G. R. No. 1045, November 23, 1911: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Supreme Court of the Philippines
20 Phil. 488
G. R. No. 1045, November 23, 1911

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ERNEST F. DU FRESNE TO
BE ADMITTED TO THE BAR WITHOUT TAKING THE USUAL
EXAMINATION.
DECISION
CARSON, J.:
This is a motion for a reconsideration of a former ruling of this court denying

an application for a license to practice law in the courts of the Philippine
Islands without taking the prescribed examination.
Applicant, relying upon the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 1597, seeks
admission to the bar without taking the usual examination claiming that he
has "held" the office of assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila
by virtue of an appointment as acting assistant prosecuting attorney of the
city of Manila, made in his favor under the provisions of section 15 of Act
No. 1698.
Section 2 of Act No. 1597 is as follows:
"Paragraph one of section thirteen of Act Numbered One hundred and
ninety, entitled 'An Act providing a Code of Procedure in civil actions and
special proceedings in the Philippine Islands,' is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"'1. Those who have been duly licensed under the laws and orders of the
Islands under the sovereignty of Spain or of the United States and are in
good and regular standing as members of the bar of the Philippine Islands at
the time of the adoption of this code; Provided, That any person who,
prior to the passage of this Act, or at any time thereafter, shall have held,
under the authority of the United States, the position of justice of the
Supreme Court, judge of the Court of First Instance, or judge or associate
judge of the Court of Land Registration, of the Philippine Islands, or the
position of Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Assistant Attorney-
General, Assistant Attorney in the office of the Attorney-General,
prosecuting attorney for the city of Manila, assistant prosecuting attorney
for the city of Manila, city attorney of Manila, assistant city attorney of
Manila, provincial fiscal, attorney for the Moro Province, or assistant
attorney for the Moro Province, may be licensed to practice law in the courts
of the Philippine Islands without an examination, upon motion before the
Supreme Court and establishing such fact to the satisfaction of said court.'"
That portion of section 15 of Act No. 1698, by authority of which applicant

claims that he was appointed an acting assistant prosecuting attorney of the
city of Manila, is as follows:
"In case of a temporary absence or disability of any subordinate officer or
employee in any Bureau or Office, the chief of such Bureau or Office may
designate any other subordinate officer or employee in his Bureau or Office
temporarily to perform the duties of the officer or employee who is thus
absent or disabled, and it shall be the duty of the person so designated to
perform the duties so assigned to him without additional compensation."
Upon the showing made by the applicant, we do not think that he comes
within either the letter or the spirit of the provisions of section 2 of Act No.
1597, on which he bases his application.
Applicant does not claim that he was appointed to the office of assistant
prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila. His claim is that he was
appointed an acting assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila; but
the privilege conferred in express terms in section 2 of Act No. 1597,
upon which he relies, is conferred upon one who has "held" the position of
assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, and makes no express
provision touching one who has held the position of an acting assistant
prosecuting attorney.
Applicant, however, contends that his appointment as an acting assistant
prosecuting attorney for the city of Manila, under the provisions of section 15
of Act No. 1698, was a sufficient authorization to him to hold the office of
assistant prosecuting attorney for the city of Manila; and that he did, in
fact, hold that office and perform the duties thereof for several months. We
do not think that this contention is or can be sustained by the terms of the
statute upon which applicant relies.
Without considering whether section 15 of Act No. 1698 contemplates or

authorizes the making of appointments in the form in which applicant's
appointment was made, that is to say, as an acting assistant prosecuting
attorney, it is very clear that whatever form be adopted by the prosecuting
attorney for the city of Manila in designating subordinate officers and
employees in his office temporarily to perform the duties of an absent or
disabled assistant prosecuting attorney, his action, if taken under the
authority conferred upon him by section 15 of Act No. 1698, can amount to
no more than a mere designation and authorization to such
person temporarily to perform the duties of the absent or disabled official,
without additional compensation. The language of the statute leaves no
room for doubt that a subordinate officer or employee designated
temporarily to perform the duties of another, continues to "hold" his own
office or employment with all its rights and privileges; and there is nothing
in the statute which indicates that it was the intention of the legislator that
he is to enjoy, in addition thereto, any of the rights and privileges of the
official whose duties he is designated temporarily to perform, except only,
of course, such rights and privileges as are necessarily incident to the actual
performance of the duties of the absent or disabled official.
But not only does the designation of the applicant temporarily to perform the
duties of an assistant prosecuting attorney for the city of Manila fail to
bring him within the strict letter of the law authorizing the admission of
such officials to the bar without examination; in our opinion it fails also to
bring him within the spirit or the intent of the provisions of the above-cited
section 2 of Act No. 1597.
Public policy demands that any person seeking admission to the bar in these
Islands be required to furnish satisfactory proof of his educational and moral
qualifications and of his possession of such a degree of learning and
proficiency in the law as may be deemed necessary for the due
performance«of the duties of a lawyer. The learning and proficiency in the
law of an applicant for admission to the bar ia usually ascertained by
requiring him to submit himself to an examination. But section 2 of Act No.
1597 provides, substantially, that officials who have held certain specified
judicial and legal offices in these Islands will be presumed to have the
necessary learning and proficiency in the law to entitle them to admission to
the bar without examination. Of course, a mere appointment to one of these
offices could not impart such learning and proficiency in the law to one
who was without it at the time of his appointment, and it is clear that this
presumption must rest on the further presumption that before any person is
appointed to any of the positions mentioned in the Act, due inquiry is made
as to his character and qualifications, and that no person will be appointed to
such positions who has not at least such a degree of learning and proficiency
in the law as would entitle him to admission to practice in the various courts
in these Islands. Appointments to the positions mentioned in Act No. 1597
are made either by the President of the United States by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, or by the Governor-General of the Philippine
Islands by and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission,
and the legislator evidently conceived that the fact that such an appointment
is made is a sufficient guaranty that after due inquiry the appointee has been
found to be possessed of at least the necessary qualifications for admission
to the bar.
But no such presumption arises as to the qualification of one who is merely

designated temporarily to perform the duties of one of the officials mentioned
in the Act. Under the provisions of section 15 of Act No. 1698, the Attorney-
General of the Islands, the city attorney and the prosecuting attorney for the
city of Manila and the attorney for the Moro Province may each designate
any subordinate officer or employee in their respective offices temporarily
to perform the duties of an absent or disabled assistant attorney. In making
such designation for temporary duty, there is no such obligation upon the
chiefs of these offices to look well to the qualifications as a lawyer of the
employee thus designated, as there is upon the Chief Executive to look well
to the qualifications of a regular appointee to such an office; and it is easy
to imagine cases where an employee not learned in the law, or at most with
some knowledge and experience in a single branch of the law such as
criminal practice and procedure, might properly be designated temporarily
to perform the duties of an assistant attorney in one or other of those offices,
although his permanent appointment to such an office would not be justified
by his general attainments as a lawyer. There is no such guaranty that only
competent attorneys will be designated by the chiefs of these offices
temporarily to perform the duties of absent assistant attorneys under the
provisions of section 15 of Act No. 1698, as there is that the President of
the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the
Governor-General of the Philippine Islands by and with the consent of the
Commission will appoint none but competent attorneys permanently to
occupy the important judicial and legal positions expressly mentioned in
section 2 of Act No. 1597.
We do not believe that it was the intention of the legislator to put it in the
power of the Attorney-General of the Islands, of the city attorney and the
prosecuting attorney for the city of Manila, and of the attorney for the Moro
Province arbitrarily, and in the exercise of their unrestrained discretion to
confer upon subordinate officers and employees in their offices the right to
admission to the bar in these Islands without examination; and we hold that
subordinate officers and employees designated temporarily to perform the
duties of absent or disabled assistant attorneys do not hold the positions of
such absent or disabled assistant attorneys in the sense in which the
legislator contemplated the holding of those positions in section 2 of Act No.
1597, in order to give one who has held them the right to admission to
practice law in these Islands without taking the prescribed examination.
The application should be, and is, denied.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.
Batas.org

G. R. No. 1045, November 23, 1911: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G. R. No. 1045, November 23, 1911: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G. R. No. 1045, November 23, 1911: Supreme Court of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court of the Philippines

G. R. No. 1045, November 23, 1911

This is a motion for a reconsideration of a former ruling of this court denying

Section 2 of Act No. 1597 is as follows:

That portion of section 15 of Act No. 1698, by authority of which applicant

Without considering whether section 15 of Act No. 1698 contemplates or

But no such presumption arises as to the qualification of one who is merely

The application should be, and is, denied.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.