Pale-Case Digest-Mantilla

University of Caloocan City
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. DEXTER CALIZAR
Mantilla, Anjessette C. JD-3A
CASE DIGEST
1. In the matter of the IBP, S, Ct. Resolution dated 09 January 1973, 49 SCRA 22 (1973)
FACTS: A petition for the integration of the Philippine Bar was filed and in line with that
Congress passed House bill entitled "An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar
and Appropriating Funds Thereof". However, there are several oppositors for the said
integration contending on the constitutionality of the Bar integration and for the practicality and
necessity as such.
ISSUE: 1. Whether the said Philippine integration is constitutional; and
2. Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar
HELD: Yes, the integration of the Philippine Bar is constitutional. This issue was hinges on the
effects of the Bar integration on the lawyer's constitutional rights of freedom of association and
freedom of speech and on the nature of the dues exacted. Consequently the Court ruled that:
"Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is

not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and in cohesive group of which
every lawyer is already a member. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to
associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his
Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The
body compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues.
Moreover, a membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation,
while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate
the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership
fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar
program without means to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of
implied powers necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.
1|Page
Further, bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practicing because

although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it will give the
members of the Bar a new system which they hitherto have not had and through
which, by proper work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore
enjoyed, and discharge their public responsibilities in a more effective manner
than they have been able to do in the past."
On the second issue. Yes, the Court has the power to integrate the Philippine Bar. The Court
ruled that:
"under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules

concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to
the practice of law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the
Court's constitutional authority over the Bar. In providing that "the Supreme
Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar,"
Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent
power, but is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will
promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the standards of the legal
profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge
its public responsibility more effectively."
2. In re Cunanan 94 Phil 534 (954)
FACTS: This issue is due to the Republic Act No. 972 enacted by the congress popularly known
as the Bar Flunker's Act of 1953 which is an act to fix the passing marks for bar examination
from 1946-1955. After the approval of such republic act many unsuccessful postwar candidates
filed petitions for admission to the bar. On the other hand, some oppositors argued that the said
republic act is unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional.
HELD: No, Republic Act No. 972 is unconstitutional. Based on the explanatory note of the same
republic act:
"the reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing grade is the
tremendous handicap which students during the years immediately after the
2|Page
Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the insufficiency of reading

materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of students who took up law soon
after the liberation".
Consequently, the Court ruled that:
"by its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it
qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the
practice of the profession, as was exactly found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid
examinations. The public interest demands of legal profession adequate
preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the
times become more difficult. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital
requisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and
maintained firmly."
The Court further ruled in some cases that:
"Admission to practice of law is almost without exception conceded

everywhere to be the exercise of a judicial function, and this opinion need not be
burdened with citations in this point. Admission to practice have also been held to
be the exercise of one of the inherent powers of the court. Admission to the
practice of law is the exercise of a judicial function, and is an inherent power of
the court".
Thus, in decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to
1952, a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject, be
admitted in mass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment — a
judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court during the aforecited year affecting the bar
candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke these judgments even now,
for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislative nor
executive department, that may be so. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would
be a clear usurpation of its functions, as is the case with the law in question.
3. Cayetano V. Monsod, G.R. No.10013, 03 September 1991, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)
4. In re Michael Mercado to Sign Roll of Attorneys After Taking Oath, B.M. No.2540, 24
September 2013, 706 SCRA 264 (2013)
5. Paguia V. Office of the PresidentG.R. No. 1762-78, 22 June 2010, 621 SCRA 600 (2010)
6. Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice of Law by Epifanio Muneses, B.M. No.
2112, Julybn 24, 2012, with accompanying Supreme Court Resulution En Banc, July 24, 2012
3|Page
7. Bar Matter No. 1153, March 9. 2010. Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing
Reforms in the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138, secs. 5&6 Of the rules of
Court
8. Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, Atty. Daniel de Guzman, B.M. No. 1722, April 24, 2009
9. In re Al C. Argosino, B.M. No. 712, July 13, 1995, 246 SCRA 14 (1995)
10. In the Matter of the Disqualification of the Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar
Examinations, B.M. No. 1154, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 146 (2004)
11. Dela Fuente Torres v. Dalangin, AC No. 10758, December 5, 2017.
(leading lives after with the highest moral standards of the community)
12. Government prosecutors under the DOJ , People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109
13. PAO lawyers, Ramos v. Imbang AC No. 6788, 23 August 2007
14. Spouses Eustaquio v. Morales, AC No. 10465, 08 June 2016
4|Page

Pale-Case Digest-Mantilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pale-Case Digest-Mantilla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pale-Case Digest-Mantilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Caloocan City

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Mantilla, Anjessette C. JD-3A

ISSUE: 1. Whether the said Philippine integration is constitutional; and

"Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is

Further, bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practicing because

"under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules

2. In re Cunanan 94 Phil 534 (954)

ISSUE: Whether Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional.

Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the insufficiency of reading

Consequently, the Court ruled that:

The Court further ruled in some cases that:

"Admission to practice of law is almost without exception conceded

11. Dela Fuente Torres v. Dalangin, AC No. 10758, December 5, 2017.

13. PAO lawyers, Ramos v. Imbang AC No. 6788, 23 August 2007

14. Spouses Eustaquio v. Morales, AC No. 10465, 08 June 2016

You might also like