IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954] IN RE CUNANAN

Friday, January 30, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes 

Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the  

After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in
petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while other 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations
from 1946 up to and including 1955.”
motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also
invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are
also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice
to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for 1946-1951………………70%
reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic
Act No. 972.
1952 …………………….71%

Issue: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid. 1953……………………..72%

1954……………………..73%
Held: RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the
Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials
and inadequate preparation.  1955……………………..74%

In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the
practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in
judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system
any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the
from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general average in
or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is subsequent bar examinations.”
concededly judicial.

On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions ISSUE:
of the judicial and legislative departments of the government.
Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the
practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by
RULING:
Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities
may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.
Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced
Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.  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 peculiar circumstances surrounding Ching's case, the OSG recommends the relaxation of the
1953 to 1955 was declared in force and effect.  The portion that was stricken down standing rule on the construction of the phrase "reasonable period" and the allowance of Ching
was based under the following reasons: to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with C.A. No. 625 prior to taking his oath as a
member of the Philippine Bar.
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; ISSUE:

2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
petitions of the said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine HELD:
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 No. In the present case, Ching was already thirty-five (35) years old when he complied with
by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to
the requirements of CA No. 625 or fourteen years after he had reached the age of majority. The
substitute the judgment of the court on who can practice law; and
age of majority commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years. The Supreme Court noted
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation. that the period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It seems it can’t be
extended any further). Ching’s special circumstances can’t be considered. It is not enough that
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough he considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that he is a professional and a public officer (was)
votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. serving this country. The rules for citizenship are in place. Further, Ching didn’t give any
Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the explanation why he belatedly chose to elect Filipino citizenship (but I guess it’s simply
bar of an petitioner.  The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to because he never thought he’s Chinese not until he applied to take the bar). The prescribed
alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process.
All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship
IN RE: VICENTE CHING and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Ching’s unreasonable and
BAR MATTER No. 914 October 1, 1999
FACTS: unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over.
Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila
A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his DECISION:
birth, Ching has resided in the Philippines. In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at
the Saint Louis University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar but he was advised that The Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's application for admission to the Philippine
he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to take his oath. Bar.

Apparently, Ching’s father was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His
parents were married before he was born in 1963. Under the 1935 Constitution, a legitimate
child, whose one parent is a foreigner, acquires the foreign citizenship of the foreign parent.
Ching maintained that he has always considered himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified
public accountant – a profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a
municipality in La Union.

The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a legitimate child of a Chinese
and a Filipino, Ching should have elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. Ching did elect Filipino citizenship, but he only did so when he was preparing for the
bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of majority. In conclusion, the OSG points out
that Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would already
be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by present jurisprudence. However, due to the
 Case Digest | In Re: Argosino Argosino and his co-accused filed an application for probation with the lower court. The
application for probation was granted.
28 SEPTE MBER 2019 FIND ING DA RA

Argosino then filed a Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations. In this
PETITIONER In the matter of the admission to the bar and oath-taking of successful
Petition,bar
he disclosed the fact of his criminal conviction and his then probation status. He was
applicant Al C. Argosino allowed to take the 1993 Bar Examinations and passed the said Bar Examination. He was not,
however, allowed to take the lawyer’s oath of office.
RESPONDENTS –

DOCKET NO. Bar Matter No. 712 Argosino filed a Petition to allow him to take the attorney’s oath of office and to admit him to
the practice of law.
DATE July 13, 1995

PONENTE Feliciano, J. ISSUE:Whether or not Argosino should be admitted to the practice of law.
SYLLABUS:
RULING:
Attorneys; Admission to the Bar; Practice of Law as a High Personal Privilege; Good Moral
Character
No, Argosino should not be admitted to the practice of law.

 The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral
character, with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified. The essentiality of good moral character in those who would be lawyers is stressed in cases
decided by the Court. It is settled that the practice of law is not a natural, absolute or
 Requirement of good moral character is of greater importance so far as the general
constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a high personal
public and the proper administration of justice is concerned.
privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications,
 All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect of those
duly ascertained and certified.
seeking admission to the Bar.
 Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would seek
admission to the bar must be a necessity more stringent than the norm of conduct Argosino’s participation in the deplorable “hazing” activities certainly fell far short of the
expected from members of the general public. required standard of good moral character. The deliberate (rather than merely accidental or
 Good moral character is a requirement possession of which must be demonstrated at inadvertent) infliction of severe physical injuries which proximately led to the death of
the time of application for permission to take the bar examinations and more importantly Camaligan, certainly indicated serious character flaws on the part of those who inflicted such
at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney’s oath of office. injuries. Argosino and his co-accused had failed to discharge their moral duty to protect the life
FACTS: and well-being of a “neophyte” who had, by seeking admission to the fraternity involved,
reposed trust and confidence in all of them that, at the very least, he would not be beaten to
death. Thus, participation in the prolonged and mindless physical beatings inflicted upon
Al Argosino along with thirteen (13) other individuals were charged with the crime of Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that moral duty and was totally irresponsible
homicide in connection with the death of Raul Camaligan, which stemmed from the infliction behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the participant was then possessed of good
of severe physical injuries upon him in the course of “hazing” conducted as part of university moral character.
fraternity initiation rites.

Hence, Argosino should not be admitted to the practice of law lacking the requirement of good
Argosino and his co-accused then entered into plea bargaining with the prosecution and as a moral character.
result of such bargaining, pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless
imprudence. This plea was accepted by the trial court, and hence were sentenced to suffer
imprisonment. DISPOSITIVE:

Petition to take Attorney’s Oath denied.