Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    JESUS MA. CUI vs. ANTONIO MA. CUI

    Uploaded by

    11 : 28
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Ma. Cui was entitled to the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barili. While Antonio was previously disbarred, he had since been reinstated to the bar, wiping out the restrictions from his disbarment. The deed of donation for the position required the administrator to have a "titulo de abogado," meaning membership to the bar, not just a law degree. As a reinstated lawyer, Antonio met this requirement. The claim of intervenor Romulo Cui was also denied, as the deed did not require alternating the position between family lines as he claimed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    JESUS MA. CUI vs. ANTONIO MA. CUI

    Uploaded by

    11 : 28
    111 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Ma. Cui was entitled to the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barili. While Antonio was previously disbarred, he had since been reinstated to the bar, wiping out the restrictions from his disbarment. The deed of donation for the position required the administrator to have a "titulo de abogado," meaning membership to the bar, not just a law degree. As a reinstated lawyer, Antonio met this requirement. The claim of intervenor Romulo Cui was also denied, as the deed did not require alternating the position between family lines as he claimed.

    Original Description:

    legal ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Ma. Cui was entitled to the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barili. While Antonio was previously disbarred, he had since been reinstated to the bar, wiping out the restrictions from his disbarment. The deed of donation for the position required the administrator to have a "titulo de abogado," meaning membership to the bar, not just a law degree. As a reinstated lawyer, Antonio met this requirement. The claim of intervenor Romulo Cui was also denied, as the deed did not require alternating the position between family lines as he claimed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    111 views2 pages

    JESUS MA. CUI vs. ANTONIO MA. CUI

    Uploaded by

    11 : 28
    The Supreme Court ruled that Antonio Ma. Cui was entitled to the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barili. While Antonio was previously disbarred, he had since been reinstated to the bar, wiping out the restrictions from his disbarment. The deed of donation for the position required the administrator to have a "titulo de abogado," meaning membership to the bar, not just a law degree. As a reinstated lawyer, Antonio met this requirement. The claim of intervenor Romulo Cui was also denied, as the deed did not require alternating the position between family lines as he claimed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JESUS MA. CUI vs. ANTONIO MA.

    CUI
    G.R. No. L-18727, August 31, 1964

    FACTS:

     Plaintiff Jesus Ma. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. Cui are brothers, being the sons of Mariano
    Cui, one of the nephews of the spouses Don Pedro Cui and Doña Benigna Cui.
     On 27 February 1960 the incumbent administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, Dr.
    Fernando Cui, resigned in favor of the defendant pursuant to a “convenio” entered into
    between them and embodied in a notarial document.
     The next day, defendant took his office. The plaintiff, however, had no prior notice of either the
    “convenio” or of his brother’s assumption of the position.
     Romulo Cui later on intervened, claiming a right to the same office, being a grandson of Vicente
    Cui, another one of the nephews mentioned by the founders of the Hospicio in their deed of
    donation.
     As between Jesus and Antonio the main issue turns upon their respective qualifications to the
    position of administrator. However, the deed gives preference to the one, among the legitimate
    descendants of the nephews therein named, ‘que posea titulo de abogado’.
     The specific point in dispute is the meaning of the term "titulo de abogado." Jesus Ma. Cui holds
    the degree of Bachelor of Laws from the University of Santo Tomas, but is not a member of the
    Bar. Antonio Ma. Cui, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar,. Although disbarred by this
    Court he was reinstated by resolution promulgated on 10 February 1960, about two weeks
    before he assumed the position of administrator of the Hospicio de Barili.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the defendant is entitled to the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de
    Barili.
    RULING:

    Yes. It is a fact that the defendant was disbarred by this Court on 29 March 1957 for immorality and
    unprofessional conduct. However, it is also a fact that he was reinstated on 10 February 1960, before he
    assumed the office of administrator. His reinstatement is a recognition of his moral rehabilitation, upon
    proof no less than that required for his admission to the Bar in the first place. When the defendant was
    restored to the roll of lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resulting from his previous disbarment
    were wiped out.

    The term “titulo de abogado” means not mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws
    but membership in the Bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one for the practice of law. The
    founders of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili must have intended for an actual lawyer because under
    Act No. 3239 the duties of the managers or trustees of the Hospicio do work that requires, it is to be
    presumed, a working knowledge of the law and a license to practice the profession would be a distinct
    asset. Although the latter is a member of the Bar he is nevertheless disqualified by virtue of paragraph 3
    of the deed of donation, which provides that the administrator may be removed on the ground of
    ineptitude in the discharge of his office or lack of evident sound moral character.

    As far as moral character is concerned, the standard required of one seeking reinstatement to the office
    of attorney cannot be less exacting than that implied in paragraph 3 of the deed of donation as a
    requisite for the office which is disputed in this case. When the defendant was restored to the roll of
    lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resulting from his previous disbarment were wiped out. As for
    the claim of intervenor, Romulo Cui, he is also a lawyer, grandson of Vicente Cui, one of the nephews of
    the founders of the Hospicio mentioned by them in the deed of donation. • He is further, in the line of
    succession, than Antonio Ma. Cui, who is a son of Mariano Cui, another one of the said nephews. The
    intervenor contends that the intention of the founders was to confer the administration by line and
    successively to the descendants of the nephews named in the deed, in the order they are named. Since
    the last administrator was Dr. Teodoro Cui, who belonged to the Mauricio Cui line, the next
    administrator must come from the line of Vicente Cui, to whom the intervenor belongs. This
    interpretation, however, is not justified by the terms of the deed of donation.

    You might also like