In re: Cunanan
requisites for the practice of the law that should be
Resolution Cunanan, et. al
18 March 1954
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:
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
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.
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.)
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:
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;
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution
of the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
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
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.
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU),
Enrique Entila and Victoriano Tenazas vs. Binalbagan
Isabela Sugar Company, Court of Industrial Relations
and Quintin Muning
FACTS:
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ORDERED
REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES FOR ENTILA AND
TENAZAS.
Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of Entila and Tenazas
filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the
total backwages.
i. Entila and Tenazas filed manifestation indicating
their non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for
25% of their backwages
ii. Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of
Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the
backwages.
1. Opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground
that he is not a lawyer.
a. Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the
backwages as compensation for professional services
rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:
i. Cipriano 10%
ii. Quintin Muning 10%
iii. Atanacio Pacis 5%
iii. CANON 34: condemns an agreement providing for
the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer
union president is allowed to share in said fees with
lawyers
1. Sec 5(b) of RA 875 that —No justification for a
ruling, that the person representing the party-litigant in
the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a
lawyer, is entitled to attorney's fees
a. Duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer
to examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of
the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of
evidence.
b. Representation should be exclusively entrusted to
duly qualified members of the bar.
The permission for a non-member does not entitle the
representative to compensation for such
representation.
Sec 24, Rule 138 Compensation of attorney's agreement
as to fees:
i. An attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client no more than a
reasonable compensation for his services.
a. Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960 after failing in
the 1959 Bar Examination.
b. His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the petition alleging that
his nephew is not a person of good moral character for
having misrepresented, sometime in 1950, when he was
16 years old, that he was eligible for 3rd year high
school by utilizing the school records of his cousin and
name-sake, Juan M. Publico.
ii. PUBLICO has not completed Grade 4
iii. Tapel instituted an administrative case
against his nephew for falsification of school records or
credentials.
PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took the lawyer's oath, and
signed the Roll of Attorneys.
Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr.,
investigated and reported:
September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapel dropped the
complaint on the ground that his witnesses had turned
hostile.
i. Motion denied, his witnesses had already testified.
Recommended PUBLICO’s name to be stricken off the
roll of attorneys.
i. Respondent falsified his school records
ii. Thereby violating the provisions of Sections 5 and 6,
Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, which require
completion by a bar examinee or candidate of the
prescribed courses in elementary, high, pre-law and law
school, prior to his admission to the practice of law.
11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for
Reinstatement alleging that he had never received, for
had he been informed, nor did he have any knowledge
of the Resolution of the Court ordering the Bar Division
to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
He was advised to inquire into the outcome of the
disbarment case against him.
He resigned from all his positions in public and private
offices, and transferred to Manila.
Prayed that Court allow reinstatement taking into
consideration his exemplary conduct from the time he
became a lawyer, his services to the community the
numerous awards, resolutions and/'or commendations
he received,
i. Court denied the Petition.
ii. Petitioner moved for reconsideration was
denied by the Court for lack of merit.
5th plea avers that his enrollment in Third Year High
School in Manila was through the initiative of his uncle,
Dulcisimo B. Tapel who accompanied him to school and
enrolled him in a grade level above his qualifications in
spite of his demonstrations
i. Misrepresentation committed was
precipitated by his uncle; that being merely 16 year old,
he could not be expected to act with discernment as he
was still under the influence of his uncle, who later on
caused his disbarment
ii. No opposition has been filed to any of the
petitions.
ISSUE:
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal
services rendered?
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a
lawyer according to the order, is sought to be voided in
the present petition.
WON a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees
which are deductible from the backpay of some of its
members. YES.
It was PAFLU that moved for an extension of time to file
the present petition for review; union members Entila
and Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were
included as petitioners in the present petition. Their
inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners was belated.
HELD:
ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET ASIDE AS THEY ARE
AWARDED 10% OF BACKWAGES AS ATTORNEY’S FEES
FOR MUNING. COSTS AGAINST MUNING.
Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if one is a
lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot
establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique
Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he
cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees.
Public policy demands that legal work in representation
of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those
possessing tested qualifications, for the ethics of the
profession and for the protection of courts, clients and
the public.
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession
should not be violated:
Acting as an attorney with authority constitutes
contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or
imprisonment or both,
Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit
of an act or an act done in violation of law
If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the
public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in
case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic
condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not
amenable to disciplinary measures.
In response to UNION may appeal an award of
attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay
of some of its members:
YES because such union or labor organization is
permitted to institute an action in the industrial court
on behalf of its members

If an award is disadvantageous to its members, the

union may prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party,
under Sec 6, RA 875:

i. Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice cases —

Appeals. — Any person aggrieved by any
order of the Court may appeal to the
Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Usually, individual unionist is not in a position to bear

the financial burden of litigations.

A layman should confine his work to non-adversary

contentions. He should not undertake purely legal
work such as the examination or cross-examination of
witnesses or the presentation of evidence.