In Re Cunanan:

Facts:

In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino
Cunanan et. al petitioners.

In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as R.A. 972 popularly
known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a general ave of
75% in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any subject, although for the past few exams the passing grades were
changed depending on the strictness of the correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70%
1949-74%, 1950-1953 75%).

Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and
feeling that they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few
percentages lower than those admitted to the bar went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill no. 12,
but was vetoed by the president after he was given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the senate then
approved senate bill no. 372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then became law
on June 21, 1953

Republic Act 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 preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public
interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession,
as evidenced by their failure in the exams.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have on the legal profession and the administration of justice,
the S.C. would seek to know if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.

An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of the law that should be developed
constantly and maintained firmly.

The Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring, and
reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.

1
 The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C. equal responsibilities concerning the admission to
the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the constitution recognizes continue to reside in
this court.

Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law seeks to cure are not the rules set in place by the
S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the court, and this power is not included in the power
granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively w/in the judiciary.

Reasons for Unconstitutionality:

1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.

2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in
attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution.

3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since
the rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated are considered the bare
minimum.)

4. It is a class legislation

5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and being
inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.

HELD:

Under the authority of the court:

1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said
law are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and effect.

2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is valid
and shall continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are denied,
and all the candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of
below 50% in any subject are considered as having passed whether they have filed petitions for admissions or
not.)

2
Director of Religious Affairs vs Bayot
Facts:

Estanislao Bayot caused the publication of an advertisement of his services in the Sunday Tribune, in direct
violation of the provision of Section 25, Rule 127 which imposes a prohibition on soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain either personally or through paid agents or brokers.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice

Held:

Yes. His act of causing the publication of an advertisement constitutes malpractice. Law is a profession and not a
trade. A member of the bar degrades himself or herself in adopting the practices of mercantilism through
advertising his or her services like a merchant advertising wares.

However, considering the fact that Bayot is a young lawyer and that he promises to refrain from repeating the
same misconduct, the Court exercised leniency. He was merely reprimanded for his violation and he was
reminded that the most effective advertisement possible is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity as well as fidelity to trust.

3
Cayetano vs Monsod
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections. His appointment was
affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsods appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the
ground that he does not qualify for he failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the
chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.

Monsods track record as a lawyer:

Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.

Immediately after passing, worked in his fathers law firm for one year.

Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and held various positions in various
foreign corporations.

In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local corporations until 1986.

In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes practice of law?

HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor
verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for
at least ten years.

As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The members of the
bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed societies today,
substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law
who do both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more
time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course of a working day
the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines,
legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of
lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. By no
means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types a litigator
who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have
mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and
negotiation.