Alawi vs.

Alauya

268 SCRA 639

Facts:

Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing
company. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi City, They
were classmates, and used to be friends.

Through Alawi's agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on instalments by Alauya of one of the housing
units of Villarosa. In connection, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation (NHMFC).

Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his
contract with the company. He claimed that his consent was vitiated because Alawi had resorted to gross
misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence. He laso wrote similar letters to the Vice
President of Villarosa and the Vice President of NHMFC.

On learning of Alauya's letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint against him. One of her grounds was Alauyas
usurpation of the title of "attorney," which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may properly use.

Alauya justified his use of the title, "attorney," by the assertion that it is "lexically synonymous" with "Counsellors-at-
law." a title to which Shari'a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of "attorney" because
"counsellor" is often mistaken for "councilor," "konsehal" or the Maranao term "consial," connoting a local legislator
beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a lawyer.

Issue:

Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Sharia bar, can use the title of Attorney

Held:

He cant. The title is only reserved to those who pass the regular Philippine bar. As regards Alauya's use of the title of
"Attorney," this Court has already had occasion to declare that persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged
members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a courts. While one who has been admitted
to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered "counsellors," in
the sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an "attorney." The title of
"attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken
the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in
good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.

Cayetano vs. Monsod

201 SCRA 210

Facts:

Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the
COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article
IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders
of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Issue:

Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.

Held:

In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body,
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsods past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and
the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The
respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the
petition is DISMISSED.

In Re: Edillon

84 SCRA 554 (1978)

Facts:

This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP membership dues assailing the provisions
of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the
organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same. He contends that the
stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP in
order to practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and thereby null and void.

Issue:

Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property of the respondent

Held:

The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar associations that are organized by
individual lawyers themselves, membership of which is voluntary. The IBP however is an official national body of
which all lawyers must be a member and are subjected to the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which
includes payment of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation of
regulations in the practice of law. The provisions assailed does not infringe the constitutional rights of the respondent
as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its existence with regulatory measures to implement.
The name of Edillon was stricken out from the rolls of attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar.
In Re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973]

16AUG

FACTS:

The Commission on Bar Integration submitted its Report with the earnest recommendation on the basis of the
said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. 526 of the Court, and consistently with the views
and counsel received from its [the Commissions] Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhelming nationwide
sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar that (the) Honorable (Supreme) Court ordain the integration of the
Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. The petition
in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving
recognition as far as possible and practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar associations.

ISSUES:

(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?

(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?

(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?

HELD:

YES. On all issues.

RATIO:

[T]he Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec.
13 of the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning x x x the admission to the practice of law.

The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments adduced in Adm. Case
No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the
Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar is perfectly constitutional and legally
unobjectionable, within the context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative means
to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge
its public responsibility fully and effectively.

[T]he Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, ordained the integration
of the Bar of the Philippines effective January 16, 1973.

IN RE: CUNANAN

FACTS OF THE CASE:

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.
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.)
16 07 2010

In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO
CUNANAN
Resolution March 18, 1954

Facts:
Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. In accordance with
the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average
of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent.

After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its
provisions, while other 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 without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to individual
petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked
Republic Act No. 972.

Issue:

WON RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid? NO

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.

In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement
of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function
and responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission,
suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.

The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been perpetually exercised by the courts, it having been so
generally held that the act of the court in admitting an attorney to practice is the judgment of the court, and an attempt
as this on the part of the Legislature to confer such right upon any one being most exceedingly uncommon, it seems
clear that the licensing of an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function, no matter where the power to
determine the qualifications may reside.

On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of
the government.

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 Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say,
merely to fix the minimum conditions for the licens

In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO
CUNANAN
Resolution March 18, 1954

Facts:

Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. In accordance with
the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average
of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent.

After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its
provisions, while other 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 without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to individual
petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked
Republic Act No. 972.

Issue:
WON RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid? NO

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.

In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement
of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function
and responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission,
suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.

The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been perpetually exercised by the courts, it having been so
generally held that the act of the court in admitting an attorney to practice is the judgment of the court, and an attempt
as this on the part of the Legislature to confer such right upon any one being most exceedingly uncommon, it seems
clear that the licensing of an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function, no matter where the power to
determine the qualifications may reside.

On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of
the government.

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 Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say,
merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs AGRAVA

Petitioner contended that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to
practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines
Patent Office, and that Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law for requiring such
examination as condition precedent before members of the bar may be allowed to represent applicants in the
preparation and prosecution of applications for patents. Undaunted, Agrava argued that that the prosecution of
patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law and that the Rules of Court do not prohibit
the Patent Office from requiring further condition or qualification from those who would wish to handle cases
before the Patent Office.

ISSUE:
Whether appearance before the Patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications,
etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law

HELD:
Yes. The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants,
oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or
the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Although the transaction of business in the Patent Office
involves the use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such business has to
be rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and Regulations
promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law. All these things involve the applications of laws, legal
principles, practice and procedure. They call for legal knowledge, training and experience for which a member of
the bar has been prepared.
As stated in 5 Am. Jur,
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and social proceedings, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law corporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditors claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained
legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.

The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme
Court to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, since much
of the business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the
Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that
part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders
and decisions are, taken to the Supreme Court.