IN RE CUNANAN
94 PHIL. 534
FACTS:
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar
Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to Fix the
Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including
1955.”
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70%
1952 …………………….71%
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than
50%.
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a
grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed
that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the
computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”
ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal
defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title, the
Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an
indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial passing,
thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are
not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared
unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force
and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the
following reasons:
1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who
flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate
preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the
end of World War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of
the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary
prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice
of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to
repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules
laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum
norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court
on who can practice law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to
class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not
muster enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was
passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke
existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of
an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to
Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the
practice of law.
CONRADO QUE vs ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR.
Facts:
In a complaint for disbarment Conrado Que (complainant) accused
Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Committee on Bar
Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. Complainant alleged the respondent’s
commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in order to
impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice
for his own personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant
and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the
unlawful detainer case. In his Answer, the respondent declared that
he is a member of the Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC)
that handles pro bono cases for the underprivileged, the less
fortunate, the homeless and those marginalized sector in Metro
Manila. He agreed to take over the cases formerly handled by
other KDC members. Investigating Commissioner ruled that the act
of the respondent in filing two petitions for annulment of title, a
petition for annulment of judgment and later on a
petition for declaratory relief were all done to prevent the execution of
the final judgment in the unlawful detainer case and constituted
prohibited forum-shopping.
Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of forum shopping
Held: YES. Respondent is guilty of forum shopping. Respondent
violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as the rule against forum
shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple
actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse
of court processes they tend to degrade the administration of justice;
wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure; and add to the congestion
of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. While the filing of a
petition for certiorari to question the lower courts’ jurisdiction may be
a procedurally legitimate (but substantially erroneous) move, the
respondent’s subsequent petitions involving the same property and
the same parties not only demonstrate his attempts to secure
favorable ruling using different for a, but his obvious objective as well
of preventing the execution of MeTC and RTC decisions in the
unlawful detainer case against his clients. This intent is most obvious
with respect to the petitions for annulment of judgment and
declaratory relief , both geared towards preventing the execution of
the unlawful detainer decision, long after this decision had become
final. Hence, Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. is found liable for
professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and
Canons of Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred from
the practice of law.