct evidence that the ille!al "achination of respondent +anuevo to enable Ialan! to pass the %'6% Bar e7a"inations was co""itted for valuable consideration. A There are, however, ac1uisitions "ade by Respondent +anuevo i""ediately after the official release of the %'6% Bar e7a"inations in Aebruary, %'6,, which "ay be out of proportion to his salary as Bar Confidant and >eputy Cler8 of Court of the #upre"e Court.

%. <n April ., %'6,, respondent +anuevo and his wife ac1uired fro" the BA Co"es, 3nc. a house and lot with an area of &6( s1uare "eters, "ore or less, for the a"ount of P=(,%%(.--. The deed of sale was dated March ., %'6, but was notari5ed only on April ., %'6,. <n the sa"e date, however, respondent +anuevo and his wife e7ecuted two :,;"ort!a!es coverin! the said house and lot in favor of BA Co"es, 3nc. in the total a"ount of P/6,,'%.,- :Airst "ort!a!e E P.=,=6'.=-, Entry No. '-'%&) date of instru"ent E 7pril H6 *DG3, date of inscription E 7pril 3O6 *DG3) #econd "ort!a!e E P=,(%%.(-, Entry No. '-'%() date of instru"ent E 7pril H6 *DG3, date of inscription E 7pril 3O6 *DG3;. F> , to > (, Dol. 333, rec.G. Respondent +anuevo paid as down pay"ent the a"ount of only P%6,---.--, which accordin! to hi" is e1uivalent to ,-T, "ore or less, of the purchase price of P=(,%%(.--. Respondent +anuevo clai"ed that P.,---.-- of the P%6,---.-- was his savin!s while the re"ainin! the P%,,---.-- ca"e fro" his sister in <8inawa in the for" of a loan and received by hi" throu!h a niece before Christ"as of %'6% in dollars :W,---; FDol. D33, pp. (% (=0 Dol. D333, pp. , &, rec.G 3t appears, however, that his alle!ed 2H6OOO.OO savings and 2*36OOO.OO loan from his sister0 are not fully reflected and accounted for in respondent@s *DG* Statement of 7ssets and %iabilities 'hich hefiled on $anuary %6, %'6,. 3n said %'6% state"ent, respondent +anuevo listed under Assets a ban8 deposit in the a"ount of only P,,---.--. 3n his %'6, state"ent, his ban8 deposit listed under Assets was in the a"ount of P%,-%%.--, which shows therefore that of the P,,---.-ban8 deposit listed in his %'6% state"ent under Assets, only the a"ount of P'='.-was used or withdrawn. The a"ount of P%=,---.-- receivable listed under Assets in his %'6% statement was not reali5ed because the transaction therein involved did not push throu!h :#tate"ent of Assets and +iabilities of respondent +anuevo fro" %'/. to %'6,0 Dol. D333, pp. (6 (=, rec.;. +i8ewise, the alle!ed >ece"ber, %'6% W,--- loan of respondent fro" his "arried sister in <8inawa is e7tre"ely doubtful. 3n the first place, said a"ount of W,--:P%,,---.--; is not reflected in his *DG*Statement of 7ssets and %iabilities filed on $anuary %6, %'6,. #econdly, the alle!ed note which he alle!edly received fro" his sister at the ti"e he received the W,-- was not even presented by respondent durin! the investi!ation. And accordin! to Respondent +anuevo hi"self, while he considered this a loan, his sister did not seriously consider it as one. 3n fact, no "ode or ti"e of pay"ent was a!reed upon by the". And further"ore, durin! the investi!ation, respondent +anuevo pro"ised to furnish the 3nvesti!ator the address of his sister in <8inawa. #aid pro"ise was not fulfilled as borne out by the records. Considerin! that there is no showin! that his sister, who has a fa"ily of her own, is a"on! the top earners in <8inawa or has saved a lot of "oney to !ive to hi", the conclusion, therefore, that the 2*G6OOO.OO of respondent +anuevo was either an ill !otten or undeclared inco"e is inevitable under the fore!oin! circu"stances. <n 7ugust *E6 *DG3, respondent +anuevo and his wife "ort!a!ed their BA Co"es house and lot to the I#3# for the a"ount of P/.,---.-- :Entry No. ('',) 7ugust *E6 *DG3 E date of instru"ent07ugust 3F6 *DG3 E date of inscription;. <n Februar5 3J6 *DGF, the second mortgage in favor of )F $omes6 :ntr5 #o. DOD*E , was redee"ed by respondent and was subse1uently cancelled on March ,-,%'6&, Entry No. &-%(&. #ubse1uently, or on March ,, %'6& the first "ort!a!e in favor of BA Co"es, Entry No. '-'%& was also redee"ed by respondent +anuevo and thereafter cancelled on9arch 3O6 *DGF, :#ee > , to > (, Dol. 333, rec.;. Cence, only the "ort!a!e in favor of I#3# re"ains as the encu"brance of respondent@s house and lot. Accordin! to respondent +anuevo, the "onthly a"orti5ation of the I#3# "ort!a!e is P66=.-- a

"onth, but that since 9a5 of *DGF, he was unable to pay the sa"e. 3n his *DG3 Statement of 7ssets and %iabilities, which he filed in connection with his resi!nation and retire"ent :filed October *F6 *DG3;, the house and lot declared as part of his assets, were valued at P6.,6./.'-. +isted, however, as an ite" in his liabilities in the sa"e state"ent was the I#3# real estate loan in the a"ount of 24E63OO.OO :%'6, #tate"ent of Assets and +iabilities;. ,. +isted as an asset in his *DG3 Statement of 7ssets and %iabilities is a *DH4 =W car valued at2H63OO.OO. That he ac1uired this car so"eti"e between $anuary, %'6, and Nove"ber, %'6, could be inferred fro" the fact that no such car or any car was listed in his state"ent of assets and liabilities of %'6% or in the years previous to %'/.. 3t appears, however, that his listed total assets6 e/cluding receivables in his *DG* Statement 'as 2*D6OOO.OO , while in his %'6, :as of Nove"ber, %'6,; #tate"ent, his listed total assets, e/cluding the house and lot was P%=,,%%.--, including the said *DH4 =W car worth P.,,--.--. The pro7i"ity in point of ti"e between the official release of the %'6% Bar e7a"inations and the ac1uisition of the above "entioned properties, tends to lin8 or tie up the said ac1uisitions with the ille!al "achination co""itted by respondent +anuevo with respect to respondent Ialan!@s e7a"ination papers or to show that the "oney used by respondent +anuevo in the ac1uisition of the above properties ca"e fro" respondent Ialan! in consideration of his passin! the Bar. >urin! the early sta!e of this investi!ation but after the Court had infor"ed respondent +anuevo of the serious irre!ularities in the %'6% Bar e7a"inations alle!ed in <scar +andicho@s Confidential +etter and in fact, after Respondent +anuevo had filed on 7pril *36 *DG3 his sworn state"ent on the "atter, as ordered by the Court, respondent +anuevo surprisin!ly filed his letter or resi!nation on <ctober %&, %'6, with the end in view of retirin! fro" the Court. Cis resi!nation before he was re1uired to show cause on March ., %'6& but after he was infor"ed of the said irre!ularities, is indicative of a consciousness of !uilt. 3t "ust be noted that i""ediately after the official release of the results of the %'6% Bar e7a"inations, respondent +anuevo went on vacation and sic8 leave fro" March %/, %'6, to $anuary %., %'6&, obtainin! the case value thereof in lu"p su" in the a"ount of P%%,---.--. Ce initially clai"ed at the investi!ation that h e used a part thereof as a down pay"ent for his BA Co"es house and lot :Dol. D33, pp. (- (=, rec.;, which he bou!ht on April ., %'6,. Cri"inal proceedin!s "ay be instituted a!ainst respondent +anuevo under #ection & :a * e; in relation to #ection ' of Republic Act No. %&6' :Anti Iraft +aw; for) :a; Persuadin! inducin! or influencin! another public officer to perfor" an act constitutin! a violation of rules and re!ulations duly pro"ul!ated by co"petent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowin! hi"self to be presented, induced, or influenced to co""it such violation or offense. 777 777 777 :e; Causin! any undue in9ury to any party, includin! the Iovern"ent, or !ivin! any private party any unwarranted benefits, advanta!e or preference in the dischar!e of his official ad"inistrative or 9udicial functions throu!h "anifest partiality, evidence bad faith or !ross ine7cusable ne!li!ence. This provision shall apply to officers and e"ployees of offices or !overn"ent corporations char!ed with the !rant of licenses or per"its or other concessions.

#ection = of said Republic Act No. &-%' authori5es the dis"issal or re"oval of a public officer once it is deter"ined that his property or "oney 2is "anifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or e"ployee and to his other lawful inco"e and the inco"e fro" le!iti"ately ac1uired property ... 2 :#ec. ,, Rep. Act %&6'0 #ec. =, Rep. Act &-%';. 3t should be stressed, however, that respondent +anuevo@s afore"entioned #tate"ents of Assets and +iabilities were not presented or ta8en up durin! the investi!ation0 but they were e7a"ined as they are part of the records of this Court. B There are li8ewise circu"stances indicatin! possible contacts between respondent Ra"on E. Ialan! andKor his father and respondent Dictorio >. +anuevo before the latter beco"e the bar Confidant. %. Respondent Ra"on E. Ialan! was a beneficiary of the I.3 Bill of Ri!hts educational pro!ra" of the Philippine Deterans Board fro" his hi!h school days E *DH* to *DHH E up to his pre law studies at the M+? Educational 3nstitution :now M+? 4niversity; E *DHH to *DHJ. Aro" %'(= to %'.=, respondent Dictorio >. +anuevo was connected with the Philippine Deterans Board which is the !overn"ental a!ency entrusted with the affairs of our veterans includin! the i"ple"entation of the Deterans Bill of Ri!hts. Aro" *DHH to *DHJ, Respondent +anuevo successively held the position of $unior 3nvesti!ator, Deterans Clai"s 3nvesti!ator, #upervisin! Deterans 3nvesti!ator and Deterans Clai"s 3nvesti!ator :#ervice Record, p. ', Ad". Case No. %%/,;. >urin! that period of ti"e, therefore, respondent +anuevo had direct contacts with applicants and beneficiaries of the Deterans Bill of Ri!hts. Ialan!@s educational benefits was approved on 9arch *46 *DHE, retroactive as of the date of waiver EJul5 F*6 *DH*, which is also the date of filin! :A, Dol. 3D, rec.;. 3t is alle!ed by respondent Ra"on E. Ialan! that it was his father who all the ti"e attended to the avail"ent of the said educational benefits and even when he was already in Manila ta8in! up his pre law at M+? Educational 3nstitution fro" *DHH to *DHJ. 3n %'.., respondent Ialan! was already %' years old, and fro" %'.6 to %'.=, he was e"ployed as a technical assistant in the office of #enator Roy :Dol. D, pp. 6' =-, =/ =6, rec.;.F#ubse1uently, durin! the investi!ation, he clai"ed that he was the private secretary of #enator Puyat in %'.6 :Dol. D3, pp. %, %&, rec.;G. 3t appears, however, that a copy of the notice letter dated $une ,=, %'.. of the Philippine Deterans Board to the M+? Educational 3nstitution on the approval of the transfer of respondent Ialan! fro" #ta. Rita 3nstitute to the M+? Educational 3nstitution effective the first se"ester of the school year *DHH!H4 was directly addressed and furnished to respondent Ra"on E. Ialan! at ,,', 3nt. = Banal #t., Tondo, Manila :A %,, Dol. 3D, rec.;. Respondent Ra"on E. Ialan! further declared that he never went to the <ffice of the Philippine Deterans to follow up his educational benefits and clai"ed that he does not even 8now the location of the said office. Ce does not also 8now whether beneficiaries of the I.3. Bill of Ri!hts educational benefits are re1uired to !o to the Philippine Deterans Board every se"ester to sub"it their ratin!s :Dol. D, p. =/, rec.;. But respondent Ialan! ad"its that he had !one to the I#3# and City Court of Manila, althou!h he insists that he never bothered to ta8e a loo8 at the nei!hborin! buildin!s :Dol. D, pp. '& '(, rec.;. The hu!e and i"posin! Philippine Deterans Buildin! is beside the I#3# buildin! and is obli1uely across the City Court buildin!. ,. Respondent +anuevo stated that as an investi!ator in the Philippine Deterans Board, he investi!ated clai"s for the several benefits !iven to veterans li8e educational benefits and disability benefits0 that he does not re"e"ber, however, whether in the course of his duties as veterans investi!ator, he ca"e across the application of Ra"on E. Ialan! for educational

benefits0 and that he does not 8now the father of Mr. Ra"on E. Ialan! and has never "et hi" :Dol. D33, pp. ,=, (', rec.;. &. Respondent +anuevo, as a "e"ber of the 8S7F::6 belonged to the D*st Infantr5 operating at ?ambales and then Cabanatuan6 #ueva :ci0a6 shortl5 before the 'ar :Dol. D33, pp. (= (', rec.;. +ater he 9oined the !uerrilla "ove"ent in #a"ar. Ce used to be a "e"ber of the Philippine Deterans +e!ion especially while wor8in! with the Philippine Deterans Board:Dol. D33, p. (', rec.;. Ce does not 8now the Banal Re!i"ent of the !uerrillas, to which Ialan!@s father belon!ed. >urin! the $apanese occupation, his !uerrilla outfit was operatin! in #a"ar only and he had no co""unications with other !uerrilla or!ani5ation in other parts of the country. Ce attended "eetin!s of the Philippine Deterans +e!ion in his chapter in #a"ar only and does not re"e"ber havin! attended its "eetin! here in Manila, even while he was e"ployed with the Philippine Deterans Board. Ce is not a "e"ber of the >efenders of Bataan and Corre!idor :Dol. D33, p..%, rec.;. <n Nove"ber ,6, %'(%, while respondent +anuevo was with the Philippine Ar"y stationed at Ca"p Manacnac, Cabanatuan, Nueva Eci9a, he was stric8en with pneu"onia and was hospitali5ed at the Nueva Eci9a Provincial Cospital as a result and was still confined there when their ca"p was bo"bed and strafed by $apanese planes on >ece"ber %&, %'(% :#worn state"ent of respondent +anuevo dated Au!ust ,6, %'6&, Ad". Case No. %%/,, p. (/, rec.;. Ier"an Ialan!, father of respondent Ialan!, was a "e"ber of the Banal Iuerilla Aorces, otherwise 8nown as the Banal Re!i"ent. Ce was co""issioned and inducted as a "e"ber thereof on $anuary %/, %'(, and was !iven the ran8 of first lieutenant. Cis unit 2was attached and served into the L3 Corps, 4# Ar"y0 L333 C 4# Ar"y, (&rd >iv., 4# Ar"y, stationed head1uarters at Sta. "osa, Nueva Eci9a and with the &=th >ivision, 4# ar"y stationed at Corre!idor in the "oppin! up operations a!ainst the ene"ies, fro" ' May %'(. date of reco!nition to &% >ece"ber %'(., date of de"obili5ation2:Affidavit of $ose Banal dated >ece"ber ,,, %'(6, Dol. 3D, A &, rec.;. 3t should be stressed that once the bar e7a"iner has sub"itted the corrected noteboo8s to the Bar Confidant, the sa"e cannot be withdrawn for any purpose whatsoever without prior authority fro" the Court. Conse1uently, this Court e7presses herein its stron! disapproval of the actuations of the bar e7a"iners in Ad"inistrative Case No. %%/( as above delineated. BCEREA<RE, 3N A>M3N3#TRAT3DE CA#E N<. %%/,, RE#P<N>ENT D3CT<R3< >. +AN4ED< 3# CEREBJ >3#BARRE> AN> C3# NAME <R>ERE> #TR3CMEN AR<M TCE R<++ <A ATT<RNEJ#0 AN> 3N A>M3N3#TRAT3DE CA#E N<. %%/&, RE#P<N>ENT RAM<N E. IA+ANI, alias Ro"an E. IA+ANI, 3# CEREBJ +3MEB3#E >3#BARRE> AN> C3# NAME A+#< <R>ERE> #TR3CMEN AR<M TCE R<++ <A ATT<RNEJ#. I& r. La&1.Co %/07,-%3N RE) D3CT<R3< >. +AN4ED< A.M. No. %%/, Au!ust ,', %'6. Aacts)

This is a disbar"ent "atter with re!ards to Attorney Dictorio +anuevo, the Bar Confidant for the %'6% Bar E7a"inations. #upre"e Court received a confidential letter that spea8s of the e7a" noteboo8s of a e7a"inee na"ed Ra"on Ialan! who has been re evaluated and re corrected such that he hurdled the Bar E7a"s and was ad"itted to the Bar. +anuevo ad"itted havin! brou!ht the five e7a"ination noteboo8s of Ra"on E. Ialan! bac8 to the respective e7a"iners for re evalution or re chec8in!. The five e7a"iners ad"itted havin! re evaluated or re chec8ed the noteboo8 to hi" by the Bar Confidant, statin! that he has the authority to do the sa"e and that the e7a"inee concerned failed only in his particular sub9ect and was on the borderline of passin!. Ra"on Ialan! was able to pass the %'6% bar e7a" because of +anuevoRs "ove but the e7a" results bears that he failed in . sub9ects na"ely in :Political, Civil, Mercantile, Cri"inal * Re"edial;. Ialan! on the otherhand, denied of havin! char!ed of #li!ht Physical 3n9uries on Eufrosino de Dera, a law student of M+?4. The five e7a"iners were led by +anuevo to believe that it is the Bar Co""itteeRs re!ular activity that when an e7a"inee has failed in one sub9ect alone, the rest he passed, the e7a"iner in that sub9ect which he flun8ed will review his e7a" noteboo8. Afterwards, +anuevo !ained possession of few properties, includin! that of a house in BA Co"es, which was never declared in his declaration of assets and liabilities. 3ssue) B<N +anuevo was !uilty of defraudin! the e7a"iners such that Ialan! passed the BarN JE# Celd) 3t was plain, si"ple and un"iti!ated deception that characteri5ed respondent +anuevoRs well studied and well calculated "oves in successively representin! separately to each of the five e7a"iners concerned to the effect that the e7a"inee failed only in his particular sub9ect andKor was on the borderline of passin!. To repeat, the before the unauthori5ed re evaluations were "ade, Ialan! failed in the five :.; "a9or sub9ects and in two :,; "inor sub9ectsE which under no circu"stances or standard could it be honestly clai"ed that the e7a"inee failed only in one, or he was on the borderline of passin!. The Bar Confidant has absolutely nothin! to do in the re evaluation or reconsideration of the !rades of e7a"inees who fail to "a8e the passin! "ar8 before or after their noteboo8s are sub"itted to it by the E7a"iners. The Bar Confidant has no business evaluatin! the answers of the e7a"inees and cannot assu"e the functions of passin! upon the appraisal "ade by the E7a"iners concerned. Ce is not the over all E7a"iner. Ce cannot presu"e to 8now better than the e7a"iner. A# T< IA+ANIR# CR3M CA#E) The conceal"ent of an attorney in his application to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations of the fact that he had been char!ed with, or indicted for, an alle!ed cri"e, is a !round for revocation of his license to practice law is well E settled. The practice of the law is not an absolute ri!ht to be !ranted every one who de"ands it, but is a privile!e to be e7tended or withheld in the e7ercise of sound discretion. The standards of the le!al profession are not satisfied by conduct which "erely enables one to escape the penalties of the cri"inal law. 4nder the circu"stances in which respondent Ra"on E. Ialan!, alias Ro"an E. Ialan!, was allowed to ta8e the Bar e7a"inations and the hi!hly irre!ular "anner in which he passed the Bar, BE have no other alternative but to order the surrender of his attorneyRs certificate and the stri8in! out of his na"e fro" the Roll of Attorneys.

>EC3#3<N) +anuevo disbarred, Ialan! stric8en fro" the Roll of Attorneys. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC !.R. No. L-12424 ./r1ar7 14, 19=9

PHILIPPINE LA8)ER<S ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. CELEDONIO A!RA;A, %& h%3 ca#ac%'7 a3 D%r.c'or o: 'h. Ph%$%##%&.3 Pa'.&' O::%c., respondent. 7rturo 7. 7lafri< for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General 7mbrosio 2adilla and Solicitor 2acifico 2. de Castro for respondent. MONTEMA)OR, J.+ This is the petition filed by the Philippine +awyer@s Association for prohibition and in9unction a!ainst Celedonio A!rava, in his capacity as >irector of the Philippines Patent <ffice. <n "ay ,6, %'.6, respondent >irector issued a circular announcin! that he had scheduled for $une ,6, %'.6 an e7a"ination for the purpose of deter"inin! who are 1ualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent <ffice, the said e7a"ination to cover patent law and 9urisprudence and the rules of practice before said office. Accordin! to the circular, "e"bers of the Philippine Bar, en!ineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical trainin! are 1ualified to ta8e the said e7a"ination. 3t would appear that heretofore, respondent >irector has been holdin! si"ilar e7a"inations. 3t is the contention of the petitioner Philippine +awyer@s Association that one who has passed the bar e7a"inations and is licensed by the #upre"e Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in !ood standin!, is duly 1ualified to practice before the Philippines Patent <ffice, and that conse1uently, the cat of the respondent >irector re1uirin! "e"bers of the Philippine Bar in !ood standin! to ta8e and pass an e7a"ination !iven by the Patent <ffice as a condition precedent to their bein! allowed to practice before said office, such as representin! applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patent, is in e7cess of his 9urisdiction and is in violation of the law. 3n his answer, respondent >irector, throu!h the #olicitor Ieneral, "aintains that the prosecution of patent cases 2does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical 8nowled!e and trainin!, so "uch so that, as a "atter of actual practice, the prosecution of patent cases "ay be handled not only by lawyers, but also en!ineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical trainin! who pass the prescribed e7a"inations as !iven by the Patent <ffice0 . . . that the Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent <ffice, or any other 1uasi 9udicial body fro" re1uirin! further condition or 1ualification fro" those who would wish to handle cases before the Patent <ffice which, as stated in the precedin! para!raph, re1uires "ore of an application of scientific and technical 8nowled!e than the "ere application of provisions of law0 . . . that the action ta8en by the respondent is in accordance with Republic Act No. %/., otherwise 8nown as the Patent +aw of the Philippines, which si"ilar to the 4nited #tates Patent +aw, in accordance with which the 4nited #tates Patent <ffice has also prescribed a si"ilar e7a"ination as that prescribed by respondent. . . .

Respondent further contends that 9ust as the Patent law of the 4nited #tates of A"erica authori5es the Co""issioner of Patents to prescribe e7a"inations to deter"ine as to who practice before the 4nited #tates Patent <ffice, the respondent, is si"ilarly authori5ed to do so by our Patent +aw, Republic Act No. %/.. Althou!h as already stated, the >irector of Patents, in the past, would appear to have been holdin! tests or e7a"inations the passin! of which was i"posed as a re1uired 1ualification to practice before the Patent <ffice, to our 8nowled!e, this is the first ti"e that the ri!ht of the >irector of Patents to do so, specially as re!ards "e"bers of the bar, has been 1uestioned for"ally, or otherwise put in issue. And we have !iven it careful thou!ht and consideration. The #upre"e Court has the e7clusive and constitutional power with respect to ad"ission to the practice of law in the Philippines% and to any "e"ber of the Philippine Bar in !ood standin! "ay practice law anywhere and before any entity, whether 9udicial or 1uasi 9udicial or ad"inistrative, in the Philippines. Naturally, the 1uestion arises as to whether or not appearance before the patent <ffice and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law. The practice of la' is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court 0 it e"braces the preparation of pleadin!s and other papers incident to actions and social proceedin!s, the "ana!e"ent of such actions and proceedin!s on behalf of clients before 9ud!es and courts, and in addition, conveyin!. 3n !eneral, all advice to clients, and all action ta8en for the" in "atters connected 'ith the la' corporation services, assess"ent and conde"nation services conte"platin! an appearance before a 9udicial body, the foreclosure of a "ort!a!e, enforce"ent of a creditor@s clai" in ban8ruptcy and insolvency proceedin!s, and conductin! proceedin!s in attach"ent, and in "atters of estate and !uardianship have been held to constitute law practice as do the preparation and draftin! of le!al instru"ents, 'here the 'or done involves the determination b5 the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions . :. A". $ur. p. ,/,, ,/&;. :E"phasis supplied;. 2ractice of la' under "odern conditions consists in no s"all part of wor8 perfor"ed outside of any court and havin! no i""ediate relation to proceedin!s in court. 3t e"braces conveyancin!, the !ivin! of le!al advice on a lar!e variety of sub9ects, and the preparation and e7ecution of le!al instru"ents coverin! an e7tensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. 7lthough these transactions ma5 have no direct connection 'ith court proceedings6 the5 are al'a5s sub0ect to become involved in litigation. The5 re(uire in man5 aspects a high degree of legal s ill , a wide e7perience with "en and affairs, and !reat capacity for adaptation to difficult and co"ple7 situations. These custo"ary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an inti"ate relation to the ad"inistration of 9ustice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the 1uestion set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part which involves advice and draftin! of instru"ents in his office. 3t is of i"portance to the welfare of the public that these "anifold custo"ary functions be perfor"ed by persons possessed of ade1uate learnin! and s8ill, of sound "oral character, and actin! at all ti"es under the heavy trust obli!ations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. :Moran, Co""ents on the Rules of Court, Dol. & :%'.& ed.;, p. //. ///, citin! 3n re <pinion of the $ustices :Mass.;, %'( N.E. &%&, 1uoted in "hode Is. )ar 7ssoc. vs. 7utomobile Service 7ssoc . :R. 3. ; %6' A. %&', %((;. :E"phasis ours;. 3n our opinion, the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent <ffice, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the enforce"ent of their ri!hts in patent cases. 3n the first place, althou!h the transaction of business in the Patent <ffice involves the use

and application of technical and scientific 8nowled!e and trainin!, still, all such business has to be rendered in accordance with the Patent +aw, as well as other laws, includin! the Rules and Re!ulations pro"ul!ated by the Patent <ffice in accordance with law. Not only this, but practice before the Patent <ffice involves the interpretation and application of other laws and le!al principles, as well as the e7istence of facts to be established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. Aor instance) #ection = of our Patent +aw provides that an invention shall not be patentable if it is contrary to public order or "orals, or to public health or welfare. #ection ' says that an invention shall not be considered new or patentable if it was 8nown or used by others in the Philippines before the invention thereof by the inventor na"ed in any printed publication in the Philippines or any forei!n country "ore than one year before the application for a patent therefor, or if it had been in public use or on sale in the Philippines for "ore than one year before the application for the patent therefor. #ection %- provides that the ri!ht to patent belon!s to the true and actual inventor, his heirs, le!al representatives or assi!ns. #ection ,. and ,/ refer to connection of any "ista8e in a patent. #ection ,= enu"erates the !rounds for cancellation of a patent0 that althou!h any person "ay apply for such cancellation, under #ection ,', the #olicitor Ieneral is authori5ed to petition for the cancellation of a patent. #ection &- "entions the re1uire"ents of a petition for cancellation. #ection &% and &, provide for a notice of hearin! of the petition for cancellation of the patent by the >irector of Patents in case the said cancellation is warranted. 4nder #ection &(, at any ti"e after the e7piration of three years fro" the day the patent was !ranted, any person patent on several !rounds, such as, if the patented invention is not bein! wor8ed in the Philippines on a co""ercial scale, or if the de"and for the patented article in the Philippines on a co""ercial scale, or if the de"and for the patented article in the Philippines is not bein! "et to an ade1uate e7tent and reasonable ter"s, or if by reason of the patentee@s refusal to !rant a license on reasonable ter"s or by reason of the condition attached by hi" to the license, purchase or use of the patented article or wor8in! of the patented process or "achine of production, the establish"ent of a new trade or industry in the Philippines is prevented0 or if the patent or invention relates to food or "edicine or is necessary to public health or public safety. All these thin!s involve the applications of laws, le!al principles, practice and procedure. They call for le!al 8nowled!e, trainin! and e7perience for which a "e"ber of the bar has been prepared. 3n support of the proposition that "uch of the business and "any of the act, orders and decisions of the Patent >irector involve 1uestions of law or a reasonable and correct evaluation of facts, the very Patent +aw, Republic Act No. %/., #ection /%, provides that) . . . . The applicant for a patent or for the re!istration of a desi!n, any party to a proceedin! to cancel a patent or to obtain a co"pulsory license, and any party to any other proceedin! in the <ffice "ay appeal to the #upre"e Court fro" any final order or decision of the director. 3n other words, the appeal is ta8en to this Tribunal. 3f the transaction of business in the Patent <ffice and the acts, orders and decisions of the Patent >irector involved e7clusively or "ostly technical and scientific 8nowled!e and trainin!, then lo!ically, the appeal should be ta8en not to a court or 9udicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, en!ineers or technical "en, which is not the case. Another aspect of the 1uestion involves the consideration of the nature of the functions and acts of the Cead of the Patent <ffice. . . . . The Co""issioner, in issuin! or withholdin! patents, in reissues, interferences, and e7tensions, e7ercises 1uasi 9udicial functions. Patents are public records, and it is the duty of the Co""issioner to !ive authenticated copies to any person, on pay"ent of the le!al fees. :(- A". $ur. .&6;. :E"phasis supplied;.

. . . . The Co""issioner has the only ori!inal initiatory 9urisdiction that e7ists up to the !rantin! and deliverin! of a patent, and it is his duty to decide whether the patent is new and whether it is the proper sub9ect of a patent0 and his action in awardin! or refusin! a patent is a 0udicial function. 3n passin! on an application the co""issioner should decide not only 1uestions of law, but also (uestions of fact, as whether there has been a prior public use or sale of the article invented. . . . :/- C.$.#. (/-;. :E"phasis supplied;. The >irector of Patents, e7ercisin! as he does 9udicial or 1uasi 9udicial functions, it is reasonable to hold that a "e"ber of the bar, because of his le!al 8nowled!e and trainin!, should be allowed to practice before the Patent <ffice, without further e7a"ination or other 1ualification. <f course, the >irector of Patents, if he dee"s it advisable or necessary, "ay re1uire that "e"bers of the bar practisin! before hi" enlist the assistance of technical "en and scientist in the preparation of papers and docu"ents, such as, the drawin! or technical description of an invention or "achine sou!ht to be patented, in the sa"e way that a lawyer filin! an application for the re!istration of a parcel of land on behalf of his clients, is re1uired to sub"it a plan and technical description of said land, prepared by a licensed surveyor. But respondent >irector clai"s that he is e7pressly authori5ed by the law to re1uire persons desirin! to practice or to do business before hi" to sub"it an e7a"ination, even if they are already "e"bers of the bar. Ce contends that our Patent +aw, Republic Act No. %/., is patterned after the 4nited #tates Patent +aw0 and of the 4nited #tates Patent <ffice in Patent Cases prescribes an e7a"ination si"ilar to that which he :respondent; has prescribed and scheduled. Ce invites our attention to the followin! provisions of said Rules of Practice) "egistration of attorne5s and agents. E A re!ister of an attorneys and a re!ister a!ents are 8ept in the Patent <ffice on which are entered the na"es of all persons reco!ni5ed as entitled to represent applicants before the Patent <ffice in the preparation and prosecution of applicants for patent. Re!istration in the Patent <ffice under the provisions of these rules shall only entitle the person re!istered to practice before the Patent <ffice. :a; 7ttorne5 at la'. E Any attorney at law in !ood standin! ad"itted to practice before any 4nited #tates Court or the hi!hest court of any #tate or Territory of the 4nited #tates who fulfills the re1uire"ents and co"plied with the provisions of these rules "ay be ad"itted to practice before the Patent <ffice and have his na"e entered on the re!ister of attorneys. 777 777 777

:c; "e(uirement for registration. E No person will be ad"itted to practice and re!ister unless he shall apply to the Co""issioner of Patents in writin! on a prescribed for" supplied by the Co""issioner and furnish all re1uested infor"ation and "aterial0 and shall establish to the satisfaction of the Co""issioner that he is of !ood "oral character and of !ood repute and possessed of the le!al and scientific and technical 1ualifications necessary to enable hi" to render applicants for patent valuable service, and is otherwise co"petent to advise and assist hi" in the presentation and prosecution of their application before the Patent <ffice. 3n order that the Co""issioner "ay deter"ine whether a person see8in! to have his na"e placed upon either of the re!isters has the 1ualifications specified, satisfactory proof of !ood "oral character and repute, and of sufficient basic trainin! in scientific and technical "atters "ust be sub"itted and an e7a"ination which is held fro" ti"e to ti"e "ust be ta8en and passed. The ta8in! of an e7a"ination "ay be waived in the case of any person who has served for three years in the e7a"inin! corps of the Patent <ffice.

Respondent states that the pro"ul!ation of the Rules of Practice of the 4nited #tates Patent <ffice in Patent Cases is authori5ed by the 4nited #tates Patent +aw itself, which reads as follows) The Co""issioner of Patents, sub9ect to the approval of the #ecretary of Co""erce "ay prescribe rules and re!ulations !overnin! the recognition of agents6 attorne5s6 or other persons representing applicants or other parties before his office, and ma5 re(uire of such persons, a!ents, or attorne5s, before bein! reco!ni5ed as representatives of applicants or other persons, that they shall show they are of !ood "oral character and in !ood repute, are possessed of the necessar5 (ualifications to enable them to render to applicants or other persons valuable service6 and are li e'ise to competent to advise and assist applicants or other persons in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other business before the <ffice. The Co""issioner of Patents "ay, after notice and opportunity for a hearin!, suspend or e7clude, either !enerally or in any particular case fro" further practice before his office any person, a!ent or attorney shown to be inco"petent or disreputable, or !uilty of !ross "isconduct, or who refuses to co"ply with the said rules and re!ulations, or who shall, with intent to defraud in any "atter, deceive, "islead, or threaten any applicant or prospective applicant, or other person havin! i""ediate or prospective applicant, or other person havin! i""ediate or prospective business before the office, by word, circular, letter, or by advertisin!. The reasons for any such suspension or e7clusion shall be duly recorded. The action of the Co""issioner "ay be reviewed upon the petition of the person so refused reco!nition or so suspended by the district court of the 4nited #tates for the >istrict of Colu"bia under such conditions and upon such proceedin!s as the said court "ay by its rules deter"ine. :E"phasis supplied; Respondent >irector concludes that #ection 6= of Republic Act No. %/. bein! si"ilar to the provisions of law 9ust reproduced, then he is authori5ed to prescribe the rules and re!ulations re1uirin! that persons desirin! to practice before hi" should sub"it to and pass an e7a"ination. Be reproduce said #ection 6=, Republic Act No. %/., for purposes of co"parison) #EC. 6=. "ules and regulations. E The >irector sub9ect to the approval of the #ecretary of $ustice, shall pro"ul!ate the necessary rules and re!ulations, not inconsistent with law, for the conduct of all business in the Patent <ffice. The above provisions of #ection 6= certainly and by far, are different fro" the provisions of the 4nited #tates Patent +aw as re!ards authority to hold e7a"inations to deter"ine the 1ualifications of those allowed to practice before the Patent <ffice. Bhile the 4.#. Patent +aw authori5es the Co""issioner of Patents to re1uire attorneys to show that they possess the necessary 1ualifications and co"petence to render valuable service to and advise and assist their clients in patent cases, which showin! "ay ta8e the for" of a test or e7a"ination to be held by the Co""issioner, our Patent +aw, #ection 6=, is silent on this i"portant point. <ur attention has not been called to any e7press provision of our Patent +aw, !ivin! such authority to deter"ine the 1ualifications of persons allowed to practice before the Patent <ffice. #ection ..% of the Revised Ad"inistrative Code authori5es every chief of bureau to prescribe for"s and "a8e re!ulations or !eneral orders not inconsistent with law, to secure the har"onious and efficient ad"inistration of his branch of the service and to carry into full effect the laws relatin! to "atters within the 9urisdiction of his bureau. #ection /-= of Republic Act %'&6, 8nown as the Tariff and Custo"s Code of the Philippines, provides that the Co""issioner of Custo"s shall, sub9ect to the approval of the >epart"ent Cead, "a8es all rules and re!ulations necessary to enforce the provisions of said code. #ection &&= of the National 3nternal Revenue Code, Co""onwealth Act No. (// as a"ended, states that the #ecretary of Ainance, upon reco""endation of the Collector of 3nternal Revenue, shall pro"ul!ate all needful rules and re!ulations for the effective enforce"ent of the provisions of the code. Be understand that

rules and re!ulations have been pro"ul!ated not only for the Bureau of Custo"s and 3nternal Revenue, but also for other bureaus of the Iovern"ent, to !overn the transaction of business in and to enforce the law for said bureaus. Bere we to allow the Patent <ffice, in the absence of an e7press and clear provision of law !ivin! the necessary sanction, to re1uire lawyers to sub"it to and pass on e7a"ination prescribed by it before they are allowed to practice before said Patent <ffice, then there would be no reason why other bureaus specially the Bureau of 3nternal Revenue and Custo"s, where the business in the sa"e area are "ore or less co"plicated, such as the presentation of boo8s of accounts, balance sheets, etc., assess"ents e7e"ptions, depreciation, these as re!ards the Bureau of 3nternal Revenue, and the classification of !oods, i"position of custo"s duties, sei5ures, confiscation, etc., as re!ards the Bureau of Custo"s, "ay not also re1uire that any lawyer practisin! before the" or otherwise transactin! business with the" on behalf of clients, shall first pass an e7a"ination to 1ualify. 3n conclusion, we hold that under the present law, "e"bers of the Philippine Bar authori5ed by this Tribunal to practice law, and in !ood standin!, "ay practice their profession before the Patent <ffice, for the reason that "uch of the business in said office involves the interpretation and deter"ination of the scope and application of the Patent +aw and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved0 that part of the functions of the Patent director are 9udicial or 1uasi 9udicial, so "uch so that appeals fro" his orders and decisions are, under the law, ta8en to the #upre"e Court. Aor the fore!oin! reasons, the petition for prohibition is !ranted and the respondent >irector is hereby prohibited fro" re1uirin! "e"bers of the Philippine Bar to sub"it to an e7a"ination or tests and pass the sa"e before bein! per"itted to appear and practice before the Patent <ffice. No costs. 2aras6 C.J.6 )eng<on6 2adilla6 "e5es6 7.6 )autista 7ngelo6 %abrador6 Concepcion6 "e5es6 J.).%. and :ndencia6 JJ.6 concur. PHILIPPINE LA8)ERDS ASSOCIATION ;S. CELEDONIO A!RA;A, %& h%3 ca#ac%'7 a3 D%r.c'or o: 'h. Ph%$%##%&.3 Pa'.&' O::%c. AACT#) A petition was filed by the petitioner for prohibition and in9unction a!ainst Celedonio A!rava, in his capacity as >irector of the Philippines Patent <ffice. <n May ,6, %'.6, respondent >irector issued a circular announcin! that he had scheduled for $une ,6, %'.6 an e7a"ination for t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r " i n i n ! w h o a r e 1 u a l i f i e d t o p r a c t i c e a s p a t e n t a t t o r n e y s b e f o r e t h e Philippines Patent <ffice. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar e7a"ination sand is licensed by the #upre"e Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in !ood standin!, is duly 1ualified to practice before the Philippines Patent <ffice and that the respondent >irectorRs holdin! an e7a"ination for the purpose is in e7cess of his 9urisdiction and is in violation of the law. The respondent, in reply, "aintains the prosecution of patent cases Q does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical 8nowled!e and trainin! as a "atter of actual practice so as to include en!ineers and other individuals who passed the e7a"ination can practice before the Patent office. Aurther"ore, he stressed that for the lon! ti"e he is holdin! tests, this is the first ti"e that his ri!ht has been 1uestioned for"ally. 3##4E) Bhether or not the appearance before the patent <ffice and the preparation and the prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law. CE+>)

The #upre"e Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before theP a t e n t < f f i c e , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a p p l i c a n t s , o p p o s i t o r s , a n d o t h e r p e r s o n s , a n d t h e prosecution of their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforce"ent of their ri!hts in patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent <ffice involves the interpretation a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f o t h e r l a w s a n d l e ! a l p r i n c i p l e s , a s w e l l a s t h e e 7 i s t e n c e o f f a c t s t o b e established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not li"ited to the conduct of cases or liti!ation in court but also e"braces all other "atters connected with the law and any wor8 involvin! the deter"ination by the le!al "ind of the le!al effects of facts and conditions. Aurther"ore, the law provides that any party "ay appeal to the #upre"e Court fro" any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent <ffice involved e7clusively or "ostly technical and scientific 8nowled!e and trainin!, then lo!ically, the appeal should be ta8en not to a court or 9udicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, en!ineers or technical "en, which is not the case.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A1213' 1=, 1941 IN RE+ PETITION O ARTURO E REN !ARCIA :or a>"%33%o& 'o 'h. Ph%$%##%&. (ar E%'ho1' 'a9%&2 'h. .Ba"%&a'%o&. ARTURO E REN !ARCIA, petitioner. RESOLUTION (ARRERA, J.+ Arturo E. Iarcia has applied for ad"ission to the practice of law in the Philippines without sub"ittin! to the re1uired bar e7a"inations. 3n his verified petition, he avers, a"on! others, that he is a Ailipino citi5en born in Bacolor City, Province of Ne!ros <ccidental, of Ailipino parenta!e0 that he had ta8en and finished in #pain, the course of 2Bachillerato #uperior20 that he was approved, selected and 1ualified by the 23nstituto de Cervantes2 for ad"ission to the Central 4niversity of Madrid where he studied and finished the law course !raduatin! there as 2+icenciado En >erecho20 that thereafter he was allowed to practice the law profession in #pain0 and that under the provision of the Treaty of Acade"ic >e!rees and the E7ercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the #panish state, he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines without sub"ittin! to the re1uired bar e7a"inations. After due consideration, the Court resolved to deny the petition on the followin! !rounds) :%; the provisions of the Treaty on Acade"ic >e!rees and the E7ercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the #panish #tate can not be invo8ed by applicant. 4nder Article %% thereof0 The #ationals of each of the t'o countries who shall have obtained reco!nition of the validity of their acade"ic de!rees by virtue of the stipulations of this Treaty, can practice their professions 'ithin the territor5 of the Other6 . . . . :E"phasis supplied;.

fro" which it could clearly be discerned that said Treaty was intended to !overn Ailipino citi5ens desirin! to practice their profession in #pain, and the citi5ens of #pain desirin! to practice their professions in the Philippines. Applicant is a Ailipino citi5en desirin! to practice the le!al profession in the Philippines. Ce is therefore sub9ect to the laws of his own country and is not entitled to the privile!es e7tended to #panish nationals desirin! to practice in the Philippines. :,; Article 3 of the Treaty, in its pertinent part, provides . The nationals of both countries who shall have obtained de!ree or diplo"as to practice the liberal professions in either of the Contractin! #tates, issued by co"petent national authorities, shall be dee"ed co"petent to e7ercise said professions in the territory of the <ther, sub0ect to the la's and regulations of the latter . . . .. 3t is clear, therefore, that the privile!es provided in the Treaty invo8ed by the applicant are "ade e7pressly sub9ect to the laws and re!ulations of the contractin! #tate in whose territory it is desired to e7ercise the le!al profession0 and #ection % of Rule %,6, in connection with #ections ,,', and %/ thereof, which have the force of law, re1uire that before anyone can practice the le!al profession in the Philippine he "ust first successfully pass the re1uired bar e7a"inations0 and :&; The afore"entioned Treaty, concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and the #panish #tate could not have been intended to "odify the laws and re!ulations !overnin! ad"ission to the practice of law in the Philippines, for the reason that the E7ecutive >epart"ent "ay not encroach upon the constitutional prero!ative of the #upre"e Court to pro"ul!ate rules for ad"ission to the practice of law in the Philippines, the lower to repeal, alter or supple"ent such rules bein! reserved only to the Con!ress of the Philippines. :#ee #ec. %&, Art D333, Phil. Constitution;.