In re: Cunanan An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital

requisites for the practice of the law that should be

Resolution Cunanan, et. al developed constantly and maintained firmly.
18 March 1954 The Judicial system from which ours has been derived,
FACTS: the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring, and
reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the
In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar profession is concededly judicial.
of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino
Cunanan et. al petitioners. The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and
the S.C. equal responsibilities concerning the admission
In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so to the practice of law. The primary power and
much public interest and concern as R.A. 972 popularly responsibility which the constitution recognizes
known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” Generally a continue to reside in this court.
candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a general ave
of 75% in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the
subject, although for the past few exams the passing law seeks to “cure” are not the rules set in place by the
grades were changed depending on the strictness of the S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the
correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- court, and this power is not included in the power
69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-1953 – 75%). granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively
w/in the judiciary.
Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law
as those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
feeling that they have been discriminated against, 1. There was a manifest encroachment on the
unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
few percentages lower than those admitted to the bar
went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill 2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of
no. 12, but was vetoed by the president after he was the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in
given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution.
senate then approved senate bill no. 372 embodying
substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill 3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter,
and supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since
then became law on June 21, 1953
the rules made by congress must elevate the profession,
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its and those rules promulgated are considered the bare
author, to admit to the Bar those candidates who minimum.)
suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and
inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is 4. It is a class legislation
contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law 5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the
graduates who had inadequate preparation for the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and
practice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the
in the exams. entire law is void.
ISSUES: HELD:
Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have Under the authority of the court:
on the legal profession and the administration of
justice, the S.C. would seek to know if it is 1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the
CONSTITUTIONAL. examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the
said law are unconstitutional and therefore void and Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal
w/o force and effect. defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As
per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes
subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is
a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also
valid and shall continue in force. (those petitions by the struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to
candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are
denied, and all the candidates who in the examination
not stationary.
of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a
grade of below 50% in any subject are considered as As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared
having passed whether they have filed petitions for unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was
admissions or not.) 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

IN RE CUNANAN who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate
94 PHIL. 534 preparation due to the fact that this was very close to
the end of World War II;
FACTS:
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as of the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was,
“An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary
from 1946 up to and including 1955.” prerogative to determine who may be admitted to
practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative
Section 1 provided the following passing marks: power to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of
Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this
1946-1951………………70%
power are only minimum norms, not designed to
1952 …………………….71% substitute the judgment of the court on who can
practice law; and
1953……………………..72%
The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to
1954……………………..73% class legislation.

1955……………………..74% As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court

could not muster enough votes to declare it void.
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no
Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in
grade lower than 50%.
1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who resolutions denying admission to the bar of an
obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the
to have already passed that subject and the power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules
grade/grades shall be included in the computation of of admission to the practice of law.
the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”

ISSUE:

Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional?

RULING:
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), b. Representation should be exclusively entrusted to
Enrique Entila and Victoriano Tenazas vs. Binalbagan duly qualified members of the bar.
Isabela Sugar Company, Court of Industrial Relations
and Quintin Muning The permission for a non-member does not entitle the
representative to compensation for such
FACTS: representation.

COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ORDERED Sec 24, Rule 138 Compensation of attorney's agreement
REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES FOR ENTILA AND as to fees:
TENAZAS.
i. An attorney shall be entitled to have and
Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of Entila and Tenazas recover from his client no more than a
filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the reasonable compensation for his services.
total backwages.

i. Entila and Tenazas filed manifestation indicating

their non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for a. Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960 after failing in
25% of their backwages the 1959 Bar Examination.

ii. Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of b. His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the petition alleging that
Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the his nephew is not a person of good moral character for
having misrepresented, sometime in 1950, when he was
backwages.
16 years old, that he was eligible for 3rd year high
1. Opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground school by utilizing the school records of his cousin and
that he is not a lawyer. name-sake, Juan M. Publico.

a. Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the ii. PUBLICO has not completed Grade 4
backwages as compensation for professional services
iii. Tapel instituted an administrative case
rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:
against his nephew for falsification of school records or
credentials.
i. Cipriano 10%
ii. Quintin Muning 10% PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took the lawyer's oath, and
signed the Roll of Attorneys.
iii. Atanacio Pacis 5%
Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo Paras, Jr.,
iii. CANON 34: condemns an agreement providing for investigated and reported:
the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer
union president is allowed to share in said fees with September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapel dropped the
complaint on the ground that his witnesses had turned
lawyers
hostile.
1. Sec 5(b) of RA 875 that —No justification for a
ruling, that the person representing the party-litigant in i. Motion denied, his witnesses had already testified.
the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a Recommended PUBLICO’s name to be stricken off the
lawyer, is entitled to attorney's fees roll of attorneys.
a. Duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer i. Respondent falsified his school records
to examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of
the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of ii. Thereby violating the provisions of Sections 5 and 6,
evidence. 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 WON a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees
school, prior to his admission to the practice of law. which are deductible from the backpay of some of its
members. YES.
11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for
Reinstatement alleging that he had never received, for It was PAFLU that moved for an extension of time to file
had he been informed, nor did he have any knowledge the present petition for review; union members Entila
of the Resolution of the Court ordering the Bar Division and Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were
to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys. included as petitioners in the present petition. Their
inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners was belated.
He was advised to inquire into the outcome of the
disbarment case against him. HELD:

He resigned from all his positions in public and private ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET ASIDE AS THEY ARE
offices, and transferred to Manila. AWARDED 10% OF BACKWAGES AS ATTORNEY’S FEES
FOR MUNING. COSTS AGAINST MUNING.
Prayed that Court allow reinstatement taking into
consideration his exemplary conduct from the time he Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if one is a
became a lawyer, his services to the community the lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot
numerous awards, resolutions and/'or commendations establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique
he received, Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he
cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees.
i. Court denied the Petition.
Public policy demands that legal work in representation
ii. Petitioner moved for reconsideration was of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those
denied by the Court for lack of merit. possessing tested qualifications, for the ethics of the
5th plea avers that his enrollment in Third Year High profession and for the protection of courts, clients and
School in Manila was through the initiative of his uncle, the public.
Dulcisimo B. Tapel who accompanied him to school and The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession
enrolled him in a grade level above his qualifications in
should not be violated:
spite of his demonstrations
Acting as an attorney with authority constitutes
i. Misrepresentation committed was contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or
precipitated by his uncle; that being merely 16 year old, imprisonment or both,
he could not be expected to act with discernment as he
was still under the influence of his uncle, who later on Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit
caused his disbarment of an act or an act done in violation of law

ii. No opposition has been filed to any of the If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the
petitions. public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in
case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic
ISSUE: condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal amenable to disciplinary measures.
services rendered?

The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a In response to UNION may appeal an award of
lawyer according to the order, is sought to be voided in attorney's fees which are deductible from the backpay
the present petition. 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.