Admission | 1

JUDICIAL FUNCTION

that the integration of the Philippine Bar is perfectly

constitutional and legally unobjectionable, within the

IN RE: INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE

context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines,

PHILIPPINES [49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973]

has become an imperative means to raise the standards

of the legal profession, improve the administration of

FACTS:

justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public

responsibility fully and effectively.

The Commission on Bar Integration submitted

its Report with the earnest recommendation on the

The Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section

basis of the said Report and the proceedings had in

13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, ordained the

Administrative Case No. 526

integration of the Bar of the Philippines effective January

of the Court, and

consistently with the views and counsel received from

16, 1973.

its [the Commissions] Board of Consultants, as well as

the overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine

IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO

Bench and Bar that (the) Honorable (Supreme)

A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975

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.

FACTS:
This is a disbarment matter with regards to
Attorney Victorio Lanuevo, the Bar Confidant for the
1971 Bar Examinations. Supreme Court received a
confidential letter that speaks of the exam notebooks of
a examinee named Ramon Galang who has been reevaluated and re-corrected such that he hurdled the Bar

ISSUES:

Exams and was admitted to the Bar.

1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the

Philippine Bar?

Lanuevo admitted having brought the five

examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the
respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking.

2. Would

the

integration

of

the

Bar

be

constitutional?

The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or rechecked the notebook to him by the Bar Confidant,
stating that he has the authority to do the same and that

3. Should the Court ordain the integration of the

Bar at this time?

the examinee concerned failed only in his particular

subject and was on the borderline of passing. Ramon
Galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of

HELD: YES. On all issues.

Lanuevos move but the exam results bears that he

failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile,

The Court is of the view that it may integrate the

Criminal & Remedial).

Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under Article

VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, to promulgate rules

Galang on the otherhand, denied of having

charged of Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera,

concerning x x x the admission to the practice of law.

a law student of MLQU.

The

Court

is

fully

convinced,

after

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,

The five examiners were led by Lanuevo to

believe that it is the Bar Committees regular activity that
when an examinee has failed in one subject alone, the

Admission | 2
rest he passed, the examiner in that subject which he
flunked will review his exam notebook.

Under the circumstances in which respondent

Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, was allowed
to take the Bar examinations and the highly irregular

Afterwards, Lanuevo gained possession of few

manner in which he passed the Bar, WE have no other

properties, including that of a house in BF Homes, which

alternative but to order the surrender of his attorneys

was never declared in his declaration of assets and

certificate and the striking out of his name from the Roll

liabilities.

of Attorneys.

ISSUE: WON. Lanuevo was guilty of defrauding the

DECISION: Lanuevo disbarred, Galang stricken from the

examiners such that Galang passed the Bar? YES

Roll of Attorneys.

HELD: It was plain, simple and unmitigated deception

IN RE: ALMACEN

that characterized respondent Lanuevos well-studied

G.R. No.. L-27654, February 18, 1970

and well-calculated moves in successively representing

separately to each of the five examiners concerned to
the effect that the examinee failed only in his particular
subject and/or was on the borderline of passing. To
repeat, the before the unauthorized re-evaluations were

FACTS:
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia
Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said civil case but
Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified

made, Galang failed in the five (5) major subjects and in

the opposing party of said motion but he failed to

two (2) minor subjects which under no circumstances

indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion.

or standard could it be honestly claimed that the

Hence, his motion was denied. He then appealed but the

examinee failed only in one, or he was on the borderline

Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the

of passing.

trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration.

Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before

The Bar Confidant has absolutely nothing to do

in the re-evaluation or reconsideration of the grades of
examinees who fail to make the passing mark before or
after their notebooks are submitted to it by the
Examiners. The Bar Confidant

has no business

evaluating the answers of the examinees and cannot

assume the functions of passing upon the appraisal

the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in

a minute resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such
minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed
before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his
lawyers certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless
to continue practicing his profession when members of

made by the Examiners concerned. He is not the over-all

the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for

Examiner. He cannot presume to know better than the

justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable

examiner.

decisions and

commit

culpable

violations

of

the

Constitution with impunity. He further alleged that due to

AS

TO

GALANGS

CRIM

CASE:

The

the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k

concealment of an attorney in his application to take the

without knowing the reasons why and that he became

Bar examinations of the fact that he had been charged

one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of

with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for

hypocrisy. He also stated that justice as administered

revocation of his license to practice law is well settled.

by the present members of the Supreme Court is not

The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be

only blind, but also deaf and dumb.

granted every one who demands it, but is a privilege to

be extended or withheld in the exercise of sound

The Supreme Court did not immediately act on

Almacens petition as the Court wanted to wait for

discretion. The standards of the legal profession are not

Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. Almacen did

satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to

not surrender his lawyers certificate though as he now

escape the penalties of the criminal law.

argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he

may be permitted to give reasons and cause why no

Admission | 3
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S

disciplinary action should be taken against him . . . in an

open and public hearing. He said he preferred this

ASSOCIATION vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA

considering that the Supreme Court is the complainant,

G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959

prosecutor

and

Judge.

Almacen

was

however
FACTS:

unapologetic.

On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a

ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.

circular

announcing

that

he

had

scheduled

an

examination for the purpose of determining who are

HELD:

qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the

Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that

minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme

Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for
every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would
be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties.

Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular,

members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other
persons with sufficient scientific and technical training
are qualified to take the said examination. The petitioner
contends that one who has passed the bar examination

The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide only

sand is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in

those cases which present questions whose resolutions

the Philippines and who is in good standing is duly

will have immediate importance beyond the particular

qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office

facts and parties involved. It should be remembered

and

that a petition to review the decision of the Court of

examination for the purpose is in excess of his

Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial

jurisdiction and is in violation of the [Link] respondent,

discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the

in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent cases

courts denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are

does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but

already mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion.

includes the application of scientific and technical

that

the

respondent

Directors

holding

an

knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so

On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court,

as to include engineers and other individuals who

the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for;

passed the examination can practice before the Patent

that

such

is

insolent,

contemptuous,

grossly

disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both

as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to
criticize in properly respectful terms and through
legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. His
right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in
a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of
the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been
encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition
of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall

office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he

is holding tests, this is the first time that his right has
been questioned formally.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the
patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of
patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the
practice of law.

not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.

Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of
the duty of respect to courts.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law
includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the

In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is

representation of applicants, oppositors, and other

misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known

persons, and the prosecution of their applications for

that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify

patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of

the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere

their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice

scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court.

before the patent Office involves the interpretation and

He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why

application of other laws and legal principles, as well as

his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.

the existence of facts to be established in accordance

with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of
law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
court but also embraces all other matters connected with

Admission | 4
the law and any work involving the determination by the

reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the

legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions.

profession and their supervision have been indisputably

Furthermore, the law provides that any party may appeal

a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in

to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of

the judicial system from which ours has been derived,

the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the

the admission, suspension, disbarment or reinstatement

Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical

of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is

and scientific knowledge and training, then logically, the

concededly judicial.

appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body,

but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical
men, which is not the case.

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

IN RE CUNANAN, RESOLUTION

license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this

[94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954]

In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of
Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953;

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.

ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL., petitioners.

Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.

FACTS:
Congress passed Republic Act Number 972,

PEOPLE VS ROMUALDEZ

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

G.R. No. 31012 September 10, 1932

FACTS:

had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to

75 percent.

corrector for Political Law for the 1926 [Link] such

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: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and
valid.

corrector, the accused is required to put her signature or

initials on the booklets shechecked and graded or
whenever she will make an alteration. Luis Mabunay
was a barexaminee who failed because he only got an
average of 72.8% and in one subject he got a
gradebelow 60%. After the Supreme Court denied the
recommendation to lower the passing gradefrom 75% to
70%, Romualdez altered the grade of Mabunay in Civil
Law from 63% to 73%, andin Remedial Law from 58% to
63% by striking out the first grades written, without
howeveraffixing her initials under the alterations.
ISSUES: Whether accused committed falsification.
HELD:

HELD:

Yes. The accused here made several acts of

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.

admission,

suspension,

falsification. She made the alterations in the grades in

such a way as to make it appear that the correctors had
participated therein, because she blotted out the grades
of the correctors and wrote new and increased grades
opposite their initials, without indicating by her own

In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved,

the

Accused Estela Romualdez was appointed as

disbarment

and

initials that she made the alterations. She in that

Admission | 5
wayattributed to the correctors statements other than

of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of the

those in fact made by them.

respondent, though, in turning the head of the

complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are
distasteful. However, such act, even if considered
offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered grossly
immoral. The complainant miserably failed to establish
the burden of proof required of her. However, her efforts
are lauded to stand up for her honor. The complaint for
disbarment

against

the

respondent, Atty. Ernesto

REQUIREMENTS

Macabata, for alleged immorality is dismissed. However,

ADVINCULA VS. ATTY. MACABATA

he is reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in

AC NO. 7204 MARCH 07, 2007

dealing with his clients

ATTORNEYS ROLE DEFINED

FACTS:

PANGAN VS. RAMOS

The complainant, Cynthia Advincula filed a

AC NO. 1052, SEPTEMBER 7, 1979

disbarment case Atty. Ernesto Macabataon the grounds

of Gross Immorality. The complainant sought for legal

FACTS:

advice from the respondent regarding her collectibles

In 1979, a pending administrative case filed by

from Queensway Travel and Tours which later failed to

settle its accounts with the complainant. Thus, the
possibility of filing a case against Queensway Traveland
Tours was discussed. After the meeting on February 10,
2005, the respondent gave the complainant a ride home.
As the complainant gets off the car, the respondent
allegedly held her arm, kissed her cheek and embraced
her tightly. Again, after another meeting on March 06
2005, the respondent offered a ride. On the road, the
complainant felt sleepy for no obvious reason. The
respondent suddenly stopped the car in the vicinity of
San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. This time, the

Santa Pangan against Atty. Dionisio Ramos was delayed

because Atty. Ramos allegedly appeared before a court
in Manila. When the records of the said case was
checked (one which Atty. Ramos appeared in), it was
found that he used the name Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos.
In his defense, Atty. Ramos said he has the right to use
such name because in his birth certificate, his name
listed was Pedro Dionisio Ramos. D.D. stands for
Dionisio Dayaw with Dayaw being his mothers surname.
However, in the roll of attorneys, his name listed was
Dionisio D. Ramos.

respondent forcefully held her face, kissed her lips and

held her breast. The complainant managed to escape
and decided to hire another lawyer for her case. They

ISSUE: Whether or not what Atty. Ramos did was

had exchange of messages thru sms where the

correct.

respondent apologized. The respondent admitted kissing

the complainant on the lips however countered that there

HELD:

was no harassment, intimidation or lewdness instead

No. The attorneys roll or register is the official record

everything was spontaneous.

containing the names and signatures of those who are

ISSUES:

authorized to practice law. A lawyer is not authorized to

use a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of

Whether or not the respondent committed acts

Attorneys in his practice of law. The official oath obliges

are grossly immoral, or which constitute serious moral

the attorney solemnly to swear that he will do no

depravity that would warrant disbarment or suspension

falsehood. As an officer in the temple of justice, an

from the practice of law

attorney has irrefragable obligations of truthfulness,

candor and frankness. In representing himself to the

DECISION:
The acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks
are mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie, form

court as Pedro D.D. Ramos instead of Dionisio D.

Ramos, respondent has violated his solemn oath and
has resorted to deception. The Supreme Court hence

Admission | 6
severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a
similar infraction will warrant suspension or disbarment.