[PALE] PP vs.

DE LUNA

FACTS:
– After failing the 1946-1952 bar examinations,

defendants filed petitions for admission to the bar

(pursuant to Bar flunkers Act of 1953 which was
declared unconstitutional and therefore void,
– Said petitions were refused and denied by the

Supreme Court after having been informed that certain

portions of Republic Act No. 972, known as the Bar
Flunkers Act of 1953, are unconstitutional and
therefore void and without force and effect
– Despite this, defendants,
– De Luna et. al filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint for

Contempt of Court in CFI Manila on the ground of lack

of jurisdiction and fact alleged in the amended
informations do not constitute the crime of contempt
of court
– CFI Manila ruled in favor of defendants and dismissed

the complaint against them citing that:

– CFI Manla had no jurisdiciton since contempt of

court was made against the SC; and

– Acts of defendants do not constitute contempt of

court since they did not hold out themselves as

lawyers. Stating that the mere fact of taking an oath
by any person as a lawyer does not make him
automatically a lawyer w/o having completed the
requirements prescribed by the SC. The mere taking
of oath as lawyers by herein accused is not
tantamount to practice law. However, if this had
 taken one step further, as for example, after taking
their oaths, they have held out themselves as
lawyers to the public, received cases for litigants,
appeared before any court of justice personally or
by filing pleadings therewith, would be considered
that they are really engaged in the practice of law.
These accused have not committed any of these
acts. Hence the case is dismissed.
– Prosecution filed an appeal to the SC.

ISSUE: WON respondents are guilty of contempt? YES.

HELD: YES. Defendants are guilty of Contempt of

Court. CFI Decision reversed. Case is remanded to
court of orign for further proceedings no inconsistent
with this decision.
– The resolution of the Supreme Court denying

appellees' petition for admission to the Bar implied,

necessarily, a denial of the right to take said oath, as
well as a prohibition of the taking thereof. By taking
oaths before a notary public, appellees expressed
clearly their intent to, and did, in fact, challenge
and defy the authority of the Supreme Court to
pass upon and settle, in a final and conclusive
manner, the issue whether or not they should be
admitted to the bar, as well as, embarrass, hinder
and obstruct the administration of justice and
impair the respect due to the courts of justice and
the Supreme Court, in particular, in violation of
section 3, subdivision (b) of Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court. Such acts, therefore, constitute contempt of
 court.
– The case is similar to US vs. Ney which involved 2
lawyers who sent out circulars stating that they are
lawyers.
– The lower court is, seemingly, under the impression
that appellees could not be guilty of contempt of court
unless they actually engaged in the practice of law or
"held out to the public" as lawyers "by means of
circulars." Such view is inaccurate, for "assuming to
be an attorney * * * and acting as such without
authority," is, only one of the means by which
contempt of court may be committed, under said
Rule 64, section 3, of the Rules of Court. At any
rate, by taking "the oath of office as attorney-at-
law" and notifying the Supreme Court that they had
done so and would "practice law in all courts of the
Philippines", the appellees had, for all intents and
purposes, "held out to the public" as such
attorneys-atlaw