In Re Cunanan, Et Al., 94 Phil. 534, March 18, 1954

[Resolution, March 18, 1954] 6.ID.; TITLE OF LAW MUST EMBRACE ALL ITS PROVISIONS.
—Article 2 of
Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to
In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful what the Constitution enjoins. Being inseparable from the provisions of
Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO CUNANAN ET AL., petitioners. article 1, the entire law is void.
7.ID.; REPUBLIC ACT No. 972, PART OF SECTION 1 DECLARED TO BE IN

FORCE.—There being no unanimity in the eight Justices who constitute
1.ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; ADMISSION; RELATION TO COURT AND PUBLIC.
the majority of the court in this case, that part of article 1 Republic Act
—By its declared objective, Republic Act No. 972 is contrary to public
No. 972 which refers to the examinations of 1953 to 1955 shall continue
interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had
in force.
inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession, as was exactly
found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations. The public interest
demands of the legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency,
precisely more so as legal problems evolved by the times become more
DIOKNO, J.:
difficult.
2.ID.; ID.; A JUDICIAL FUNCTION.—In the judicial system from which ours In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public
has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and interest and concern as Republic Act No. 972, popularly known as the
reinstatement of attorneys-at-law in the practice of the profession and "Bar Flunkers' Act of 1953." Under the Rules of Court governing
their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and admission to the bar, "in order that a candidate (for admission to the
responsibility. Because of this attribute, its continuous and zealous Bar) may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he
possession and exercise by the judicial power have been demonstrated must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects,
without falling below 50 per cent in any subject." (Rule 127, sec. 14,
during more than six centuries, which certainly "constitutes the most
Rules of Court). Nevertheless, considering the varying difficulties of the
solid of titles."
different bar examinations held since 1946 and the varying degree of
3.ID.; ID.; POWER OF CONGRESS TO REPEAL, ALTER OR SUPPLEMENT strictness with which the examination papers were graded, this court
passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an
RULES.—The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and this
average of only 72 per cent in 1946, 69 per cent in 1947, 70 per cent in
Tribunal equal responsibilities governing the admission to the practice of
1948, and 74 per cent in 1949. In 1950 to 1953, the 74 per cent was
law. The primary power and responsibility which the Constitution raised to 75 per cent.
recognizes, continue to reside in this court. Congress may repeal, alter
and supplement the rules promulgated by this court, but the authority
Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those
and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment and
reconsidered and passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having
reinstatement of attorneys-at-law and their supervision remain vested in
been discriminated against (See Explanatory Note to R.A. No. 972),
the Supreme Court. unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentage
lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress for, and
4.ID.; ID.; ID.; POWER OF CONGRESS AND THAT OF SUPREME COURT
secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12 which, among others,
MAY BE HARMONIZED.—Being coordinate and independent branches
reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent
the power to promulgate and enforce rules for the admission to the effective since 1946. The President requested the views of this court on
practice of law and the concurrent power to repeal, alter and the bill. Complying with that request, seven members of the court
supplement them may and should be exercised with the respect that subscribed to and submitted written comments adverse thereto, and
each owes to the other, giving careful consideration to the responsibility shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did not override the
which the nature of each department requires. These powers have veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371, embodying substantially
existed together for centuries without diminution on each part; the the provisions of the vetoed bill. Although the members of this court
harmonious delimitation being found in that the legislature may and reiterated their unfavorable views on the matter, the President allowed
should examine if the existing rules on the admission to the Bar respond the bill to become a law on June 21, 1953 without his signature. The law,
to the demands which public interest requires of a Bar endowed with which incidentally was enacted in an election year, reads in full as
high virtues, culture, training and responsibility. The legislature may, by follows:
means of repeal, amendment or supplemental rules, fill up any
deficiency that it may find, and the judicial power, which has the REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972
inherent responsibility for a good and efficient administration of justice
and the supervision of the practice of the legal profession, should AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR
consider these reforms as the minimum standards for the elevation of EXAMINATIONS FROM NINETEEN HUNDRED AND
the profession, and see to it that with these reforms the lofty objective FORTY-SIX UP TO AND INCLUDING NINETEEN
that is desired in the exercise of its traditional duty of admitting, HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE.
suspending, disbarring and reinstating attorneys-at-law is realized. They
are powers which, exercised within their proper constitutional limits, are Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
not repugnant, but rather complementary to each other in attaining the Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
establishment of a Bar that would respond to the increasing and assembled:
exacting necessities of the administration of justice.
SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section
5.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CLASS LEGISLATION.—Republic Act No. 972 is fourteen, Rule numbered one hundred twenty-seven of the
a class legislation. There is no actual nor reasonable basis to classify Rules of Court, any bar candidate who obtained a general
unsuccessful bar candidates by years nor to exclude those of other average of seventy per cent in any bar examinations after July
years. fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-six up to the August
nineteen hundred and fifty-one bar examinations; seventy-
one per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-two bar
examinations; seventy-two per cent in the in the nineteen taken from two to five different examinations, but failed to obtain a
hundred and fifty-three bar examinations; seventy-three per passing average in any of them. Consolidating, however, their highest
cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-four bar examinations; grades in different subjects in previous examinations, with their latest
seventy-four per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-five marks, they would be sufficient to reach the passing average as provided
bar examinations without a candidate obtaining a grade for by Republic Act No. 972.
below fifty per cent in any subject, shall be allowed to take
and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of (3) The total number of candidates to be benefited by this Republic Acts
the Philippine Bar: Provided, however, That for the purpose of is therefore 1,094, of which only 604 have filed petitions. Of these 604
this Act, any exact one-half or more of a fraction, shall be petitioners, 33 who failed in 1946 to 1951 had individually presented
considered as one and included as part of the next whole motions for reconsideration which were denied, while 125 unsuccessful
number. candidates of 1952, and 56 of 1953, had presented similar motions,
which are still pending because they could be favorably affected by
SEC. 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of seventy- Republic Act No. 972, — although as has been already stated, this
five per cent in any subject in any bar examination after July tribunal finds no sufficient reasons to reconsider their grades
fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-six shall be deemed to
have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972
grades shall be included in computing the passing general
average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent
examinations that he may take. Having been called upon to enforce a law of far-reaching effects on the
practice of the legal profession and the administration of justice, and
because some doubts have been expressed as to its validity, the court
SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. set the hearing of the afore-mentioned petitions for admission on the
sole question of whether or not Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional.
Enacted on June 21, 1953, without the Executive approval.
We have been enlightened in the study of this question by the brilliant
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed assistance of the members of the bar who have amply argued, orally an
petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while others in writing, on the various aspects in which the question may be gleaned.
whose motions for the revision of their examination papers were still The valuable studies of Messrs. E. Voltaire Garcia, Vicente J. Francisco,
pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for Vicente Pelaez and Buenaventura Evangelista, in favor of the validity of
admission. There are also others who have sought simply the the law, and of the U.P. Women's Lawyers' Circle, the Solicitor General,
reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in Messrs. Arturo A. Alafriz, Enrique M. Fernando, Vicente Abad Santos,
question. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first Carlos A. Barrios, Vicente del Rosario, Juan de Blancaflor, Mamerto V.
reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not Gonzales, and Roman Ozaeta against it, aside from the memoranda of
they had invoked Republic Act No. 972. Unfortunately, the court has counsel for petitioners, Messrs. Jose M. Aruego, M.H. de Joya, Miguel R.
found no reason to revise their grades. If they are to be admitted to the Cornejo and Antonio Enrile Inton, and of petitioners Cabrera, Macasaet
bar, it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. 972 which, if declared valid, and Galema themselves, has greatly helped us in this task. The legal
should be applied equally to all concerned whether they have filed researchers of the court have exhausted almost all Philippine and
petitions or not. A complete list of the petitioners, properly classified, American jurisprudence on the matter. The question has been the object
affected by this decision, as well as a more detailed account of the of intense deliberation for a long time by the Tribunal, and finally, after
history of Republic Act No. 972, are appended to this decision as the voting, the preparation of the majority opinion was assigned to a
Annexes I and II. And to realize more readily the effects of the law, the new member in order to place it as humanly as possible above all
following statistical data are set forth: suspicion of prejudice or partiality.
(1) The unsuccessful bar candidates who are to be benefited by section 1 Republic Act No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit
of Republic Act No. 972 total 1,168, classified as follows: to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading
materials and inadequate preparation. Quoting a portion of the
Explanatory Note of the proposed bill, its author Honorable Senator
1946 (August) 206 121 18
Pablo Angeles David stated:
1946 (November) 477 228 43
1947 749 340 0 The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing grade
is the tremendous handicap which students during the years
1948 899 409 11
immediately after the Japanese occupation has to overcome
1949 1,218 532 164 such as the insufficiency of reading materials and the
1950 1,316 893 26 inadequacy of the preparation of students who took up law
soon after the liberation.
1951 2,068 879 196
1952 2,738 1,033 426 Of the 9,675 candidates who took the examinations from 1946 to 1952,
1953 2,555 968 284 5,236 passed. And now it is claimed that in addition 604 candidates be
admitted (which in reality total 1,094), because they suffered from
TOTAL 12,230 5,421 1,168 "insufficiency of reading materials" and of "inadequacy of preparation."
Of the total 1,168 candidates, 92 have passed in subsequent By its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it
examination, and only 586 have filed either motions for admission to the qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate
bar pursuant to said Republic Act, or mere motions for reconsideration. preparation for the practice of the profession, as was exactly found by
this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations. The public interest demands
(2) In addition, some other 10 unsuccessful candidates are to be of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more
benefited by section 2 of said Republic Act. These candidates had each so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. An
adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice Attorneys, solicitors, etc., were public officers; the power of
of law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. To appointing them had previously rested with the judges, and
the legal profession is entrusted the protection of property, life, honor this was the principal appointing power which they possessed.
and civil liberties. To approve officially of those inadequately prepared The convention was evidently dissatisfied with the manner in
individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission is to create which this power had been exercised, and with the
a serious social danger. Moreover, the statement that there was an restrictions which the judges had imposed upon admission to
insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly exaggerated. There practice before them. The prohibitory clause in the section
were abundant materials. Decisions of this court alone in mimeographed quoted was aimed directly at this power, and the insertion of
copies were made available to the public during those years and private the provision" expecting the admission of attorneys, in this
enterprises had also published them in monthly magazines and annual particular section of the Constitution, evidently arose from its
digests. The Official Gazette had been published continuously. Books and connection with the object of this prohibitory clause. There is
magazines published abroad have entered without restriction since nothing indicative of confidence in the courts or of a
1945. Many law books, some even with revised and enlarged editions disposition to preserve any portion of their power over this
have been printed locally during those periods. A new set of Philippine subject, unless the Supreme Court is right in the inference it
Reports began to be published since 1946, which continued to be draws from the use of the word `admission' in the action
supplemented by the addition of new volumes. Those are facts of public referred to. It is urged that the admission spoken of must be
knowledge. by the court; that to admit means to grant leave, and that the
power of granting necessarily implies the power of refusing,
Notwithstanding all these, if the law in question is valid, it has to be and of course the right of determining whether the applicant
enforced. possesses the requisite qualifications to entitle him to
admission.
The question is not new in its fundamental aspect or from the point of
view of applicable principles, but the resolution of the question would These positions may all be conceded, without affecting the
have been easier had an identical case of similar background been validity of the act. (p. 93.)
picked out from the jurisprudence we daily consult. Is there any
precedent in the long Anglo-Saxon legal history, from which has been Now, with respect to the law of April 7, 1860, the decision seems to
directly derived the judicial system established here with its lofty ideals indicate that it provided that the possession of a diploma of the school
by the Congress of the United States, and which we have preserved and of law of Columbia College conferring the degree of Bachelor of Laws
attempted to improve, or in our contemporaneous judicial history of was evidence of the legal qualifications that the constitution required of
more than half a century? From the citations of those defending the law, applicants for admission to the Bar. The decision does not however
we can not find a case in which the validity of a similar law had been quote the text of the law, which we cannot find in any public or
sustained, while those against its validity cite, among others, the cases accessible private library in the country.
of Day (In re Day, 54 NE 646), of Cannon (State vs. Cannon, 240 NW,
441), the opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 1932 (81 In the case of Cooper, supra, to make the law consistent with the
ALR 1061), of Guariña (24 Phil., 37), aside from the opinion of the Constitution of New York, the Court of Appeals said of the object of the
President which is expressed in his vote of the original bill and which the law:
postponement of the contested law respects.
The motive for passing the act in question is apparent.

This law has no precedent in its favor. When similar laws in other Columbia College being an institution of established
countries had been promulgated, the judiciary immediately declared reputation, and having a law department under the charge of
them without force or effect. It is not within our power to offer a able professors, the students in which department were not
precedent to uphold the disputed law. only subjected to a formal examination by the law committee
of the institution, but to a certain definite period of study
To be exact, we ought to state here that we have examined carefully the before being entitled to a diploma of being graduates, the
case that has been cited to us as a favorable precedent of the law — that Legislature evidently, and no doubt justly, considered this
of Cooper (22 NY, 81), where the Court of Appeals of New York revoked examination, together with the preliminary study required by
the decision of the Supreme court of that State, denying the petition of the act, as fully equivalent as a test of legal requirements, to
Cooper to be admitted to the practice of law under the provisions of a the ordinary examination by the court; and as rendering the
statute concerning the school of law of Columbia College promulgated latter examination, to which no definite period of preliminary
on April 7, 1860, which was declared by the Court of Appeals to be study was essential, unnecessary and burdensome.
consistent with the Constitution of the state of New York.
The act was obviously passed with reference to the learning
It appears that the Constitution of New York at that time provided: and ability of the applicant, and for the mere purpose of
substituting the examination by the law committee of the
They (i.e., the judges) shall not hold any other office of public college for that of the court. It could have had no other object,
trust. All votes for either of them for any elective office except and hence no greater scope should be given to its provisions.
that of the Court of Appeals, given by the Legislature or the We cannot suppose that the Legislature designed entirely to
people, shall be void. They shall not exercise any power of dispense with the plain and explicit requirements of the
appointment to public office. Any male citizen of the age of Constitution; and the act contains nothing whatever to
twenty-one years, of good moral character, and who indicate an intention that the authorities of the college should
possesses the requisite qualifications of learning and ability, inquire as to the age, citizenship, etc., of the students before
shall be entitled to admission to practice in all the courts of granting a diploma. The only rational interpretation of which
this State. (p. 93). the act admits is, that it was intended to make the college
diploma competent evidence as to the legal attainments of
the applicant, and nothing else. To this extent alone it
According to the Court of Appeals, the object of the constitutional operates as a modification of pre-existing statutes, and it is to
precept is as follows: be read in connection with these statutes and with the
Constitution itself in order to determine the present condition Under the Constitution all legislative power is vested in a
of the law on the subject. (p.89) Senate and Assembly. (Section 1, art. 4.) In so far as the
prescribing of qualifications for admission to the bar are
xxx xxx xxx legislative in character, the Legislature is acting within its
constitutional authority when it sets up and prescribes such
qualifications. (p. 444)
The Legislature has not taken from the court its jurisdiction
over the question of admission, that has simply prescribed
what shall be competent evidence in certain cases upon that But when the Legislature has prescribed those qualifications
question. (p.93) which in its judgment will serve the purpose of legitimate
legislative solicitude, is the power of the court to impose
other and further exactions and qualifications foreclosed or
From the foregoing, the complete inapplicability of the case of Cooper exhausted? (p. 444)
with that at bar may be clearly seen. Please note only the following
distinctions:
Under our Constitution the judicial and legislative
departments are distinct, independent, and coordinate
(1) The law of New York does not require that any candidate of Columbia branches of the government. Neither branch enjoys all the
College who failed in the bar examinations be admitted to the practice of powers of sovereignty which properly belongs to its
law. department. Neither department should so act as to
embarrass the other in the discharge of its respective
(2) The law of New York according to the very decision of Cooper, has functions. That was the scheme and thought of the people
not taken from the court its jurisdiction over the question of admission setting upon the form of government under which we exist.
of attorney at law; in effect, it does not decree the admission of any State vs. Hastings, 10 Wis., 525; Attorney General ex rel.
lawyer. Bashford vs. Barstow, 4 Wis., 567. (p. 445)
(3) The Constitution of New York at that time and that of the Philippines The judicial department of government is responsible for the
are entirely different on the matter of admission of the practice of law. plane upon which the administration of justice is maintained.
Its responsibility in this respect is exclusive. By committing a
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, portion of the powers of sovereignty to the judicial
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the department of our state government, under 42a scheme
practice of the profession and their supervision have been disputably a which it was supposed rendered it immune from
judicial function and responsibility. Because of this attribute, its embarrassment or interference by any other department of
continuous and zealous possession and exercise by the judicial power government, the courts cannot escape responsibility fir the
have been demonstrated during more than six centuries, which certainly manner in which the powers of sovereignty thus committed to
"constitutes the most solid of titles." Even considering the power the judicial department are exercised. (p. 445)
granted to Congress by our Constitution to repeal, alter supplement the
rules promulgated by this Court regarding the admission to the practice The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and intimate
of law, to our judgment and proposition that the admission, suspension, relationship. The bar is an attache of the courts. The quality of
disbarment and reinstatement of the attorneys at law is a legislative justice dispense by the courts depends in no small degree
function, properly belonging to Congress, is unacceptable. The function upon the integrity of its bar. An unfaithful bar may easily bring
requires (1) previously established rules and principles, (2) concrete scandal and reproach to the administration of justice and
facts, whether past or present, affecting determinate individuals. and (3) bring the courts themselves into disrepute. (p.445)
decision as to whether these facts are governed by the rules and
principles; in effect, a judicial function of the highest degree. And it Through all time courts have exercised a direct and severe
becomes more undisputably judicial, and not legislative, if previous supervision over their bars, at least in the English speaking
judicial resolutions on the petitions of these same individuals are countries. (p. 445)
attempted to be revoked or modified.
After explaining the history of the case, the Court ends thus:
We have said that in 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. A Our conclusion may be epitomized as follows: For more than
comprehensive and conscientious study of this matter had been six centuries prior to the adoption of our Constitution, the
undertaken in the case of State vs. Cannon (1932) 240 NW 441, in which courts of England, concededly subordinate to Parliament since
the validity of a legislative enactment providing that Cannon be the Revolution of 1688, had exercise the right of determining
permitted to practice before the courts was discussed. From the text of who should be admitted to the practice of law, which, as was
this decision we quote the following paragraphs: said in Matter of the Sergeant's at Law, 6 Bingham's New
Cases 235, "constitutes the most solid of all titles." If the
courts and judicial power be regarded as an entity, the power
This statute presents an assertion of legislative power without to determine who should be admitted to practice law is a
parallel in the history of the English speaking people so far as constituent element of that entity. It may be difficult to isolate
we have been able to ascertain. There has been much that element and say with assurance that it is either a part of
uncertainty as to the extent of the power of the Legislature to the inherent power of the court, or an essential element of
prescribe the ultimate qualifications of attorney at law has the judicial power exercised by the court, but that it is a
been expressly committed to the courts, and the act of power belonging to the judicial entity and made of not only a
admission has always been regarded as a judicial function. sovereign institution, but made of it a separate independent,
This act purports to constitute Mr. Cannon an attorney at law, and coordinate branch of the government. They took this
and in this respect it stands alone as an assertion of legislative institution along with the power traditionally exercise to
power. (p. 444) determine who should constitute its attorney at law. There is
no express provision in the Constitution which indicates an "for something more than private gain." He becomes an
intent that this traditional power of the judicial department "officer of the court", and ,like the court itself, an instrument
should in any manner be subject to legislative control. or agency to advance the end of justice. His cooperation with
Perhaps the dominant thought of the framers of our the court is due "whenever justice would be imperiled if
constitution was to make the three great departments of cooperation was withheld." Without such attorneys at law the
government separate and independent of one another. The judicial department of government would be hampered in the
idea that the Legislature might embarrass the judicial performance of its duties. That has been the history of
department by prescribing inadequate qualifications for attorneys under the common law, both in this country and
attorneys at law is inconsistent with the dominant purpose of England. Admission to practice as an attorney at law is almost
making the judicial independent of the legislative department, without exception conceded to be a judicial function. Petition
and such a purpose should not be inferred in the absence of to that end is filed in courts, as are other proceedings invoking
express constitutional provisions. While the legislature may judicial action. Admission to the bar is accomplish and made
legislate with respect to the qualifications of attorneys, but is open and notorious by a decision of the court entered upon
incidental merely to its general and unquestioned power to its records. The establishment by the Constitution of the
protect the public interest. When it does legislate a fixing a judicial department conferred authority necessary to the
standard of qualifications required of attorneys at law in order exercise of its powers as a coordinate department of
that public interests may be protected, such qualifications do government. It is an inherent power of such a department of
not constitute only a minimum standard and limit the class government ultimately to determine the qualifications of
from which the court must make its selection. Such legislative those to be admitted to practice in its courts, for assisting in
qualifications do not constitute the ultimate qualifications its work, and to protect itself in this respect from the unfit,
beyond which the court cannot go in fixing additional those lacking in sufficient learning, and those not possessing
qualifications deemed necessary by the course of the proper good moral character. Chief Justice Taney stated succinctly
administration of judicial functions. There is no legislative and with finality in Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 13, 15 L. Ed.
power to compel courts to admit to their bars persons 565, "It has been well settled, by the rules and practice of
deemed by them unfit to exercise the prerogatives of an common-law courts, that it rests exclusively with the court to
attorney at law. (p. 450) determine who is qualified to become one of its officers, as an
attorney and counselor, and for what cause he ought to be
Furthermore, it is an unlawful attempt to exercise the power removed." (p.727)
of appointment. It is quite likely true that the legislature may
exercise the power of appointment when it is in pursuance of In the case of Day and others who collectively filed a petition to secure
a legislative functions. However, the authorities are well-nigh license to practice the legal profession by virtue of a law of state (In
unanimous that the power to admit attorneys to the practice re Day, 54 NE 646), the court said in part:
of law is a judicial function. In all of the states, except New
Jersey (In re Reisch, 83 N.J. Eq. 82, 90 A. 12), so far as our In the case of Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall, 333, 18 L. Ed. 366, the
investigation reveals, attorneys receive their formal license to court, holding the test oath for attorneys to be
practice law by their admission as members of the bar of the unconstitutional, explained the nature of the attorney's office
court so admitting. Cor. Jur. 572; Ex parte Secombre, 19 How. as follows: "They are officers of the court, admitted as such by
9,15 L. Ed. 565; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L. Ed. 366; its order, upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal
Randall vs. Brigham, 7 Wall. 53, 19 L. Ed. 285; Hanson vs. learning and fair private character. It has always been the
Grattan, 48 Kan, 843, 115 P. 646, 34 L.R.A. 519; Danforth vs. general practice in this country to obtain this evidence by an
Egan, 23 S. D. 43, 119 N.W. 1021, 130 Am. St. Rep. 1030, 20 examination of the parties. In this court the fact of the
Ann. Cas. 413. admission of such officers in the highest court of the states to
which they, respectively, belong for, three years preceding
The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been their application, is regarded as sufficient evidence of the
perpetually exercised by the courts, it having been so possession of the requisite legal learning, and the statement
generally held that the act of the court in admitting an of counsel moving their admission sufficient evidence that
attorney to practice is the judgment of the court, and an their private and professional character is fair. The order of
attempt as this on the part of the Legislature to confer such admission is the judgment of the court that the parties
right upon any one being most exceedingly uncommon, it possess the requisite qualifications as attorneys and
seems clear that the licensing of an attorney is and always has counselors, and are entitled to appear as such and conduct
been a purely judicial function, no matter where the power to causes therein. From its entry the parties become officers of
determine the qualifications may reside. (p. 451) the court, and are responsible to it for professional
misconduct. They hold their office during good behavior, and
In that same year of 1932, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and
answering a consultation of the Senate of that State, 180 NE 725, said: declared by the judgment of the court after opportunity to be
heard has been afforded. Ex parte Hoyfron, admission or their
exclusion is not the exercise of a mere ministerial power. It is
It is indispensible to the administration of justice and to the exercise of judicial power, and has been so held in
interpretation of the laws that there be members of the bar of numerous cases. It was so held by the court of appeals of New
sufficient ability, adequate learning and sound moral York in the matter of the application of Cooper for admission.
character. This arises from the need of enlightened assistance Re Cooper 22 N. Y. 81. "Attorneys and Counselors", said that
to the honest, and restraining authority over the knavish, court, "are not only officers of the court, but officers whose
litigant. It is highly important, also that the public be duties relate almost exclusively to proceedings of a judicial
protected from incompetent and vicious practitioners, whose nature; and hence their appointment may, with propriety, be
opportunity for doing mischief is wide. It was said by Cardoz, entrusted to the court, and the latter, in performing his duty,
C.L., in People ex rel. Karlin vs. Culkin, 242 N.Y. 456, 470, 471, may very justly considered as engaged in the exercise of their
162 N.E. 487, 489, 60 A.L.R. 851: "Membership in the bar is a appropriate judicial functions." (pp. 650-651).
privilege burden with conditions." One is admitted to the bar
We quote from other cases, the following pertinent portions: modify the same. The Congress shall have the power to
repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading,
Admission to practice of law is almost without exception practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of
conceded everywhere to be the exercise of a judicial function, law in the Philippines. — Constitution of the Philippines, Art.
and this opinion need not be burdened with citations in this VIII, sec. 13.
point. Admission to practice have also been held to be the
exercise of one of the inherent powers of the court. — Re It will be noted that the Constitution has not conferred on Congress and
Bruen, 102 Wash. 472, 172 Pac. 906. this Tribunal equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the
practice of law. the primary power and responsibility which the
Admission to the practice of law is the exercise of a judicial Constitution recognizes continue to reside in this Court. Had Congress
function, and is an inherent power of the court. — A.C. found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter, it
Brydonjack, vs. State Bar of California, 281 Pac. 1018; See would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it.
Annotation on Power of Legislature respecting admission to Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by
bar, 65, A.L. R. 1512. this Court, but the authority and responsibility over the admission,
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law and their
supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. The power to repeal,
On this matter there is certainly a clear distinction between the alter and supplement the rules does not signify nor permit that Congress
functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government. substitute or take the place of this Tribunal in the exercise of its primary
power on the matter. The Constitution does not say nor mean that
The distinction between the functions of the legislative and Congress may admit, suspend, disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at
the judicial departments is that it is the province of the law, or a determinate group of individuals to the practice of law. Its
legislature to establish rules that shall regulate and govern in power is limited to repeal, modify or supplement the existing rules on
matters of transactions occurring subsequent to the legislative the matter, if according to its judgment the need for a better service of
action, while the judiciary determines rights and obligations the legal profession requires it. But this power does not relieve this
with reference to transactions that are past or conditions that Court of its responsibility to admit, suspend, disbar and reinstate
exist at the time of the exercise of judicial power, and the attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the legal profession.
distinction is a vital one and not subject to alteration or
change either by legislative action or by judicial decree. Being coordinate and independent branches, the power to promulgate
and enforce rules for the admission to the practice of law and the
The judiciary cannot consent that its province shall be invaded concurrent power to repeal, alter and supplement them may and should
by either of the other departments of the government. — 16 be exercised with the respect that each owes to the other, giving careful
C.J.S., Constitutional Law, p. 229. consideration to the responsibility which the nature of each department
requires. These powers have existed together for centuries without
If the legislature cannot thus indirectly control the action of diminution on each part; the harmonious delimitation being found in
the courts by requiring of them construction of the law that the legislature may and should examine if the existing rules on the
according to its own views, it is very plain it cannot do so admission to the Bar respond to the demands which public interest
directly, by settling aside their judgments, compelling them to requires of a Bar endowed with high virtues, culture, training and
grant new trials, ordering the discharge of offenders, or responsibility. The legislature may, by means of appeal, amendment or
directing what particular steps shall be taken in the progress supplemental rules, fill up any deficiency that it may find, and the
of a judicial inquiry. — Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, judicial power, which has the inherent responsibility for a good and
192. efficient administration of justice and the supervision of the practice of
the legal profession, should consider these reforms as the minimum
standards for the elevation of the profession, and see to it that with
In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of these reforms the lofty objective that is desired in the exercise of its
1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 traditional duty of admitting, suspending, disbarring and reinstating
per cent in any subject, be admitted in mass to the practice of law, the attorneys at law is realized. They are powers which, exercise within their
disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment — a judgment revoking proper constitutional limits, are not repugnant, but rather
those promulgated by this Court during the aforecited year affecting the complementary to each other in attaining the establishment of a Bar
bar candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke that would respond to the increasing and exacting necessities of the
these judgments even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain administration of justice.
that only this Court, and not the legislative nor executive department,
that may be so. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments
would be a clear usurpation of its functions, as is the case with the law in The case of Guariña (1913) 24 Phil., 37, illustrates our criterion. Guariña
question. took examination and failed by a few points to obtain the general
average. A recently enacted law provided that one who had been
appointed to the position of Fiscal may be admitted to the practice of
That the Constitution has conferred on Congress the power to repeal, law without a previous examination. The Government appointed
alter or supplement the rule promulgated by this Tribunal, concerning Guariña and he discharged the duties of Fiscal in a remote province. This
the admission to the practice of law, is no valid argument. Section 13, tribunal refused to give his license without previous examinations. The
article VIII of the Constitution provides: court said:
Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to Relying upon the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 1597, the
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and applicant in this case seeks admission to the bar, without
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of taking the prescribed examination, on the ground that he
law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same holds the office of provincial fiscal for the Province of Batanes.
grade and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice and procedure
are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Section 2 of Act No. 1597, enacted February 28, 1907, is as
Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and follows:
Sec. 2. Paragraph one of section thirteen of Act Numbered "may," as used in the above citation from Act of Congress of
One Hundred and ninety, entitled "An Act providing a Code of July 1, 1902, or of any Act of Congress prescribing, defining or
Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the limiting the power conferred upon the commission is to that
Philippine Islands," is hereby amended to read as follows: extent invalid and void, as transcending its rightful limits and
authority.
1. Those who have been duly licensed under the laws and
orders of the Islands under the sovereignty of Spain or of the Speaking on the application of the law to those who were appointed to
United States and are in good and regular standing as the positions enumerated, and with particular emphasis in the case of
members of the bar of the Philippine Islands at the time of the Guariña, the Court held:
adoption of this code; Provided, That any person who, prior to
the passage of this act, or at any time thereafter, shall have In the various cases wherein applications for the admission to
held, under the authority of the United States, the position of the bar under the provisions of this statute have been
justice of the Supreme Court, judge of the Court of First considered heretofore, we have accepted the fact that such
Instance, or judge or associate judge of the Court of Land appointments had been made as satisfactory evidence of the
Registration, of the Philippine Islands, or the position of qualifications of the applicant. But in all of those cases we had
Attorney General, Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney reason to believe that the applicants had been practicing
General, assistant attorney in the office of the Attorney attorneys prior to the date of their appointment.
General, 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 In the case under consideration, however, it affirmatively
attorney for the Moro Province, may be licensed to practice appears that the applicant was not and never had been
law in the courts of the Philippine Islands without an practicing attorney in this or any other jurisdiction prior to the
examination, upon motion before the Supreme Court and date of his appointment as provincial fiscal, and it further
establishing such fact to the satisfaction of said court. affirmatively appears that he was deficient in the required
qualifications at the time when he last applied for admission
to the bar.
The records of this court disclose that on a former occasion
this appellant took, and failed to pass the prescribed
examination. The report of the examining board, dated March In the light of this affirmative proof of his defieciency on that
23, 1907, shows that he received an average of only 71 per occasion, we do not think that his appointment to the office of
cent in the various branches of legal learning upon which he provincial fiscal is in itself satisfactory proof if his possession
was examined, thus falling four points short of the required of the necessary qualifications of learning and ability. We
percentage of 75. We would be delinquent in the conclude therefore that this application for license to practice
performance of our duty to the public and to the bar, if, in the in the courts of the Philippines, should be denied.
face of this affirmative indication of the deficiency of the
applicant in the required qualifications of learning in the law In view, however, of the fact that when he took the
at the time when he presented his former application for examination he fell only four points short of the necessary
admission to the bar, we should grant him license to practice grade to entitle him to a license to practice; and in view also
law in the courts of these Islands, without first satisfying of the fact that since that time he has held the responsible
ourselves that despite his failure to pass the examination on office of the governor of the Province of Sorsogon and
that occasion, he now "possesses the necessary qualifications presumably gave evidence of such marked ability in the
of learning and ability." performance of the duties of that office that the Chief
Executive, with the consent and approval of the Philippine
But it is contented that under the provisions of the above- Commission, sought to retain him in the Government service
cited statute the applicant is entitled as of right to be by appointing him to the office of provincial fiscal, we think
admitted to the bar without taking the prescribed we would be justified under the above-cited provisions of Act
examination "upon motion before the Supreme Court" No. 1597 in waiving in his case the ordinary examination
accompanied by satisfactory proof that he has held and now prescribed by general rule, provided he offers satisfactory
holds the office of provincial fiscal of the Province of Batanes. evidence of his proficiency in a special examination which will
It is urged that having in mind the object which the legislator be given him by a committee of the court upon his application
apparently sought to attain in enacting the above-cited therefor, without prejudice to his right, if he desires so to do,
amendment to the earlier statute, and in view of the context to present himself at any of the ordinary examinations
generally and especially of the fact that the amendment was prescribed by general rule. — (In re Guariña, pp. 48-49.)
inserted as a proviso in that section of the original Act which
specifically provides for the admission of certain candidates It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the
without examination. It is contented that this mandatory practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by
construction is imperatively required in order to give effect to Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities
the apparent intention of the legislator, and to the candidate's say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.
claim de jure to have the power exercised.
The law in question, like those in the case of Day and Cannon, has been
And after copying article 9 of Act of July 1, 1902 of the Congress of the found also to suffer from the fatal defect of being a class legislation, and
United States, articles 2, 16 and 17 of Act No. 136, and articles 13 to 16 that if it has intended to make a classification, it is arbitrary and
of Act 190, the Court continued: unreasonable.
Manifestly, the jurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by In the case of Day, a law enacted on February 21, 1899 required of the
the commission and confirmed to it by the Act of Congress Supreme Court, until December 31 of that year, to grant license for the
would be limited and restricted, and in a case such as that practice of law to those students who began studying before November
under consideration wholly destroyed, by giving the word 4, 1897, and had studied for two years and presented a diploma issued
by a school of law, or to those who had studied in a law office and would The length of time a physician has practiced, and the skill
pass an examination, or to those who had studied for three years if they acquired by experience, may furnish a basis for classification
commenced their studies after the aforementioned date. The Supreme (Williams vs. People 121 Ill. 48, II N.E. 881); but the place
Court declared that this law was unconstitutional being, among others, a where such physician has resided and practiced his profession
class legislation. The Court said: cannot furnish such basis, and is an arbitrary discrimination,
making an enactment based upon it void (State vs. Pennyeor,
This is an application to this court for admission to the bar of 65 N.E. 113, 18 Atl. 878). Here the legislature undertakes to
this state by virtue of diplomas from law schools issued to the say what shall serve as a test of fitness for the profession of
applicants. The act of the general assembly passed in 1899, the law, and plainly, any classification must have some
under which the application is made, is entitled "An act to reference to learning, character, or ability to engage in such
amend section 1 of an act entitled "An act to revise the law in practice. The proviso is limited, first, to a class of persons who
relation to attorneys and counselors," approved March 28, began the study of law prior to November 4, 1897. This class is
1884, in force July 1, 1874." The amendment, so far as it subdivided into two classes — First, those presenting
appears in the enacting clause, consists in the addition to the diplomas issued by any law school of this state before
section of the following: "And every application for a license December 31, 1899; and, second, those who studied law for
who shall comply with the rules of the supreme court in the period of two years in a law office, or part of the time in a
regard to admission to the bar in force at the time such law school and part in a law office, who are to be admitted
applicant commend the study of law, either in a law or office upon examination in the subjects specified in the present
or a law school or college, shall be granted a license under this rules of this court, and as to this latter subdivision there
act notwithstanding any subsequent changes in said rules". seems to be no limit of time for making application for
— In re Day et al, 54 N.Y., p. 646. admission. As to both classes, the conditions of the rules are
dispensed with, and as between the two different conditions
and limits of time are fixed. No course of study is prescribed
. . . After said provision there is a double proviso, one branch for the law school, but a diploma granted upon the
of which is that up to December 31, 1899, this court shall completion of any sort of course its managers may prescribe is
grant a license of admittance to the bar to the holder of every made all-sufficient. Can there be anything with relation to the
diploma regularly issued by any law school regularly organized qualifications or fitness of persons to practice law resting
under the laws of this state, whose regular course of law upon the mere date of November 4, 1897, which will furnish a
studies is two years, and requiring an attendance by the basis of classification. Plainly not. Those who began the study
student of at least 36 weeks in each of such years, and of law November 4th could qualify themselves to practice in
showing that the student began the study of law prior to two years as well as those who began on the 3rd. The classes
November 4, 1897, and accompanied with the usual proofs of named in the proviso need spend only two years in study,
good moral character. The other branch of the proviso is that while those who commenced the next day must spend three
any student who has studied law for two years in a law office, years, although they would complete two years before the
or part of such time in a law office, "and part in the aforesaid time limit. The one who commenced on the 3rd. If possessed
law school," and whose course of study began prior to of a diploma, is to be admitted without examination before
November 4, 1897, shall be admitted upon a satisfactory December 31, 1899, and without any prescribed course of
examination by the examining board in the branches now study, while as to the other the prescribed course must be
required by the rules of this court. If the right to admission pursued, and the diploma is utterly useless. Such classification
exists at all, it is by virtue of the proviso, which, it is claimed, cannot rest upon any natural reason, or bear any just relation
confers substantial rights and privileges upon the persons to the subject sought, and none is suggested. The proviso is
named therein, and establishes rules of legislative creation for for the sole purpose of bestowing privileges upon certain
their admission to the bar. (p. 647.) defined persons. (pp. 647-648.)
Considering the proviso, however, as an enactment, it is In the case of Cannon above cited, State vs. Cannon, 240 N.W. 441,
clearly a special legislation, prohibited by the constitution, and where the legislature attempted by law to reinstate Cannon to the
invalid as such. If the legislature had any right to admit practice of law, the court also held with regards to its aspect of being a
attorneys to practice in the courts and take part in the class legislation:
administration of justice, and could prescribe the character of
evidence which should be received by the court as conclusive
of the requisite learning and ability of persons to practice law, But the statute is invalid for another reason. If it be granted
it could only be done by a general law, persons or classes of that the legislature has power to prescribe ultimately and
persons. Const. art 4, section 2. The right to practice law is a definitely the qualifications upon which courts must admit and
privilege, and a license for that purpose makes the holder an license those applying as attorneys at law, that power can not
officer of the court, and confers upon him the right to appear be exercised in the manner here attempted. That power must
for litigants, to argue causes, and to collect fees therefor, and be exercised through general laws which will apply to all alike
creates certain exemptions, such as from jury services and and accord equal opportunity to all. Speaking of the right of
arrest on civil process while attending court. The law the Legislature to exact qualifications of those desiring to
conferring such privileges must be general in its operation. No pursue chosen callings, Mr. Justice Field in the case of Dent.
doubt the legislature, in framing an enactment for that vs. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 121, 9 S. Ct. 232, 233, 32 L. Ed.
purpose, may classify persons so long as the law establishing 626, said: "It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen of the
classes in general, and has some reasonable relation to the United States to follow any lawful calling, business or
end sought. There must be some difference which furnishes a profession he may choose, subject only to such restrictions as
reasonable basis for different one, having no just relation to are imposed upon all persons of like age, sex, and condition."
the subject of the legislation. Braceville Coal Co. vs. People, This right may in many respects be considered as a
147 Ill. 66, 35 N.E. 62; Ritchie vs. People, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N.E. distinguishing feature of our republican institutions. Here all
454; Railroad Co. vs. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 255. vocations are all open to every one on like conditions. All may
be pursued as sources of livelihood, some requiring years of
study and great learning for their successful prosecution. The
interest, or, as it is sometimes termed, the "estate" acquired on that class only, and not generally on all. (12 Am. Jur. pp.
in them — that is, the right to continue their prosecution — is 151-153.)
often of great value to the possessors and cannot be
arbitrarily taken from them, any more than their real or Pursuant to the law in question, those who, without a grade below 50
personal property can be thus taken. It is fundamental under per cent in any subject, have obtained a general average of 69.5 per cent
our system of government that all similarly situated and in the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951, 70.5 per cent in 1952, 71.5 per
possessing equal qualifications shall enjoy equal cent in 1953, and those will obtain 72.5 per cent in 1954, and 73.5 per
opportunities. Even statutes regulating the practice of cent in 1955, will be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding
medicine, requiring medications to establish the possession oath of office as members of the Bar, notwithstanding that the rules
on the part of the application of his proper qualifications require a minimum general average of 75 per cent, which has been
before he may be licensed to practice, have been challenged, invariably followed since 1950. Is there any motive of the nature
and courts have seriously considered whether the exemption indicated by the abovementioned authorities, for this classification ? If
from such examinations of those practicing in the state at the there is none, and none has been given, then the classification is fatally
time of the enactment of the law rendered such law defective.
unconstitutional because of infringement upon this general
principle. State vs. Thomas Call, 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517; see,
also, The State ex rel. Winkler vs. Rosenberg, 101 Wis. 172, 76 It was indicated that those who failed in 1944, 1941 or the years before,
N.W. 345; State vs. Whitcom, 122 Wis. 110, 99 N.W. 468. with the general average indicated, were not included because the
Tribunal has no record of the unsuccessful candidates of those years.
This fact does not justify the unexplained classification of unsuccessful
This law singles out Mr. Cannon and assumes to confer upon candidates by years, from 1946-1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955. Neither is
him the right to practice law and to constitute him an officer the exclusion of those who failed before said years under the same
of this Court as a mere matter of legislative grace or favor. It is conditions justified. The fact that this Court has no record of
not material that he had once established his right to practice examinations prior to 1946 does not signify that no one concerned may
law and that one time he possessed the requisite learning and prove by some other means his right to an equal consideration.
other qualifications to entitle him to that right. That fact in no
matter affect the power of the Legislature to select from the
great body of the public an individual upon whom it would To defend the disputed law from being declared unconstitutional on
confer its favors. account of its retroactivity, it is argued that it is curative, and that in
such form it is constitutional. What does Rep. Act 972 intend to cure ?
Only from 1946 to 1949 were there cases in which the Tribunal
A statute of the state of Minnesota (Laws 1929, c. 424) permitted admission to the bar of candidates who did not obtain the
commanded the Supreme Court to admit to the practice of general average of 75 per cent: in 1946 those who obtained only 72 per
law without examination, all who had served in the military or cent; in the 1947 and those who had 69 per cent or more; in 1948, 70
naval forces of the United States during the World War and per cent and in 1949, 74 per cent; and in 1950 to 1953, those who
received a honorable discharge therefrom and who (were obtained 74 per cent, which was considered by the Court as equivalent
disabled therein or thereby within the purview of the Act of to 75 per cent as prescribed by the Rules, by reason of circumstances
Congress approved June 7th, 1924, known as "World War deemed to be sufficiently justifiable. These changes in the passing
Veteran's Act, 1924 and whose disability is rated at least ten averages during those years were all that could be objected to or
per cent thereunder at the time of the passage of this Act." criticized. Now, it is desired to undo what had been done — cancel the
This Act was held |unconstitutional on the ground that it license that was issued to those who did not obtain the prescribed 75
clearly violated the quality clauses of the constitution of that per cent ? Certainly not. The disputed law clearly does not propose to do
state. In re Application of George W. Humphrey, 178 Minn. so. Concededly, it approves what has been done by this Tribunal. What
331, 227 N.W. 179. Congress lamented is that the Court did not consider 69.5 per cent
obtained by those candidates who failed in 1946 to 1952 as sufficient to
A good summary of a classification constitutionally acceptable is qualify them to practice law. Hence, it is the lack of will or defect of
explained in 12 Am. Jur. 151-153 as follows: judgment of the Court that is being cured, and to complete the cure of
this infirmity, the effectivity of the disputed law is being extended up to
The general rule is well settled by unanimity of the authorities the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, increasing each year the general average
that a classification to be valid must rest upon material by one per cent, with the order that said candidates be admitted to the
differences between the person included in it and those Bar. This purpose, manifest in the said law, is the best proof that what
excluded and, furthermore, must be based upon substantial the law attempts to amend and correct are not the rules promulgated,
distinctions. As the rule has sometimes avoided the but the will or judgment of the Court, by means of simply taking its
constitutional prohibition, must be founded upon pertinent place. This is doing directly what the Tribunal should have done during
and real differences, as distinguished from irrelevant and those years according to the judgment of Congress. In other words, the
artificial ones. Therefore, any law that is made applicable to power exercised was not to repeal, alter or supplement the rules, which
one class of citizens only must be based on some substantial continue in force. What was done was to stop or suspend them. And this
difference between the situation of that class and other power is not included in what the Constitution has granted to Congress,
individuals to which it does not apply and must rest on some because it falls within the power to apply the rules. This power
reason on which it can be defended. In other words, there corresponds to the judiciary, to which such duty been confided.
must be such a difference between the situation and
circumstances of all the members of the class and the Article 2 of the law in question permits partial passing of examinations,
situation and circumstances of all other members of the state at indefinite intervals. The grave defect of this system is that it does not
in relation to the subjects of the discriminatory legislation as take into account that the laws and jurisprudence are not stationary,
presents a just and natural cause for the difference made in and when a candidate finally receives his certificate, it may happen that
their liabilities and burdens and in their rights and privileges. A the existing laws and jurisprudence are already different, seriously
law is not general because it operates on all within a clause affecting in this manner his usefulness. The system that the said law
unless there is a substantial reason why it is made to operate prescribes was used in the first bar examinations of this country, but was
abandoned for this and other disadvantages. In this case, however, the
fatal defect is that the article is not expressed in the title will have
temporary effect only from 1946 to 1955, the text of article 2 establishes RESOLUTION
a permanent system for an indefinite time. This is contrary to Section 21
(1), article VI of the Constitution, which vitiates and annuls article 2 Upon mature deliberation by this Court, after hearing and availing of the
completely; and because it is inseparable from article 1, it is obvious that magnificent and impassioned discussion of the contested law by our
its nullity affect the entire law. Chief Justice at the opening and close of the debate among the members
of the Court, and after hearing the judicious observations of two of our
Laws are unconstitutional on the following grounds: first, because they beloved colleagues who since the beginning have announced their
are not within the legislative powers of Congress to enact, or Congress decision not to take part in voting, we, the eight members of the Court
has exceeded its powers; second, because they create or establish who subscribed to this decision have voted and resolved, and have
arbitrary methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles; and decided for the Court, and under the authority of the same:
third, because their purposes or effects violate the Constitution or its
basic principles. As has already been seen, the contested law suffers 1. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. 972 referring to
from these fatal defects. the examinations of 1946 to 1952, and (b) all of article 2 of said law are
unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without force and effect.
Summarizing, we are of the opinion and hereby declare that Republic
Act No. 972 is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without any 2. That, for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of article 1
force nor effect for the following reasons, to wit: which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law,
that is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in
1. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in force, in conformity with section 10, article VII of the Constitution.
the bar examinations of 1946-1952, and who, it admits, are certainly
inadequately prepared to practice law, as was exactly found by this Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates
Court in the aforesaid years. It decrees the admission to the Bar of these who failed in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and
candidates, depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if (2) all candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general
they are at present already prepared to become members of the Bar. It average of 71.5 per cent or more, without having a grade below 50 per
obliges the Tribunal to perform something contrary to reason and in an cent in any subject, are considered as having passed, whether they have
arbitrary manner. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional filed petitions for admission or not. After this decision has become final,
responsibility of the Supreme Court. they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of
office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the chief Justice
2. Because it is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of this may set. So ordered.
Court on the petitions of these 810 candidates, without having examined
their respective examination papers, and although it is admitted that this Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Labrador, Pablo, Padilla, and Reyes,
Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at any time for justifiable JJ., concur.
reasons, only this Court and no other may revise and alter them. In
attempting to do it directly Republic Act No. 972 violated the
Constitution. ANNEX I
3. By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative power to PETITIONERS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972
repeal, alter and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. Such
additional or amendatory rules are, as they ought to be, intended to A resume‚ of pertinent facts concerning the bar examinations of 1946 to
regulate acts subsequent to its promulgation and should tend to 1953 inclusive follows:
improve and elevate the practice of law, and this Tribunal shall consider
these rules as minimum norms towards that end in the admission,
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar, August, 19461
inasmuch as a good bar assists immensely in the daily performance of Board of Examiners: Hon. Pedro Tuason, Chairman, Prof. Gerardo
judicial functions and is essential to a worthy administration of justice. It Florendo, Atty. Bernardino Guerrero, Atty. Joaquin Ramirez, Atty. Crispin
is therefore the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court Oben, Hon. Jose Teodoro, Atty. Federico Agrava, Atty. Jose Perez
to render the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may Cardenas, and Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan, members.
continue in the practice of law according to existing rules.
Number of candidates 206
Number of candidates whose grades were 12
4. The reason advanced for the pretended classification of candidates,
raised
which the law makes, is contrary to facts which are of general
knowledge and does not justify the admission to the Bar of law students 73'S 6
inadequately prepared. The pretended classification is arbitrary. It is
72'S 6
undoubtedly a class legislation.
Number of candidates who passed 85
5. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the Number of candidates who failed 121
law, contrary to what the Constitution enjoins, and being inseparable Number of those affected by Republic Act No. 18
from the provisions of article 1, the entire law is void. 972
Percentage of success (per cent) 41.62
6. Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1
referring to the examinations of 1953 to 1955, said part of article 1, Percentage of failure (per cent) 58.74
insofar as it concerns the examinations in those years, shall continue in Passing grade (per cent) 72
force.
November, 1946
Board of Examiners: The same as that of August, 1946, except Hon. Jose
Teodoro who was substituted by Atty. Honesto K. Bausan. Percentage of failure (per cent) 37.60
Number of candidates 481 Passing grade (per cent) 70
Number of candidates whose grades were 19 (by resolution of the Court).
raised
August, 1949
(72 per cent and above 73 per cent ---
Board of Examiners: Hon. Sabino Padilla, Chairman, Hon. Fernando Jugo,
Minutes of March 31, 1947)
Hon. Enrique Filamor, Atty. Salvador Araneta, Hon. Pastor M. Endencia,
Number of candidates who passed 249 Atty. Federico Agrava, Hon. Mariano H. de Joya, Hon. Felipe Natividad,
Atty. Emeterio Barcelon, Members.
Number of candidates who failed 228
Number of candidates 1,218
Number of those affected by Republic Act No. 43
972 Number of candidates whose grades were 55
raised (74's)
Percentage of failure (per cent) 47.80
Passing grade (per cent) 72
(By resolution of the Court). Number of those affected by Republic Act No. 164
972
October, 1947
Board of Examiners: Hon. Cesar Bengzon, Chairman, Hon. Guillermo B.
Guevara, Atty. Antonio Araneta, Atty. Simon Cruz, Hon. Sixto de la Costa, Percentage of failure (per cent) 43.72
Atty. Celso B. Jamora, Hon. Emilio Peña, Atty. Federico Agrava, Atty. Carlos
B. Hilado, Members.
(by resolution of the Court).
August, 1950
raised Board of Examiners: Hon. Fernando Jugo,2 Chairman, Hon. Guillermo B.
Guevara, Atty. Enrique Altavas, Atty. Marcial P. Lichauco, Atty. Carlos B.
70.55 per cent with 2 subject below 50 1
Hilado, Atty. J. Antonio Araneta, Hon. Enrique V. Filamor, Hon. Francisco
per cent
A. Delgado, Hon. Antonio Horrilleno, Members.
69 per cent 40
68 per cent 2
Number of candidates who passed 409 raised
Number of candidates who failed 340 (The grade of 74 was raised to 75 per cent by recommendation
and authority
of the examiner in Remedial Law, Atty. Francisco Delgado).
972
972
(by resolution of the Court).
Note.--In passing the 2 whose grades were 68.95 per cent and Percentage of failure (per cent) 67.86
68.1 per cent respectively, the Court found out that they were Passing grade (per cent) 75
not benefited at all by the bonus of 12 points given by the
August, 1951
Examiner in Civil Law.
Board of Examiners: Hon. Guillermo F. Pablo, Chairman, Hon. Pastor M.
August, 1948
Endencia, Atty. Enrique Altavas, Hon. Manuel Lim, Hon. Felipe Natividad,
Board of Examiners: Hon. Marceliano R. Montemayor, Chairman Hon. Luis Hon. Vicente Albert, Atty. Arturo Alafriz, Hon. Enrique V. Filamor, Hon.
P. Torres, Hon. Felipe Natividad, Hon. Jose Teodoro, Sr., Atty. Federico Alfonso Felix, Members.
Agrava, Atty. Macario Peralta, Sr., Hon. Jesus G. Barrera, Hon. Rafael
Amparo, Atty. Alfonso Ponce Enrile, Members.
raised (74's)
Number of candidates who passed 1,189
raised
71's 29
70's 35
972
972
August, 1952
Board of Examiners: Hon. Sabino Padilla, Chairman, Hon. Pastor M. 7. Abaya, Jesus A. 69 79 75 75 71 89 55 75 70.8
Endencia, Hon. Enrique V. Filamor, Atty. Francisco Ortigas, Hon. Emilio
MR Advincula, David D. 76 80 62 86 81 72 60 65 70.5
Peña, Atty. Emilio P. Virata, Hon. Alfonso Felix, Hon. Felipe Natividad, Atty.
D8.
Macario Peralta, Sr., Members.
9. Agraviador, Alfredo L 63 85 70 77 80 81 65 80 71.8
10. Alacar, Pascual C. 61 63 83 79 71 85 65 80 72.05
raised (74's) 11. Amog, Pedro M. 75 66 76 78 81 74 55 85 72.2
Number of candidates who passed 1,705 12. Apolinario, Miguel S. 75 84 78 78 70 70 60 75 71.95
Number of candidates who failed 1,033 13. Aquino, Maximo G. 82 77 71 77 76 77 60 75 73.15
Number of those affected by Republic Act No. 426 14. Asinas, Candido D. 75 83 69 80 81 83 55 85 72.65
972 15. Baldivino, Jose B. 75 65 72 82 82 69 60 80 71.95
Percentage of success (per cent) 62.27 16. Balintona, Bernardo 75 80 64 78 74 67 65 70 70
Percentage of failure (per cent) 37.73 17. Banawa, Angel L. 78 70 70 75 81 83 60 60 72.3
Passing grade (per cent) 75 18. Bandala, Anacleto A. 66 80 66 71 93 72 55 70 69.6
August, 1953 19. Bandon, Alawadin L. 74 79 69 77 91 73 60 80 73.35
Board of Examiners: Hon. Fernando Jugo, Chairman, Hon. Pastor M. 20. Baquero, Benjamin 76 79 64 77 85 72 65 75 72.5
Endencia, Atty. Enrique Altavas, Atty. Francisco Ortigas, Jr., Hon. Emilio
Peña, Atty. Jose S. de la Cruz, Hon. Alfonso Felix, Hon. Felipe Natividad, 21. Blanco, Jose 75 75 70 75 77 76 60 90 72.5
Hon. Mariano L. de la Rosa, Members. 22. Buenaluz, Victoriano 75 71 72 78 67 82 60 75 70.85
Number of candidates 2,555 23. Canda, Benjamin S. 75 72 75 82 76 77 65 75 73.55
Number of candidates whose grades were 100 24. Canon, Guillermo 77 86 67 88 75 69 70 85 73.9
raised (74's)
25. Carlos, Estela S. 75 81 81 79 72 73 65 70 73.8
Number of candidates who passed 1,570
26. Cerezo, Gregorio O. 69 76 76 79 71 80 55 80 70.4
27. Clarin, Manuel L. 75 82 76 81 73 69 70 75 73.95
972 28. Claudo, Conrado O. 76 62 78 77 73 72 60 70 71.4
Percentage of success (per cent) 61.04 29. Condevillamar, 68 65 74 80 85 75 60 75 71.65

Antonio V.
MR Cornejo, Crisanto R. 72 75 69 82 83 79 65 80 73.4
Passing grade (per cent) 75 D30.
31. Corona, Olvido D. 68 76 73 81 81 72 60 75 71.15
A list of petitioners for admission to the Bar under Republic Act No. 972,
32. Dizon, Marcial C. 76 86 69 83 75 74 65 80 73.1
grouped by the years in which they took the bar examinations, with
annotations as to who had presented motions for reconsideration which 33. Enriquez, Agustin P. 75 77 70 81 81 77 65 80 73.75
were denied (MRD), and who filed mere motions for reconsideration 34. Espiritu, Irineo E. 80 88 69 75 76 77 65 75 73.8
without invoking said law, which are still pending, follows:
35. Fernandez, Macario J 63 82 76 75 81 84 65 75 72.95
PETITIONER UNDER THE BAR FLUNKERS' LAW 36. Gallardo, Amando C. 78 79 67 77 76 75 60 65 70.95
Ci Land Merc Int. Pol. Crim. Rem. Leg. G.A. 37. Garcia, Freidrich M. 76 80 66 75 72 70 60 75 69.7
v. . 38. Garcia, Julian L. 64 77 68 82 89 77 65 75 72.15
MR Agunod, Filemon L. 66 71 61 76 80 83 73 75 71.4 39. Garcia, Leon Mo. 77 86 71 80 60 82 65 75 71.85
D1.
40. Garcia, Pedro V. 76 82 73 81 74 83 60 85 73.6
MR Cunanan, Albino 76 72 74 75 70 70 65 72 71.45
41. Garcia, Santiago C. 62 91 79 75 72 75 65 80 71.8
D2.
42. Genoves, Pedro 75 83 70 78 87 76 55 80 72.7
MR Mejia, Flaviano V. 64 64 65 68 83 74 68 80 69.85
D3. 43. Gonzales, Amado P. 75 71 71 75 86 75 60 75 72.65
1948 44. Guia, Odon R. de 77 76 66 81 74 76 60 75 70.9
MR Orlina, Soledad R. 71 68 66 75 63 75 70 88 69.9 45. Fernandez, Simeon 62 68 71 80 74 90 65 75 70.85
D4. 46. Jakosalem, Filoteo 82 83 73 82 61 87 65 70 73.6
MR Vivero, Antonio Lu. 75 73 73 65 63 66 65 80 69.95 47. Jesus, Felipe D. de 75 83 67 79 78 85 60 75 72.45
D5.
48. Jocom, Jacobo M. 77 77 74 77 74 64 55 85 70.65
MR Gatchalian, Salud 72 66 71 75 78 68 65 50 69.65
D6. 49. Juares, Nicolas 77 84 56 76 73 82 60 85 70
50. Kalalang, Remigio 65 75 74 80 70 70 65 85 70.3
51. Layumas, Vicente L. 67 84 65 75 89 66 60 80 70.3
1949 52. Leyson, Amancio F. 69 83 75 76 81 75 65 75 73.15
53. Libanan, Marcelino 71 83 61 77 80 81 65 85 71.75 97. Zabala, Amando A. 76 70 67 75 76 76 60 75 70.6
54. Lim, Jose E. 77 77 72 76 72 64 65 70 71.15
55. Lim, Jose F. 70 75 62 83 80 71 65 80 70.4
1950
56. Linao, Mariano M. 66 84 76 78 80 75 60 75 71.75
D98. Cruz, Filomeno de la 70 71 78 81 76 72 64 96 73.4
57. Lopez, Angelo P. 67 81 75 72 79 81 55 80 71
99. Española, Pablo S. 71 78 55 76 85 69 65 93 70.2
58. Lopez, Eliezar M. 77 75 60 75 77 85 60 75 70.7
100. Foronda, Clarencio J. 60 78 68 79 84 88 62 93 71.9
59. Lopez, Nicanor S. 72 71 70 78 77 84 60 75 71.55
101. Hechanova, Vicente 59 76 75 75 69 68 75 96 71.3
60. Manoleto, Proceso D 72 70 65 78 81 90 60 80 71.95
MR Peñalosa, Osias R. 80 78 61 76 61 77 66 85 70.2
61. Mancao, Alfredo P. 67 64 71 83 76 76 65 80 70.95
102.
62. Manera, Mariano A. 75 78 75 75 68 79 60 65 71
103. Sarmiento, Floro A. 65 86 63 82 89 72 60 72 70.15
63. Mercado, Arsenio N. 67 64 71 83 76 76 65 80 70.95
MR Torre, Catalino P. 75 85 68 78 69 67 65 69 70.25
64. Miranda, Benjamin G 76 81 67 82 74 77 65 80 72.55 104.
65. Manad, Andres B. 77 75 68 82 69 72 65 75 71.15 105. Ungson, Fernando S. 61 87 75 70 57 85 83 82 72.8
1948 1951
66. Orosco, Casimiro P. 72 84 69 81 70 82 65 75 71.9 106. Abasolo, Romulo 77 70 64 65 76 70 76 64 71.7
67. Padua, Manuel C. 76 76 68 80 79 79 50 75 70.1 107. Adeva, Daniel G. 75 59 74 65 69 51 78 67 70.4
68. Palang, Basilio S. 71 75 82 71 55 87 55 75 69.6 108. Aguilar, Vicente Z. 73 63 68 75 70 69 75 75 71.25
69. Palma, Cuadrato 62 75 69 93 80 79 55 80 69.5 109. Amodia, Juan T. 75 76 66 75 76 60 77 76 72.35
70. Pañganiban, Jose V. 67 83 61 81 91 74 60 75 70.6 MR Añosa, Pablo S. 76 78 63 75 74 61 75 79 71.6
71. Pareja, Felipe 66 71 75 81 67 74 60 70 68.75 110.
72. Patalinjug, Eriberto 73 77 78 73 78 71 55 75 71.25 111. Antiola, Anastacio R. 68 76 75 70 71 70 81 66 73.05
73. Paulin, Jose C. 66 69 71 77 83 82 65 75 72.1 112. Aquino, S. Rey A. 70 71 71 60 74 62 76 77 71.1
74. Pido, Serafin C. 72 78 63 80 71 85 70 80 72.05 113. Atienza, Manuel G. 71 78 68 80 86 51 82 75 73.85
75. Pimentel, Luis P. 77 75 76 81 76 68 55 80 71.6 114. Avanceña, Alfonso 71 71 65 75 70 72 78 80 71.8
76. Plantilla, Rodrigo C. 72 78 68 89 79 81 65 85 73.55 MR Balacuit, Camilo N. 75 73 75 70 72 65 75 76 73.25

115.
77. Regalario, Benito B. 72 80 64 80 75 81 55 80 69.55
116. Barinaga, Jeremias L. 68 69 73 70 74 50 80 79 71.2
78. Robis, Casto P. 62 77 74 73 68 80 70 80 70.9
MR Barrientos, Ambrosio 76 60 67 55 74 63 77 62 70.25
79. Rodil, Francisco C. 68 69 70 81 76 75 65 75 70.75 117. D
80. Rodriguez, Mariano 80 75 69 80 72 80 65 80 73.35 MR Benitez, Tomas P. 67 75 75 60 73 72 75 78 72.2
I. 118.
81. Romero, Crispulo P. 78 75 66 77 76 83 65 75 72.85 119. Biason, Sixto F. 73 82 67 65 66 72 77 68 71.25
82. Saez, Porfirio D. 75 75 72 81 69 77 60 75 71 MR Briñas, Isagani A. 71 69 74 70 76 52 79 72 71.95
83. Saliguma, Crisogono 79 79 74 78 69 65 65 70 71.8 120.
84. Samano, Fortunato 75 84 72 77 70 82 60 75 71.9 121. Buela, Arcadio P. 72 77 61 70 71 58 79 71 69.75
85. Santos, Faustina C. 71 68 68 76 75 85 55 75 69.5 122. Cabilao, Leonardo S. 73 50 75 75 75 60 71 79 71.25
86. Santos, Josefina R. 68 69 76 71 77 82 65 75 72.3 123. Cabrera, Ireneo M. 75 66 70 65 72 81 70 79 72.4
87. Seludo, Ananias G. 75 80 69 79 77 82 65 75 73.25 124. Cacacho, Emilio V.
88. Semilia, Rafael I. 68 85 55 83 89 79 65 80 71.25 125. Calilung, Soledad C. 64 73 73 80 73 57 75 59 69.65
89. Telan, Gaudencio 77 79 70 75 70 75 60 75 70.85 MR Calimlim, Jose B. 64 73 73 80 73 57 75 59 69.65

126.
90. Tesorero, Leocadio 75 71 63 75 82 62 65 63 69.65
T. 127. Calimlim, Pedro B. 66 82 69 60 69 52 83 75 70
91. Torre, Valentin S. 85 81 71 76 69 65 55 70 70.4 128. Camello, Sotero H. 70 77 63 65 75 66 84 64 71.55
92. Torres, Ariston L. 78 71 72 81 61 84 55 85 70.4 129. Campos, Juan A. 71 88 70 75 64 69 71 62 70.15
93. Veyra, Zosimo C. de 70 75 71 79 65 80 65 80 70.65 130. Castillo, Antonio del 78 78 70 60 79 67 69 76 72.65
94. Viado, Jose 67 70 74 75 75 90 55 80 70.7 MR Castillo, Dominador 75 61 72 75 74 71 67 66 71.1

131.
95. Villacarlos, Delfin A. 73 87 71 82 69 70 75 85 73.85
MR Castro, Jesus B. 72 86 72 75 65 75 76 71 72.85
96. Villamil, Leonor S. 73 81 76 86 86 73 55 85 73.6 132.
133. Casuga, Bienvenido 75 72 72 70 69 61 75 60 70.95 MR Navallo, Capistrano 70 72 68 85 81 66 71 74 72.1
B D- C.
171.
134. Cabangbang, 77 67 61 80 73 59 83 76 72.2
Santiago B. 172. Nisce, Camilo Z. 66 66 75 65 79 68 85 62 73.5
135. Cruz, Federico S. 69 74 75 75 68 65 76 70 71.65 MR Ocampo, Antonio F. 75 81 76 65 74 67 75 69 73.75
D- de
136. Dacanay, Eufemio P. 70 73 62 75 72 69 85 71 72.05
173.
137. Deysolong, 66 62 72 75 70 62 83 62 70.85
174. Olaviar, Jose O. 72 70 69 55 66 70 77 75 70.5
Felisberto
MR Perez, Cesario Z. 75 76 66 80 72 63 82 69 72.95
MR Dimaano, Jr., Jose N. 78 79 63 75 73 75 81 59 73.5
175.
138.
176. Pogado, Causin O. 70 66 65 70 75 64 75 70 69.95
139. Espinosa, Domingo L. 78 63 58 70 70 67 87 63 71.6
177. Ramos-Balmori, 75 73 62 65 78 59 75 66 70.2
MR Farol, Evencia C. 80 78 66 75 81 72 62 73 72.25
Manuela
140.
178. Recinto, Ireneo I. 73 76 68 75 74 68 80 53 72.3
141. Felix, Conrado S. 71 71 75 65 70 58 75 69 70.75
MR Redor, Francisco K. 62 77 73 75 69 64 76 69 70
142. Fernan, Pablo L. 67 88 66 85 73 68 78 75 72.35
179.
143. Gandioco, Salvador 64 58 66 65 76 70 89 75 72.1
MR Regis, Deogracias A. 76 74 68 65 65 65 88 75 73.35
G
180.
144. Gastardo, Crispin B. 70 69 68 75 78 66 86 72 73.9
181. Rigor, Estelita C. 67 78 61 80 71 77 79 65 70.9
145. Genson, Angelo B. 75 57 73 65 67 54 78 56 69.55
MR Rimorin-Gordo, 70 72 62 60 88 66 67 79 70.15
146. Guiani, Guinald M. 68 60 75 65 74 67 75 77 71.5 182. Estela
147. Guina, Graciano P. 66 69 67 60 78 52 83 61 69.6 183. Rosario, Prisco del 70 64 70 70 72 73 85 57 72.65
MR Homeres, Praxedes P 74 74 75 75 71 69 75 71 73.35 184. Rosario, Vicente D. 75 91 65 75 68 68 79 62 72.2
148. del
149. Ibarra, Venancio M. 60 75 74 70 74 70 80 75 71.9 185. Saavedra, Felipe 73 80 63 75 76 73 68 62 70.35
150. Imperial, Monico L. 72 78 75 75 72 56 82 77 73.7 186. Salazar, Alfredo N. 66 72 73 75 67 68 77 69 70.85
MR Ibasco, Jr., Emiliano 71 70 63 85 71 60 85 53 70.85 187. Salem, Romulo R. 77 81 72 65 73 60 76 75 73
151.
188. Foz, Julita A. 75 72 75 75 65 70 76 64 72.5
152. Inandan, Fortunato C 77 77 67 53 73 75 79 57 72.5
189. Santa Ana, Candido 77 69 65 75 81 75 70 75 73
153. Jimenez, Florencio C. 75 70 70 75 72 61 75 78 72.05 T.
154. Kintanar, Woodrow 70 83 72 65 76 73 75 69 72.95 190. Santos, Aquilino 72 66 69 65 68 70 81 71 71.7
155. Languido, Cesar V. 63 71 63 85 70 61 85 79 70.55 191. Santos, Valeriano V. 76 72 75 75 68 62 76 79 73.1
156. Lavilles, Cesar L. 61 89 75 55 73 63 75 78 70.55 192. Suico, Samuel 73 79 72 75 71 59 84 65 73.3
157. Llenos, Francisco U. 64 70 65 60 72 65 92 75 71.75 193. Suson, Teodorico 74 68 66 80 66 59 79 67 70.35
158. Leon, Marcelo D. de 63 73 60 85 75 75 90 70 72.75 194. Tado, Florentino P. 64 76 67 65 76 72 76 53 69.7
159. Llanto, Priscilla 72 68 60 65 76 67 84 68 71.35 195. Tapayan, Domingo 69 72 69 70 76 73 82 79 73.75
160. Machachor, Oscar 68 59 78 70 67 57 75 75 70.15 A.
MR Magsino, 77 66 70 70 76 71 75 61 72.75 MR 67 60 71 75 79 67 84 60 72.7

161. Encarnacion D- Tiausas, Miguel V.
196.
MR Maligaya, Demetrio 70 61 75 65 75 50 91 51 72.3
162. 197. Torres, Carlos P. 68 71 71 70 70 63 82 71 71.6
163. Manio, Gregorio 67 67 69 80 71 67 75 75 70.65 198. Tria, Hipolito 69 72 75 60 69 54 78 66 70.05
164. Puzon, Eduardo S. 72 82 60 60 69 70 68 72 62.05 199. Velasco, Avelino A. 65 72 75 75 71 67 78 76 72.1
MR Marcial, Meynardo 66 75 74 70 75 67 81 75 73.15 200. Villa, Francisco C. 65 80 73 75 68 79 65 75 70.2

165. R. 201. Villagonzalo, Job R. 78 67 74 65 72 51 69 71 70.25
166. Martin, Benjamin S. 68 72 63 75 69 63 84 62 70.1 202. Villarama, Jr., Pedro 75 74 75 55 75 66 67 75 71.45
MR Monterroyo, 70 80 75 80 76 66 82 51 73.95 1952
167. Catalina S.
203. Abacon, Pablo 75 72 78 81 78 72 64 55 72.7
MR Montero, Leodegario 73 67 66 80 81 65 81 75 73.75
MRP Abad, Agapito 73 76 73 85 75 63 62 75 70.95
168.
-
169. Monzon, Candido T. 70 72 74 75 67 70 77 69 72.05 204.
170. Natividad, Alberto 73 79 68 65 73 69 75 79 72.2 MRP Abella, Ludovico B. 70 81 76 81 70 66 77 58 72.7
M. -
205. - D.
234.
MRP Abellera, Geronimo 75 79 79 87 76 51 63 70 71.7
- F. 235. Batucan, Jose M. 66 76 78 88 62 76 67 78 71.2
206.
236. Bautista, Atilano C. 70 82 84 85 58 61 71 62 71.25
MRP Abenojar, Agapito N. 71 72 78 84 70 75 69 70 72.9
237. Bautista, Celso J. 71 68 63 87 80 67 80 70 72.75
-
207. 238. Belderon, Jose 76 81 76 92 70 66 67 62 72.65
208. Alandy, Doroteo R. 64 83 93 91 68 59 60 60 71.2 MRP Belo, Victor B. 76 77 64 73 75 71 76 76 72.85
-
209. Alano, Fabian T. 70 83 61 83 72 87 72 70 71.9
239.
MRP Alcantara, Pablo V. 71 79 80 81 73 70 72 62 73.65
MRP Bejec, Conceso D. 79 80 73 82 63 77 75 50 73.15
-
-
210.
240.
211. Arcangel, Agustin Ag. 75 85 71 73 76 65 68 65 71.85
MRP Beltran, Gervasio M. 72 75 81 73 75 57 75 80 73.95
212. Acosta, Dionisio N. 75 81 78 87 56 65 77 70 72.8 -
241.
MRP Abinguna, Agapito C. 66 85 80 84 75 58 76 75 73.65
- MRP Benaojan, 74 84 77 84 75 63 68 62 72.85
213. - Robustiano O.
242.
214. Adove, Nehemias C. 76 86 78 77 66 78 69 62 73.55
MRP Beriña, Roger C. 70 80 79 79 68 72 64 78 71.85
215. Adrias, Inocencio C. 75 83 61 88 76 67 79 75 73.4
-
216. Aglugub, Andres R. 75 83 73 88 72 62 72 62 72.65 243.
217. Andrada, Mariano L. 76 85 66 87 63 77 75 77 73. MRP Bihis, Marcelo M. 75 86 65 92 64 64 84 75 73.45
MRP Almeda, Serafin V. 72 72 75 81 61 67 73 65 70.75 -
- 244.
218. MRP Binaoro, Vicente M. 73 69 78 83 73 59 70 82 72.75
219. Almonte-Peralta, 73 71 72 91 75 67 65 53 70.7 -
Felicidad 245.
MRP Amodia, Juan T. 75 79 68 85 62 64 75 78 71.4 MRP Bobila, Rosalio B. 76 86 76 83 68 59 71 78 73.05

- -
220. 246.
MRP Antonio, Felino A. 71 76 81 83 79 52 72 70 73.3 247. Buenafe, Avelina R. 78 80 75 75 70 55 72 80 72.75

- 248. Bueno, Anastacio F. 73 78 71 78 71 67 71 60 71.15
221.
249. Borres, Maximino L. 67 85 62 91 72 63 76 80 70.9
MRP Antonio, Jose S. 75 92 90 68 65 64 68 60 73.75
MRP Cabegin, Cesar V. 72 71 76 75 74 70 71 60 72.2
-
-
222.
250.
223. Añonuevo, Ramos B. 71 87 78 81 64 63 74 76 72.7
MRP Cabello, Melecio F. 72 78 78 89 58 70 67 71 70.5
224. Aquino, S. Rey A. 67 77 57 78 69 70 69 80 67.7 -
225. Arteche, Filomeno D. 78 83 50 89 76 77 70 70 70.8 251.
MRP Arribas, Isaac M. 75 78 70 81 73 70 67 78 72.2 MRP Cabrera, Irineo M. 79 88 53 91 71 85 75 76 73.3

- -
226. 252.
MRP Azucena, Ceferino D. 72 67 78 89 72 67 77 65 73.95 253. Cabreros, Paulino N. 71 79 83 84 60 62 71 50 70.85

- 254. Calayag, Florentino 69 79 66 88 69 75 68 76 70.6
227. R.
228. Atienza, Ricardo 72 87 70 79 66 55 75 75 70.85 MRP Calzada, Cesar de la 76 72 80 67 62 71 66 62 70.85
229. Balacuit, Camilo N. 75 78 89 75 70 54 66 75 73.3 -
255.
MRP Baclig, Cayetano S. 77 84 83 80 69 70 61 65 73
- 256. Canabal, Isabel 70 82 81 77 78 51 75 75 73.7
230. MRP Cabugao, Pablo N. 76 87 69 80 58 64 78 75 71.8
231. Balcita, Oscar C. 75 77 79 90 64 60 67 50 70.65 -
257.
232. Barilea, Dominador 71 67 82 77 64 61 65 80 70.5
Z. 258. Calañgi, Mateo C. 73 93 71 87 70 66 69 62 71.8
MRP Banta, Jose Y. 75 80 77 81 75 63 71 75 73.95 259. Canda, Benjamin S. 72 71 77 90 62 75 66 82 71.95

- 260. Cantoria, Eulogio 71 80 71 89 70 55 72 75 71
233.
261. Capacio, Jr., Conrado 67 78 71 90 65 75 72 60 70.65
MRP Barrientos, Ambrosio 76 70 67 80 67 65 70 81 70.7
262. Capitulo, Alejandro 75 70 53 87 78 63 76 91 71.2 MRP Diolazo, Ernesto A. 75 83 86 73 54 54 75 75 72.25
P. -
290.
MRP Calupitan, Jr., 75 93 81 76 64 75 68 56 73.15
- Alfredo 291. Dionisio, Jr., 73 84 64 89 71 78 75 66 72.8
263. Guillermo
MRP Caluya, Arsenio V. 75 86 70 87 77 52 77 82 73.9 MRP Dichoso, Alberto M. 71 77 71 81 69 75 80 70 73.65
- -
264. 292.
MRP Campanilla, Mariano 80 75 78 77 73 71 63 76 73.65 MRP Dipasupil, Claudio R. 70 76 82 73 79 70 72 56 73.9
- B. -
265. 293.
MRP Campos, Juan A. 66 85 83 84 67 61 80 57 73.25 MRP Delgado, Abner 75 84 63 67 64 60 70 72 68.35
- -
266. 294.
267. Cardoso, Angelita G. 78 71 73 76 79 56 69 60 71.8 MRP Domingo, 70 69 81 82 68 63 71 75 72.2
- Dominador T.
268. Cartagena, Herminio 71 72 65 89 64 73 80 70 71.65
295.
R.
296. Ducusin, Agapito B. 70 78 53 88 75 77 62 76 68.05
MRP Castro, Daniel T. 65 75 77 76 85 60 75 69 73.15
- MRP Duque, Antonio S. 75 77 78 86 76 72 64 75 73.9
269. -
297.
270. Cauntay, Gaudencio 70 78 72 73 77 69 64 80 71.2
V. 298. Duque, Castulo 75 80 73 83 66 67 65 66 70.65
271. Castro, Pedro L. de 70 68 69 87 76 75 72 70 73.35 299. Ebbah, Percival B. 70 80 85 76 66 63 76 75 73.95
272. Cerio, Juan A. 75 82 75 86 60 54 76 75 71.75 300. Edisa, Sulpicio 65 77 75 89 75 62 75 65 72
273. Colorado, Alfonso R. 68 75 80 74 77 66 67 80 72.6 301. Edradan, Rosa C. 70 75 84 84 71 59 69 86 73.4
274. Chavez, Doroteo M. 73 65 79 84 73 69 66 84 73.1 MRP Enage, Jacinto N. 66 70 88 93 72 67 65 75 73.2
-
275. Chavez, Honorato A. 77 76 79 86 74 53 71 75 73.65
302.
MRP Cobangbang, 69 81 74 82 76 61 78 80 73.85
MRP Encarnacion, Alfonso 75 86 73 81 63 77 69 75 72.65
- Orlando B.
- B.
276.
303.
277. Cortez, Armando R. 78 60 88 86 60 66 69 64 73.1
304. Encarnacion, Cesar 65 78 58 68 66 64 75 78 67.1
278. Crisostomo, Jesus L. 76 87 74 76 62 55 76 66 71.45
305. Estoista, Agustin A. 78 76 74 86 58 67 70 76 71.7
MRP Cornejo, Crisanto R. 68 87 78 86 79 50 80 60 73.7
MRP Fabros, Jose B. 66 75 80 82 80 71 67 70 73.05
-
-
279.
306.
MRP Cruz, Raymundo 75 81 79 85 72 57 68 75 72.95
MRP Fajardo, Balbino P. 77 69 82 83 65 60 75 75 73.9
-
-
280.
307.
MRP Cunanan, Jose C. 78 92 63 83 76 72 68 65 72.4
308. Fajardo, Genaro P. 70 79 77 79 79 50 73 75 72.5
-
281. 309. Evangelista, 75 75 72 87 63 63 77 70 72.15
Felicidad P.
282. Cunanan, Salvador F. 70 82 64 92 67 75 73 76 71.45
310. Familara, Raymundo 68 75 87 83 64 65 68 65 71.85
283. Cimafranca, Agustin 71 76 76 80 70 71 75 71 73.35
Z.
B.
311. Fariñas, Dionisio 70 78 89 66 65 75 70 50 72.75
284. Crisol, Getulio R. 70 91 78 85 68 55 71 50 70.8
312. Favila, Hilario B. 71 84 74 70 75 67 73 59 72.2
MRP Dusi, Felicisimo R. 76 82 69 82 66 62 80 71 72.85
- MRP Feliciano, Alberto I. 71 69 70 85 69 81 72 70 72.25
285. -
313.
MRP Datu, Alfredo J. 70 75 72 86 80 55 68 79 71.5
- MRP Fernando, Lope F. 73 77 86 79 70 76 64 50 73
286. -
314.
287. Dacuma, Luis B. 71 67 87 83 71 50 65 70 71.25
MRP Flores, Dionisio S. 78 72 77 83 67 60 68 73 72.05
MRP Degamo, Pedro R. 73 80 82 74 80 67 67 57 73.65
-
-
315.
288.
MRP Fortich, Benjamin B. 70 82 70 70 78 65 64 75 70.35
289. Delgado, Vicente N. 70 84 82 84 77 52 73 50 72.65
-
316. 1952
MRP Fuente, Jose S. de la 76 88 72 74 60 71 79 79 73.55 347. Homeres, Agustin R. 73 84 65 86 70 77 63 76 70.7
-
348. Ines, Leonilo F. 65 88 71 88 77 73 61 70 70.55
317.
349. Jamer, Alipio S. 68 75 83 89 80 61 65 50 72
318. Fohmantes, Nazario 72 79 71 77 68 61 76 60 70.9
S. MRP Ibasco, Jr., Emiliano 75 65 68 85 76 70 83 54 73.8
- M.
MRP Fuggan, Lorenzo B. 76 81 74 69 71 71 73 60 72.85
350.
-
319. MRP Jardinico, Jr., Emilio 73 86 72 78 82 67 67 64 72.8
-
320. Gabuya, Jesus S. 70 83 82 83 70 63 75 65 73.75
351.
321. Galang, Victor N. 69 83 84 76 70 57 71 60 71.95
MRP Jaen, Justiniano F. 76 75 78 84 71 66 70 77 73.85
322. Gaerlan, Manuel L. 73 87 77 90 67 61 72 75 73.15 -
352.
323. Galem, Nestor R. 72 79 86 78 60 61 75 70 73.05
353. Jaring, Antonio S. 72 77 79 70 72 57 71 50 70.75
324. Gallardo, Jose Pe B. 75 88 75 75 63 70 70 65 71.85
MRP Javier, Aquilino M. 75 84 79 78 77 61 66 66 73.05
MRP Gallos, Cirilo B. 70 78 84 91 80 51 65 70 72.85
-
-
354.
325.
355. Jomuad, Francisco 75 75 72 88 78 58 76 43 72.4
326. Galindo, Eulalio D. 70 89 87 65 78 71 62 62 73.4
MRP Jose, Nestor L. 78 61 64 73 68 76 64 80 69.7
327. Galman, Patrocinio 72 72 80 85 71 56 70 53 71.15
-
G.
356.
328. Gamalinda, Carlos S. 76 79 81 86 67 63 69 55 72.55
357. La Q, Jose M. 75 71 75 72 70 67 81 59 73.5
329. Gamboa, Antonio G. 71 67 70 72 76 60 75 68 70.95
358. Leon, Brigido C. de 67 75 78 91 78 51 72 80 72.55
330. Gannod, Jose A. 69 80 75 81 68 62 73 68 71.25
359. Leones, Constante B. 68 81 79 84 73 60 77 60 73
MRP Garcia, Matias N. 67 78 74 90 79 59 76 65 72.8
360. Liboro, Horacio T. 72 69 80 87 73 62 70 61 72.4
-
331. 361. Llanera, Cesar L. 77 81 80 78 64 59 75 63 73
MRP Ganete, Carmelo 75 87 77 82 74 57 68 81 73.3 362. Lomontod, Jose P. 75 76 69 70 73 76 74 75 73.2
-
363. Luna, Lucito 70 75 69 83 59 53 74 75 68.4
332.
MRP Luz, Lauro L. 76 90 78 88 64 58 75 77 73.95
333. Gilbang, Gaudioso R. 75 67 80 82 67 57 64 70 70.5
-
334. Gofredo, Claro C. 68 78 72 86 78 52 70 76 70.9 364.
335. Gomez, Jose S. 71 76 71 81 76 63 69 62 70.85 MRP Macasaet, Tomas S. 73 81 72 83 66 75 72 70 72.5
-
MRP Gosiaoco, Lorenzo V. 68 93 85 78 64 69 70 54 72.35
365.
-
336. 366. Magbiray, 80 67 84 76 70 62 65 68 73.05
Godofredo V.
MRP Gonzales, Rafael C. 77 75 71 89 55 70 70 60 70.05
- 367. Majarais, Rodolfo P. 70 62 64 82 88 75 71 79 72.85
337.
MRP Makabenta, Eduardo 75 90 77 83 59 71 72 78 73.3
MRP Gracia, Eulalia L. de 66 68 90 84 77 59 69 65 73.3 -
- 368.
338.
MRP Malapit, Justiniano S. 74 83 74 89 58 60 72 76 71.1
339. Grageda, Jose M. A. 70 85 72 67 70 60 73 73 70.75 -
369.
340. Guzman, Juan de 75 86 69 84 64 79 75 76 73.6
370. Maloles, Iluminado 70 87 73 76 77 50 76 76 72.3
MRP Guzman, Mateo de 76 79 79 73 72 69 68 80 73.9
M.
-
341. 371. Maniquis, Daniel R. 75 80 73 91 69 71 65 70 72.1
342. Guzman, Salvador B. 71 61 74 72 61 66 78 75 70.75 372. Maraña, Arsenio 65 79 60 72 73 51 75 86 67.9
343. Guzman, Salvador T. 75 84 64 81 74 61 78 58 71.75 373. Marasigan, 75 71 83 75 69 62 69 70 72.75
de Napoleon
344. Habelito, Geronimo 71 76 71 87 73 60 67 55 69.65 MRP Marco, Jaime P. 75 67 74 76 64 75 75 57 71.9
E. -
374.
345. Hedriana, Naterno 75 68 84 76 66 58 76 60 72.9
G. MRP Martir, Osmundo P. 70 86 76 78 72 71 75 53 72.95
-
346. Hernandez, Quintin 67 75 72 81 72 72 66 76 70.6
375.
B.
MRP Masancay, Amando 73 87 75 77 72 50 78 80 73.2 403.
- E.
404. Pacifico, Vicente V. 76 79 69 80 76 52 72 80 71.95
376.
MRP Paderna, Perfecto D. 75 69 72 75 78 58 75 70 72.6
MRP Mati-ong, Ignacio T. 62 87 72 79 73 76 69 77 71.3
-
-
405.
377.
406. Padlan, Crispin M. 71 66 76 79 68 67 74 66 71.65
378. Mara, Guillermo L. 70 78 78 89 75 67 66 65 72.35
407. Padilla, Jose C. 70 65 67 82 78 75 78 75 73.3
MRP Mercado, Felipe A. 73 77 82 82 78 52 69 85 73.9
- 408. Padilla, Jr., Estanislao 71 88 78 86 59 75 78 50 72.95
379. E.
MRP Miculob, Eugenio P. 70 82 73 86 77 52 79 65 72.8 MRP Palma, Bartolome 67 81 80 82 71 75 69 75 73.25
- -
380. 409.
381. Mison, Rafael M. Jr., 79 78 73 75 71 68 69 53 71.95 MRP Papa, Angel A. 75 72 85 85 77 59 63 71 73.45
-
MRP Monponbanua, 79 79 68 88 64 78 69 83 73.1
410.
- Antonio D.
382. MRP Parayno, Mario V. 71 88 74 89 69 66 76 73 73.65
-
MRP Montero, Leodegario 72 89 69 89 70 68 70 75 72.15
411.
- C.
383. 412. Pariña, Santos L. 70 87 85 77 64 67 63 76 71.85
384. Morada, Servillano S. 75 76 67 71 65 66 75 76 70.9 MRP Pasion, Anastacio 63 80 68 81 82 79 76 58 72.55
-
385. Mocorro, Generoso 78 84 78 84 60 73 68 70 73
413.
MRP Mosquera, 75 78 75 85 72 55 77 66 73.15
414. Pastrana, Rizal R. 69 76 71 76 68 63 77 83 71.65
- Estanislao L.
386. MRP Paulin, Jose O. 70 66 80 87 75 50 65 80 70.9
-
387. Motus, Rodentor P. 80 78 70 94 72 75 70 57 73.75
415.
388. Macario, Pedro R. 70 67 74 86 78 63 72 66 72.15
MRP Pelaez, Jr., Vicente C. 79 87 73 83 69 71 68 65 73.2
MRP Nadela, Geredion T. 72 64 64 81 73 50 75 75 69.15 -
- 416.
389.
417. Peña, Jesus 75 75 75 62 75 70 60 66 70.4
MRP Nazareno, Romeo P. 67 70 71 76 76 79 75 57 72.05
418. Perez, Toribio R. 71 64 81 92 69 58 67 70 71.25
-
390. 419. Pestaño, Melquiades 77 81 74 87 59 68 76 75 73.2
391. Nieto, Benedicto S. 69 79 77 77 72 62 76 76 72.9 MRP Pido, Serafin C. 77 81 72 82 69 71 60 75 71.15
-
MRP Noguera, Raymundo 71 86 81 80 73 56 72 70 73.15
420.
-
392. 421. Pinlac, Filemon 67 76 74 86 65 79 65 72 70.55
MRP Nodado, Domiciano 70 70 69 73 57 37 64 72 63.6 422. Poblete, Celso B. 72 79 82 76 66 64 74 50 72.15
- R. MRP Piza, Luz 68 70 75 87 74 67 64 75 70.8
393. -
394. Nono, Pacifico G. 67 77 78 67 75 59 71 76 71.35 423.
MRP Nuval, Manuel R. 78 72 67 90 72 68 78 67 73.65 424. Puzon, Eduardo S. 72 80 81 69 72 53 67 70 71.05
- 425. Quetulio, Josefina D. 75 90 60 93 64 78 76 83 72.9
395.
MRP Quipanes, Melchor 69 88 79 82 65 62 71 66 71.55
396. Ocampo, Augusto 75 90 77 72 69 55 65 67 60.7 - V.
397. Oliveros, Amado A. 72 75 68 72 84 50 75 79 71.9 426.
398. Opiña, Jr., Pedro 76 77 74 67 73 66 68 70 71.85 MRP Quietson, Bayani R. 73 75 76 77 70 81 71 53 72.85
-
MRP Olaviar, Jose O. 70 62 85 81 74 50 68 79 71.8
427.
-
399. 428. Racho, Macario D. 68 75 81 82 78 53 66 54 70.55
MRP Olandesca, Per O. 70 91 76 87 72 66 70 79 73.45 429. Ramirez, Sabas P. 71 80 73 87 62 62 75 80 71.65
- MRP Raffiñan, Jose A. 80 83 79 79 62 72 68 65 73.25
400. -
401. Orden, Apolonio J. 72 65 84 86 66 50 72 68 71.45 430.
402. Ortiz, Melencio T. 71 75 78 81 66 67 70 78 72.1 MRP Ramos, Patricio S. 75 87 76 75 72 72 61 75 72.25
-
MRP Pablo, Fedelino S. 72 64 76 86 72 61 76 75 72.95
431.
-
MRP Ramos-Balmori, 78 84 76 90 48 75 80 65 73.45 MRP Santos, Rufino A. 75 81 79 85 74 72 66 54 73.3
- Manuela -
432. 460.
MRP Raro, Celso 75 81 76 67 75 77 55 77 71.4 461. Suanding, Bantas 75 67 67 92 79 59 76 76 73.1
-
MRP Sulit, Feliz M. 76 79 76 78 72 75 68 67 73.5
433.
-
MRP Rayos, Victor S. 75 86 79 91 71 67 67 70 73.9 462.
-
463. Songco, Felicisimo G. 70 68 82 84 60 69 76 65 73.35
434.
464. Soriano, Aniceto S. 64 79 77 80 80 53 70 65 70.7
435. Revilla, Mariano S. 75 78 81 90 70 54 69 81 73.35
465. Suarez, Pablo D. 73 85 70 87 76 70 64 70 71.9
436. Reyes, Abdon L. 72 64 81 78 76 73 69 53 72.85
MRP Sybico, Jesus L. 79 70 70 72 75 75 72 60 73.05
437. Reyes, Domingo B. 72 87 78 83 72 75 62 70 72.7
-
438. Reyes, Francisco M. 75 85 84 68 75 71 68 50 73.9 466.
439. Reyes, Lozano M. 80 57 78 79 78 65 64 79 73.35 467. Tabaque, Benjamin 69 68 77 79 74 68 72 60 71.85
R.
MRP Reyes, Oscar R. 75 75 82 82 76 64 68 60 73.65
- MRP Tan Kiang, Clarita 81 79 72 80 62 75 73 80 73.95
440. -
468.
441. Rigonan, Cesar V. 71 85 65 86 75 70 76 70 72.7
MRP Tando, Amado T. 71 82 78 83 71 61 71 60 72
442. Rivera, Honorio 71 56 70 90 71 65 75 71 71.2
-
MRP Rivero, 72 88 72 94 68 73 66 80 72.6 469.
- Buenaventura A.
470. Tasico, Severo E. 71 69 75 89 70 75 67 63 71.65
443.
471. Tiburcio, Ismael P. 73 82 72 93 76 57 68 54 71.15
MRP Robles, Enrique 75 77 75 77 82 64 69 70 73.7
- MRP Tiongson, Federico T. 70 70 76 84 77 75 75 50 73.45
444. -
472.
445. Rodriguez, Orestes 76 75 76 63 69 77 65 78 72.25
Arellano MRP Tolentino, Jesus C. 75 89 63 84 85 73 73 50 73.4
-
446. Roldan, Jose V. 67 80 79 83 73 71 75 70 73.9
473.
447. Rosario, Adelaida R. 80 75 65 70 68 72 80 70 73.15
474. Torrijas, Alfredo A. 77 66 67 83 68 75 71 63 71.3
del
MRP Tobias, Artemio M. 69 58 74 81 71 55 65 57 67.55
448. Rosario, Restituto F. 75 75 79 90 68 65 66 63 72.1
-
del
475.
MRP Sabelino, Conrado S. 71 81 69 75 77 71 75 70 72.95
MRP Trillana, Jr., Apolonio 76 86 76 86 70 68 75 50 73.8
-
-
449.
476.
450. San Juan, Damaso 77 86 72 89 59 76 65 72 71.6
MRP Trinidad, Manuel O. 66 91 83 75 63 66 67 65 70.8
451. Sañiel, Felix L. 72 93 76 80 67 75 66 62 72.1 -
452. Samaniego, Jesus B. 75 80 76 72 60 67 68 70 70.6 477.
MRP Sandoval, Emmanuel 75 83 70 83 77 67 77 60 73.95 478. Trinidad, Pedro O. 66 78 78 85 78 51 64 75 70.8

- M. MRP Udarbe, Flavio J. 80 82 77 82 67 56 68 75 72.6
453. -
MRP Sanidad, Emmanuel 71 75 81 90 62 64 76 68 72.95 479.
- Q. 480. Umali, Osmundo C. 68 75 81 80 71 69 68 60 71.7
454.
481. Umayam, Juanito C. 77 75 87 85 56 56 66 60 71
455. Santiago, Jr., 75 76 84 93 63 65 59 70 71.8
MRP Usita, Gelacio U. 75 72 75 74 73 76 71 70 73.55
Cristobal
-
456. Santillan, Juanito Ll. 76 89 83 83 63 58 65 52 71.25 482.
MRP Santos, Rodolfo C. 75 75 78 82 73 76 66 70 73.7 483. Valino, Francisco M. 72 81 80 84 62 78 71 75 73.7
-
484. Varela, Dominador 67 75 81 86 72 57 81 70 73.85
457.
M.
MRP Santos, Ruperto M. 67 54 69 76 63 64 71 60 66.75
485. Vega, Macairog L. de 78 62 79 87 70 70 71 65 73.8
-
458. MRP Velasco, Emmanuel 71 80 74 85 60 66 76 76 71.85
- D.
MRP Santos, Aquilino C. 72 71 73 79 73 79 71 85 73.8
486.
-
459. 487. Velez, Maria E. 73 70 89 80 56 50 72 67 71.05
MRP Venal, Artemio V. 78 91 58 67 76 55 75 73 73.65 1950 71 80 62 75 75 81 55 92 69.3
-
488. 1951 70 60 61 65 77 64 67 81 67.85
489. Venus, Conrado B. 69 81 74 85 62 66 72 77 77.05 5. Ducusin,

Agapito B.
MRP Verzosa, Federico B. 75 79 72 88 76 68 74 59 73.7
- MRD-1949 69 70 76 73 76 71 55 60 68.65
490.
1950 60 71 55 67 67 75 56 89 68.1
MRP Villafuerte, Eduardo 75 83 70 76 64 64 75 65 71.2
- V. 6. Garcia,
491. Manuel N.
MRP Villanueva, Cecilio C. 75 85 79 88 66 77 67 70 73.95 MRD-1949 60 70 82 79 70 69 60 80 69.25

-
1950 57 65 51 69 54 85 56 84 60.3
492.
493. Villar, Custodio R. 73 69 70 88 76 66 69 50 70.75 7. Luna, Lucito
A.
MRP Villaseñor, Leonidas 80 85 67 77 62 75 76 73 73.15
- F. 1946 63 53 69 76 75 76 57 69 66.55
494. 1952 70 75 69 83 59 53 74 75 68.4
495. Viterbo, Jose H. 80 77 65 93 70 65 65 65 70.65
8. Maraña,
496. Yaranon, Pedro 70 77 76 85 72 50 75 75 71.85 Arsenio s.
MRP Yasay, Mariano R. 75 75 72 76 63 77 70 60 71.1 1949 72 68 68 75 75 72 60 75 69.35
-
497. 1952 65 79 60 72 73 51 75 86 67.9
MRP Ygay, Venancio M. 73 80 83 84 62 59 72 77 72.65 9. Montano,
- Manuel M.
498.
1951 61 60 58 60 70 63 75 64 64.8
499. Yulo, Jr., Teodoro 73 82 78 75 60 81 75 75 73.95
1952 70 77 65 79 66 52 70 50 66.4
500. Zamora, Alberto 70 65 76 79 62 77 69 82 71.3
1953 78 64 66 68 81 50 71 78 70.65
501. Rigonan, Felipe C. 70 79 69 89 76 62 71 64 71.2
10. Peña, Jesus
S.
A list of those who petitioned for the consolidation of their grades in
subjects passed in previous examinations, showing the years in which they 1950 25 75 45 75 45 52 46 71 46.2
took the examinations together with their grades and averages, and those
who had filed motions for reconsideration which were denied, indicated 1951 70 77 65 79 66 52 70 50 66.4
by the initials MRD, follows: 1952 75 75 75 62 75 70 60 66 70.4
11. Placido, Sr.,
PETITIONERS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 72
Isidro
1950 68 78 70 75 69 70 58 69 67.75
Civ. Land Merc. Int. Pol. Crim. Rem. Leg. Gen.
Av. 1951 65 62 75 60 73 57 75 71 66.8
1. Amao, 12. Rementizo,

Sulpicio M. Filemon S.
1946 68 67 76 76 73 73 49 50 66.5 1949 65 75 72 75 60 75 55 85 66.65
1950 59 80 67 77 62 80 71 57 67.4 1951 68 57 48 60 91 66 55 75 64.05
2. Baldo, 1952 68 53 68 67 58 56 75 64 65.7

Olegario Ga.
13. Amao,
1951 65 76 58 55 59 63 75 72 64.9 Sulpicio M.
1952 65 68 75 84 72 59 73 57 69.75 1952 67 80 51 69 69 77 73 53 66.35
1953 57 74 68 68 76 52 71 76 66.7 1953 65 67 78 74 75 62 69 80 70.9
3. Blanco, Jose 14. Rodulfa,

B. Juan T.
MRD-1949 75 75 70 75 77 76 60 90 72.15 1951 67 60 70 65 68 56 75 66 67.75
1951 64 71 58 65 68 70 75 71 66.95 1952 70 71 67 78 67 75 71 70 70.1
4. Condeno, 15. Sanchez,

Mateo Juan J.
1948 39 69 82 75 76 72 55 50 63.5 G.
MRD-1949 67 56 69 75 72 77 60 75 68 20. Gapus, Rosita S. (Miss) 76 80 86 77 64 74 66 69 73.9

21. Garcia, Rafael B. 70 86 70 75 73 63 73 75 71.65
1951 70 59 55 60 68 57 78 67 65.8
22. Gracia, Miguel L. de 73 68 75 59 80 51 72 71 71
16. Santos,
Constantino 23. Gungon, Armando G. 68 76 76 84 77 57 77 83 73.6
1952 62 76 54 82 72 77 66 65 66.65 24. Gutierrez, Antonio S. 68 77 66 70 72 59 71 74 69.1

25. Ilejay, Abraham I. 77 70 76 77 81 62 70 68 73.7
1953 73 71 70 65 78 64 65 78 70.4
26. Leon, Benjamin La. De 66 66 75 70 77 55 71 82 70.35
17. Santos,
Salvador H. 27. Lugtu, Felipe L. 62 70 78 65 78 56 69 81 69.9
1951 60 64 55 70 68 52 70 75 62.85 28. Lukman, Abdul-Hamid 76 64 67 69 73 59 73 75 70.45

29. Maloles, Jr., Benjamin 77 76 68 68 71 51 75 78 70.85
1952 75 64 70 81 76 55 61 75 69.1
G.
1953 70 71 79 65 72 54 66 80 70 30. Maloles, Julius G. 77 71 60 71 79 62 68 72 69.75
18. Sevilla, 31. Mandi, Santiago P. 65 76 70 61 79 68 75 72 71.1
Macario C.
32. Margete, Rufino C. 70 76 66 75 85 73 71 75 72.75
MRD-1948 50 64 76 66 66 69 60 52 63.1
33. Melocoton, Nestorio B. 70 81 73 78 83 52 72 75 72.35
MRD-1949 47 66 78 64 71 86 65 85 68 34. Molina, Manuel C. 75 78 70 61 75 63 66 85 70.95
1950 35 65 40 75 63 57 27 49 45 35. Muñoz, Mariano A. 75 80 86 67 74 57 68 76 73.75
MRD-1951 68 59 72 55 69 65 75 75 69.3 36. Navarro, 80 75 65 75 83 55 73 79 73
Buenaventura M.
1953 70 73 74 70 81 56 69 71 71.05
37. Nodado, Domiciano R. 60 67 67 50 70 50 56 75 61.7
Finally, with regards to the examinations of 1953, while some 38. Papas, Sisenando B. 65 62 71 61 70 56 66 67 66
candidates--85 in all--presented motions for reconsideration of their 39. Pagulayan-Sy, 63 75 71 62 83 67 70 72 70.4
grades, others invoked the provisions of Republic Act No. 972. A list of Fernando
those candidates separating those who filed mere motions for
40. Padula, Benjamin C. 70 77 54 62 74 78 75 68 69.05
reconsideration (56) from those who invoked the aforesaid Republic act,
is as follows: 41. Pasno, Enrique M. 78 72 66 54 71 58 72 78 69.85
42. Peña, Jr., Narciso 70 95 81 78 67 66 67 73 72.55
1953 PETITIONERS FOR RECONSIDERATION
43. Peralta, Rodolfo P. 70 70 52 81 68 63 59 69 63.7
44. Pigar, Leopoldo R. 76 75 78 61 72 72 71 79 73.75
Civ. Land Merc. Int. Pol. Crim. Rem. Leg. Gen.
Av. 45. Publico, Paciano L. 68 69 76 76 70 59 74 67 70.6
1. Acenas, Calixto R. 73 70 68 62 82 51 67 77 73.4546. Radaza, Leovigildo 75 78 76 61 77 50 71 86 72.2
2. Alcantara, Pedro N. 67 70 75 85 87 54 71 80 72.8 47. Ramos, Bernardo M. 64 62 75 93 81 52 66 80 70.1
3. Alejandro, Exequiel 67 72 71 75 80 76 75 77 73.4 48. Rabaino, Andres D. 68 72 75 73 78 55 69 76 70.65
4. Andres, Gregorio M. 70 73 86 58 79 50 71 78 72.7 49. Ravanera, Oscar N. 70 77 80 71 82 62 69 78 73.6
5. Arnaiz, Antonio E. 66 80 76 58 79 68 77 81 73.4 50. Renovilla, Jose M. 65 75 80 68 79 52 62 78 69.5
6. Asis, Floriano U. de 66 78 75 81 77 55 73 69 71.2551. Sabaot, Solomon B. 69 73 80 69 82 69 69 79 73.85
7. Bacaiso, Celestino M. 71 65 76 68 76 50 75 70 70.9552. Sumaway, Ricardo S. 66 76 69 76 74 56 72 68 69.1
8. Bala, Florencio F. 64 82 47 70 82 58 75 82 67 53. Torrefiel, Sofronio O. 70 77 74 75 73 50 68 72 69.55
9. Baldo, Olegario A. 57 74 68 68 76 52 71 76 66.7 54. Vera, Federico V. de 60 61 47 77 69 50 67 77 60.9
10. Barrios, Benjamin O. 65 71 76 75 80 62 83 73 73.9555. Viray, Venancio Bustos 65 67 67 52 73 64 71 65 67.15
11. Buhay, Eduardo L. 73 76 71 91 76 61 74 78 73.3556. Ylaya, Angela P. (Miss) 63 70 56 75 68 54 70 77 64.5
12. Burgos, Dominador C. 72 80 89 61 66 37 69 68 70.05

PETITIONERS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972
13. Cariño, Eldo J. 79 81 60 75 74 74 76 74 73
14. Casar, Dimapuro 67 73 84 79 77 61 71 74 73.35
Civ. Land Merc. Int. Pol. Crim
15. Castañeda, Gregorio 70 73 80 71 75 70 73 78 73.95
16. Estrellado, Benjamin R. 67 79 64 73 82 62 71 74 70.2
17. Fabunan, Edilberto C. 70 72 68 69 77 60 76 74 71.1 1. Ala, Narciso 70 71 73 59 73 74
18. Feril, Domingo B. 75 71 84 65 70 60 65 70 71.6 2. Alcantara, Pedro N. 67 70 75 85 87 54
19. Fernandez, Alejandro 65 75 87 80 81 63 61 80 72.8 3. Arellano, Antonio L. 74 66 73 60 78 63
4. Buhay, Eduardo L. 73 76 71 91 76 required to take another examination in any subject in which
they have obtained a rating of 70 per cent or higher and such
5. Calautit, Celestino R. 71 78 84 75 75 rating shall be taken into account in determining their general
6. Casuncad, Sulvio P. 61 73 82 69 81 average in any subsequent examinations: Provided, however,
That if the candidate fails to get a general average of 70 per
7. Enriquez, Pelagio y Concepcion 84 69 76 75 82
cent in his third examination, he shall lose the benefit of
8. Estonina, Severino 80 74 64 89 81 having already passed some subjects and shall be required to
9. Fernandez, Alejandro Q. 65 75 87 80 81 the examination in all the subjects.
10. Fernandez, Luis N. 70 75 77 75 78

SEC. 16. Admission and oath of successful applicants. — Any
11. Figueroa, Alfredo A. 70 75 87 78 75 applicant who has obtained a general average of 70 per cent
12. Formilleza, Pedro 65 75 89 68 83 in all subjects without falling below 50 per cent in any
examination held after the 4th day of July, 1946, or who has
13. Garcia, Manuel M. 69 68 83 83 73 been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar,
14. Grospe, Vicente E. 68 75 78 66 79 shall be allowed to take and subscribe before the Supreme
Court the corresponding oath of office. (Arts. 4 and 5, 8, No.
15. Galema, Nestor R. (1952) 72 79 86 78 60 12).
16. Jacobo, Rafael F. 76 76 75 74 76
17. Macalindong, Reinerio L. 67 77 79 79 74 With the bill was an Explanatory Note, the portion pertinent to the
matter before us being:
18. Mangubat, Antonio M. 70 70 78 61 80
19. Montano, Manuel M. 78 64 66 68 81 It seems to be unfair that unsuccessful candidates at bar
20. Plomantes, Marcos 73 67 74 58 68 examinations should be compelled to repeat even those
subjects which they have previously passed. This is not the
21. Ramos, Eugenio R. 70 80 76 67 72
case in any other government examination. The Rules of Court
22. Reyes, Juan R. 71 73 77 76 81 have therefore been amended in this measure to give a
23. Reyes, Santiago R. 65 78 83 60 76 candidate due credit for any subject which he has previously
passed with a rating of 75 per cent or higher."
24. Rivera, Eulogio J. 65 67 78 74 75
25. Santos, Constantino P. 73 71 70 65 78 Senate Bill No. 12 having been approved by Congress on May 3, 1951,
26. Santos, Salvador H. 70 71 79 65 72 the President requested the comments of this Tribunal before acting on
the same. The comment was signed by seven Justices while three chose
27. Sevilla, Macario C. 70 73 74 70 81 to refrain from making any and one took no part. With regards to the
28. Villavicencio, Jose A. 78 75 70 67 69 matter that interests us, the Court said:
29. Viray, Ruperto G. 76 73 76 73 80

The next amendment is of section 14 of Rule 127. One part of
this amendment provides that if a bar candidate obtains 70
There are the unsuccessful candidates totaling 604 directly affected by per cent or higher in any subject, although failing to pass the
this resolution. Adding 490 candidates who have not presented any examination, he need not be examined in said subject in his
petition, they reach a total of 1,094. next examination. This is a sort of passing the Bar Examination
on the installment plan, one or two or three subjects at a
The Enactment of Republic Act No. 972 time. The trouble with this proposed system is that although it
makes it easier and more convenient for the candidate
because he may in an examination prepare himself on only
As will be observed from Annex I, this Court reduced to 72 per cent the
one or two subjects so as to insure passing them, by the time
passing general average in the bar examination of august and November
that he has passed the last required subjects, which may be
of 1946; 69 per cent in 1947; 70 per cent in 1948; 74 per cent in 1949;
several years away from the time that he reviewed and
maintaining the prescribed 75 per cent since 1950, but raising to 75 per
passed the firs subjects, he shall have forgotten the principles
cent those who obtained 74 per cent since 1950. This caused the
and theories contained in those subjects and remembers only
introduction in 1951, in the Senate of the Philippines of Bill No. 12 which
those of the one or two subjects that he had last reviewed
was intended to amend Sections 5, 9, 12, 14 and 16 of Rule 127 of the
and passed. This is highly possible because there is nothing in
Rules of Court, concerning the admission of attorneys-at-law to the
the law which requires a candidate to continue taking the Bar
practice of the profession. The amendments embrace many interesting
examinations every year in succession. The only condition
matters, but those referring to sections 14 and 16 immediately concern
imposed is that a candidate, on this plan, must pass the
us. The proposed amendment is as follows:
examination in no more that three installments; but there is
no limitation as to the time or number of years intervening
SEC. 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be between each examination taken. This would defeat the
deemed to have passed the examinations successfully, he object and the requirements of the law and the Court in
must have obtained a general average of 70 per cent without admitting persons to the practice of law. When a person is so
falling below 50 per cent in any subject. In determining the admitted, it is to be presumed and presupposed that he
average, the foregoing subjects shall be given the following possesses the knowledge and proficiency in the law and the
relative weights: Civil Law, 20 per cent; Land Registration and knowledge of all law subjects required in bar examinations, so
Mortgages, 5 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal as presently to be able to practice the legal profession and
Law, 10 per cent; Political Law, 10 per cent; International Law, adequately render the legal service required by prospective
5 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and clients. But this would not hold true of the candidates who
Practical Exercises, 5 per cent; Social Legislation, 5 per cent; may have obtained a passing grade on any five subjects eight
Taxation, 5 per cent. Unsuccessful candidates shall not be years ago, another three subjects one year later, and the last
two subjects the present year. We believe that the present officer. We repeat, that this is another important aspect of the
system of requiring a candidate to obtain a passing general question to be carefully and seriously considered.
average with no grade in any subject below 50 per cent is
more desirable and satisfactory. It requires one to be all The President vetoed the bill on June 16, 1951, stating the following:
around, and prepared in all required legal subjects at the time
of admission to the practice of law.
I am fully in accord with the avowed objection of the bill,
namely, to elevate the standard of the legal profession and
xxx xxx xxx maintain it on a high level. This is not achieved, however, by
admitting to practice precisely a special class who have failed
We now come to the last amendment, that of section 16 of in the bar examination, Moreover, the bill contains provisions
Rule 127. This amendment provides that any application who to which I find serious fundamental objections.
has obtained a general average of 70 per cent in all subjects
without failing below 50 per cent in any subject in any Section 5 provides that any applicant who has obtained a
examination held after the 4th day of July, 1946, shall be general average of 70 per cent in all subjects without failing
allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of below 50 per cent in any subject in any examination held after
office. In other words, Bar candidates who obtained not less the 4th day of July, 1946, shall be allowed to take and
than 70 per cent in any examination since the year 1946 subscribed the corresponding oath of office. This provision
without failing below 50 per cent in any subject, despite their constitutes class legislation, benefiting as it does specifically
non-admission to the Bar by the Supreme Court because they one group of persons, namely, the unsuccessful candidates in
failed to obtain a passing general average in any of those the 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 bar examinations.
years, will be admitted to the Bar. This provision is not only
prospective but retroactive in its effects.
The same provision undertakes to revoke or set aside final
resolutions of the Supreme Court made in accordance with
We have already stated in our comment on the next the law then in force. It should be noted that after every bar
preceding amendment that we are not exactly in favor of examination the Supreme Court passes the corresponding
reducing the passing general average from 75 per cent to 70 resolution not only admitting to the Bar those who have
per cent to govern even in the future. As to the validity of obtained a passing general average but also rejecting and
making such reduction retroactive, we have serious legal denying the petitions for reconsideration of those who have
doubts. We should not lose sight of the fact that after every failed. The provision under consideration would have the
bar examinations, the Supreme Court passes the effect of revoking the Supreme Court's resolution denying and
corresponding resolution not only admitting to the Bar those rejecting the petitions of those who may have failed to obtain
who have obtained a passing general average grade, but also the passing average fixed for that year. Said provision also sets
rejecting and denying the petitions for reconsideration of a bad precedent in that the Government would be morally
those who have failed. The present amendment would have obliged to grant a similar privilege to those who have failed in
the effect of repudiating, reversing and revoking the Supreme the examinations for admission to other professions such as
Court's resolution denying and rejecting the petitions of those medicine, engineering, architecture and certified public
who may have obtained an average of 70 per cent or more accountancy.
but less than the general passing average fixed for that year. It
is clear that this question involves legal implications, and this
phase of the amendment if finally enacted into law might Consequently, the bill was returned to the Congress of the Philippines,
have to go thru a legal test. As one member of the Court but it was not repassed by 2/3 vote of each House as prescribed by
remarked during the discussion, when a court renders a section 20, article VI of the Constitution. Instead Bill No. 371 was
decision or promulgate a resolution or order on the basis of presented in the Senate. It reads as follows:
and in accordance with a certain law or rule then in force, the
subsequent amendment or even repeal of said law or rule AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR
may not affect the final decision, order, or resolution already EXAMINATIONS FROM 1946 UP TO AND INCLUDING 1953
promulgated, in the sense of revoking or rendering it void and
of no effect. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Another aspect of this question to be considered is the fact
that members of the bar are officers of the courts, including SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14, Rule
the Supreme Court. When a Bar candidate is admitted to the 127 of the Rules of Court, any bar candidate who obtained a
Bar, the Supreme Court impliedly regards him as a person fit, general average of 70 per cent in any bar examinations after
competent and qualified to be its officer. Conversely, when it July 4, 1946 up to the August 1951 Bar examinations; 71 per
refused and denied admission to the Bar to a candidate who cent in the 1952 bar examinations; 72 per cent in the 1953 bar
in any year since 1946 may have obtained a general average examinations; 73 per cent in the 1954 bar examinations; 74
of 70 per cent but less than that required for that year in per cent in 1955 bar examinations without a candidate
order to pass, the Supreme Court equally and impliedly obtaining a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, shall be
considered and declared that he was not prepared, ready, allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office
competent and qualified to be its officer. The present as member of the Philippine Bar; Provided, however, That 75
amendment giving retroactivity to the reduction of the per cent passing general average shall be restored in all
passing general average runs counter to all these acts and succeeding examinations; and Provided, finally, That for the
resolutions of the Supreme Court and practically and in effect purpose of this Act, any exact one-half or more of a fraction,
says that a candidate not accepted, and even rejected by the shall be considered as one and included as part of the next
Court to be its officer because he was unprepared, whole number.
undeserving and unqualified, nevertheless and in spite of all,
must be admitted and allowed by this Court to serve as its
SEC. 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent against class legislation, is very expressed in the following
in any subject in any bar examination after July 4, 1945 shall American Jurisprudence:
be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and
such grade or grades shall be included in computing the A valid classification must include all who naturally belong to
passing general average that said candidate may obtain in any the class, all who possess a common disability, attribute, or
subsequent examinations that he may take. classification, and there must be a "natural" and substantial
differentiation between those included in the class and those
SEC. 3. This bill shall take effect upon its approval. it leaves untouched. When a class is accepted by the Court as
"natural" it cannot be again split and then have the dissevered
With the following explanatory note: factions of the original unit designated with different rules
established for each. (Fountain Park Co. vs. Rensier, 199 Ind.
95, N. E. 465 (1926).
This is a revised Bar bill to meet the objections of the
President and to afford another opportunity to those who feel
themselves discriminated by the Supreme Court from 1946 to Another case penned by Justice Cardozo: "Time with its tides
1951 when those who would otherwise have passed the bar brings new conditions which must be cared for by new laws.
examination but were arbitrarily not so considered by altering Sometimes the new conditions affect the members of a class.
its previous decisions of the passing mark. The Supreme Court If so, the correcting statute must apply to all alike. Sometimes
has been altering the passing mark from 69 in 1947 to 74 in the condition affect only a few. If so, the correcting statute
1951. In order to cure the apparent arbitrary fixing of passing may be as narrow as the mischief. The constitution does not
grades and to give satisfaction to all parties concerned, it is prohibit special laws inflexibly and always. It permits them
proposed in this bill a gradual increase in the general averages when there are special evils with which the general laws are
for passing the bar examinations as follows; For 1946 to 1951 incompetent to cope. The special public purpose will sustain
bar examinations, 70 per cent; for 1952 bar examination, 71 the special form. . . . The problem in the last analysis is one of
per cent; for 1953 bar examination, 72 per cent; for 1954 bar legislative policy, with a wide margin of discretion conceded
examination, 73 percent; and for 1955 bar examination, 74 to the lawmakers. Only in the case of plain abuse will there be
per cent. Thus in 1956 the passing mark will be restored with revision by the court. (In Williams vs. Mayor and City Council
the condition that the candidate shall not obtain in any of Baltimore, 286 U. S. 36, 77 L. Ed. 1015, 53 Sup. Ct. 431).
subject a grade of below 50 per cent. The reason for relaxing (1932)
the standard 75 per cent passing grade, is the tremendous
handicap which students during the years immediately after This bill has all the earmarks of a corrective statute which
the Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the always retroacts to the extent of the care of correction only as
insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the in this case from 1946 when the Supreme Court first deviated
preparation of students who took up law soon after the from the rule of 75 per cent in the Rules of Court.
liberation. It is believed that by 1956 the preparation of our
students as well as the available reading materials will be For the foregoing purposes the approval of this bill is earnestly
under normal conditions, if not improved from those years recommended.
preceding the last world war.
In this will we eliminated altogether the idea of having our (Sgd.) PABLO ANGELES DAVID
Supreme Court assumed the supervision as well as the Senator
administration of the study of law which was objected to by
the President in the Bar Bill of 1951.
Without much debate, the revised bill was passed by Congress as above
transcribed. The President again asked the comments of this Court,
The President in vetoing the Bar Bill last year stated among his which endorsed the following:
objections that the bill would admit to the practice of law "a
special class who failed in the bar examination". He
considered the bill a class legislation. This contention, Respectfully returned to the Honorable, the Acting Executive
however, is not, in good conscience, correct because Congress Secretary, Manila, with the information that, with respect to
is merely supplementing what the Supreme Court have Senate Bill No. 371, the members of the Court are taking the
already established as precedent by making as low as 69 per same views they expressed on Senate Bill No. 12 passed by
cent the passing mark of those who took the Bar examination Congress in May, 1951, contained in the first indorsement of
in 1947. These bar candidates for who this bill should be the undersigned dated June 5, 1951, to the Assistant
enacted, considered themselves as having passed the bar Executive Secretary.
examination on the strength of the established precedent of
our Supreme Court and were fully aware of the
(Sgd.) RICARDO PARAS
insurmountable difficulties and handicaps which they were
unavoidably placed. We believe that such precedent cannot or
could not have been altered, constitutionally, by the Supreme The President allowed the period within which the bill should be signed
Court, without giving due consideration to the rights already to pass without vetoing it, by virtue of which it became a law on June 21,
accrued or vested in the bar candidates who took the 1953 (Sec. 20, Art. VI, Constitution) numbered 972 (many times
examination when the precedent was not yet altered, or in erroneously cited as No. 974).
effect, was still enforced and without being inconsistent with
the principles of their previous resolutions.
It may be mentioned in passing that 1953 was an election year, and that
both the President and the author of the Bill were candidates for re-
If this bill would be enacted, it shall be considered as a simple election, together, however, they lost in the polls.
curative act or corrective statute which Congress has the
power to enact. The requirement of a "valid classification" as
had been released, and on motion for reconsideration, all candidates
with a general average of 69 per cent were allowed to pass by resolution
of July 15, 1948. With respect to the bar examinations held in August,
1948, in addition to the original list of successful bar candidates, all
Separate Opinions those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more,
irrespective of the grades in any one subject and irrespective of whether
LABRADOR, J., concurring and dissenting: they filed petitions for reconsideration, were allowed to pass by
resolution of April 28, 1949. Thus, for the year 1947 the Court in effect
The right to admit members to the Bar is, and has always been, the made 69 per cent as the passing average, and for the year 1948, 70 per
exclusive privilege of this Court, because lawyers are members of the cent; and this amounted, without being noticed perhaps, to an
Court and only this Court should be allowed to determine admission amendment of section 14 of Rule 127.
thereto in the interest of the principle of the separation of powers. The
power to admit is judicial in the sense that discretion is used in is Numerous flunkers in the bar examinations held subsequent to 1948,
exercise. This power should be distinguished from the power to whose general averages mostly ranged from 69 to 73 per cent, filed
promulgate rules which regulate admission. It is only this power (to motions for reconsideration invoking the precedents set by this Court in
promulgate amendments to the rules) that is given in the Constitution to 1947 and 1948, but said motions were uniformly denied.
the Congress, not the exercise of the discretion to admit or not to admit.
Thus the rules on the holding of examination, the qualifications of In the year 1951, the Congress, after public hearings where law deans
applicants, the passing grades, etc. are within the scope of the legislative and professors, practising attorneys, presidents of bar associations, and
power. But the power to determine when a candidate has made or has law graduates appeared and argued lengthily pro or con, approved a bill
not made the required grade is judicial, and lies completely with this providing, among others, for the reduction of the passing general
Court. average from 75 per cent to 70 per cent, retroactive to any bar
examination held after July 4, 1946. This bill was vetoed by the President
I hold that the act under consideration is an exercise of the judicial mainly in view of an unfavorable comment of Justices Padilla, Tuason,
function, and lies beyond the scope of the congressional prerogative of Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista and Jugo. In 1953, the Congress passed
amending the rules. To say that candidates who obtain a general another bill similar to the previous bill vetoed by the President, with the
average of 72 per cent in 1953, 73 per cent in 1954, and 74 per cent in important difference that in the later bill the provisions in the first bill
1955 should be considered as having passed the examination, is to mean regarding (1) the supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court of the
exercise of the privilege and discretion judged in this Court. It is a study of law, (2) the inclusion of Social Legislation and Taxation as new
mandate to the tribunal to pass candidates for different years with bar subjects, (3) the publication of the bar examiners before the holding
grades lower than the passing mark. No reasoning is necessary to show of the examination, and (4) the equal division among the examiners of
that it is an arrogation of the Court's judicial authority and discretion. It all the admission fees paid by bar applicants, were eliminated. This
is furthermore objectionable as discriminatory. Why should those taking second bill was allowed to become a law, Republic Act No. 972, by the
the examinations in 1953, 1954 and 1955 be allowed to have the President by merely not signing it within the required period; and in
privilege of a lower passing grade, while those taking earlier or later are doing so the President gave due respect to the will of the Congress
not? which, speaking for the people, chose to repass the bill first vetoed by
him.
I vote that the act in toto be declared unconstitutional, because it is not
embraced within the rule-making power of Congress, because it is an Under Republic Act No. 972, any bar candidates who obtained a general
undue interference with the power of this Court to admit members average of 70 per cent in any examinations after July 4, 1946 up to
thereof, and because it is discriminatory. August 1951; 71 per cent in the 1952 bar examinations; 72 per cent in
1953 bar examinations; 73 per cent in the 1954 bar examinations; and
74 per cent in the 1955 bar examinations, without obtaining a grade
below 50 per cent in any subject, shall be allowed to pass. Said Act also
provides that any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in
any subject in any examination after July 4, 1946, shall be deemed to
PARAS, C.J., dissenting: have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be
included in computing the passing in any subsequent examinations.
Under section 145 of Rule of Court No. 127, in order that a bar candidate
"may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must Numerous candidates who had taken the bar examinations previous to
have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without the approval of Republic Act No. 972 and failed to obtain the necessary
falling below 50 per cent in any subject.' This passing mark has always passing average, filed with this Court mass or separate petitions, praying
been adhered to, with certain exception presently to be specified. that they be admitted to the practice of law under and by virtue of said
Act, upon the allegation that they have obtained the general averages
With reference to the bar examinations given in August, 1946, the prescribed therein. In virtue of the resolution of July 6, 1953, this Court
original list of successful candidates included only those who obtained a held on July 11, 1953 a hearing on said petitions, and members of the
general average of 75 per cent or more. Upon motion for bar, especially authorized representatives of bar associations, were
reconsideration, however, 12 candidates with general averages ranging invited to argue or submit memoranda as amici curiae, the reason
from 72 to 73 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of alleged for said hearing being that some doubt had "been expressed on
December 18, 1946. In the examinations of November, 1946 the list first the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 972 in so far as it affects past
released containing the names of successful candidates covered only bar examinations and the matter" involved "a new question of public
those who obtained a general average of 75 per cent or more; but, upon interest."
motion for reconsideration, 19 candidates with a general average of 72
per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of March 31, 1947. This All discussions in support of the proposition that the power to regulate
would indicate that in the original list of successful candidates those the admission to the practice of law is inherently judicial, are immaterial,
having a general average of 73 per cent or more but below 75 per cent because the subject is now governed by the Constitution which in Article
were included. After the original list of 1947 successful bar candidates VII, section 13, provides as follows:
The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules protecting rights of litigants that have already been vested or acquired in
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and virtue of decisions of courts, not merely for the empty purpose of
the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be creating appearances of separation and equality among the three
uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not branches of the Government. Republic Act No. 972 has not produced a
diminish, increase or modify substantive right. The existing case involving two parties and decided by the Court in favor of one and
laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby repealed against the other. Needless to say, the statute will not affect the
as statutes and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the previous resolutions passing bar candidates who had obtained the
power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. general average prescribed by section 14 of Rule 127. A law would be
The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or objectionable and unconstitutional if, for instance, it would provide that
supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and those who have been admitted to the bar after July 4, 1946, whose
procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the general average is below 80 per cent, will not be allowed to practice law,
Philippines. because said statute would then destroy a right already acquired under
previous resolutions of this Court, namely, the bar admission of those
Under this constitutional provision, while the Supreme Court has the whose general averages were from 75 to 79 per cent.
power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of
law, the Congress has the power to repeal, alter or supplement said Without fear of contradiction, I think the Supreme Court, in the exercise
rules. Little intelligence is necessary to see that the power of the of its rule-making power conferred by the Constitution, may pass a
Supreme Court and the Congress to regulate the admission to the resolution amending section 14 of Rule 127 by reducing the passing
practice of law is concurrent. average to 70 per cent, effective several years before the date of the
resolution. Indeed, when this Court on July 15, 1948 allowed to pass all
The opponents of Republic Act No. 972 argue that this Act, in so far as it candidates who obtained a general average of 69 per cent or more and
covers bar examinations held prior to its approval, is unconstitutional, on April 28, 1949 those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent
because it sets aside the final resolutions of the Supreme Court refusing or more, irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration,
to admit to the practice of law the various petitioners, thereby resulting it in effect amended section 14 of Rule 127 retroactively, because during
in a legislative encroachment upon the judicial power. In my opinion this the examinations held in August 1947 and August 1948, said section
view is erroneous. In the first place, resolutions on the rejection of bar (fixing the general average at 75 per cent) was supposed to be in force.
candidates do not have the finality of decisions in justiciable cases where In stands to reason, if we are to admit that the Supreme Court and the
the Rules of Court expressly fix certain periods after which they become Congress have concurrent power to regulate the admission to the
executory and unalterable. Resolutions on bar matters, specially on practice of law, that the latter may validly pass a retroactive rule fixing
motions for reconsiderations filed by flunkers in any give year, are the passing general average.
subject to revision by this Court at any time, regardless of the period
within which the motion were filed, and this has been the practice Republic Act No. 972 cannot be assailed on the ground that it is
heretofore. The obvious reason is that bar examinations and admission unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, since this Court had already
to the practice of law may be deemed as a judicial function only because adopted as passing averages 69 per cent for the 1947 bar examinations
said matters happen to be entrusted, under the Constitution and our and 70 per cent for the 1948 examinations. Anyway, we should not
Rules of Court, to the Supreme Court. There is no judicial function inquire into the wisdom of the law, since this is a matter that is
involved, in the subject and constitutional sense of the word, because addressed to the judgment of the legislators. This Court in many
bar examinations and the admission to the practice of law, unlike instances had doubted the propriety of legislative enactments, and yet it
justiciable cases, do not affect opposing litigants. It is no more than the has consistently refrained from nullifying them solely on that ground.
function of other examining boards. In the second place, retroactive laws
are not prohibited by the Constitution, except only when they would To say that the admission of the bar candidates benefited under
be ex post facto, would impair obligations and contracts or vested rights Republic Act 972 is against public interest, is to assume that the matter
or would deny due process and equal protection of the law. Republic Act of whether said Act is beneficial or harmful to the general public was not
No. 972 certainly is not an ex post facto enactment, does not impair any considered by the Congress. As already stated, the Congress held public
obligation and contract or vested rights, and denies to no one the right hearings, and we are bound to assume that the legislators, loyal, as do
to due process and equal protection of the law. On the other hand, it is a the members of this Court, to their oath of office, had taken all the
mere curative statute intended to correct certain obvious inequalities circumstances into account before passing the Act. On the question of
arising from the adoption by this Court of different passing general public interest I may observe that the Congress, representing the people
averages in certain years. who elected them, should be more qualified to make an appraisal. I am
inclined to accept Republic Act No. 972 as an expression of the will of
Neither can it be said that bar candidates prior to July 4, 1946, are being the people through their duly elected representatives.
discriminated against, because we no longer have any record of those
who might have failed before the war, apart from the circumstance that I would, however, not go to the extent of admitting that the Congress, in
75 per cent had always been the passing mark during said period. It may the exercise of its concurrent power to repeal, alter, or supplement the
also be that there are no pre-war bar candidates similarly situated as Rules of Court regarding the admission to the practice of law, may act in
those benefited by Republic Act No. 972. At any rate, in the matter of an arbitrary or capricious manner, in the same way that this Court may
classification, the reasonableness must be determined by the legislative not do so. We are thus left in the situation, incidental to a democracy,
body. It is proper to recall that the Congress held public hearings, and where we can and should only hope that the right men are put in the
we can fairly suppose that the classification adopted in the Act reflects right places in our Government.
good legislative judgment derived from the facts and circumstances then
brought out.
Wherefore, I hold that Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional and should
therefore be given effect in its entirety.
As regards the alleged interference in or encroachment upon the
judgment of this Court by the Legislative Department, it is sufficient to
state that, if there is any interference at all, it is one expressly
sanctioned by the Constitution. Besides, interference in judicial
adjudication prohibited by the Constitution is essentially aimed at
Separate Opinions those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more,
irrespective of the grades in any one subject and irrespective of whether
LABRADOR, J., concurring and dissenting: they filed petitions for reconsideration, were allowed to pass by
resolution of April 28, 1949. Thus, for the year 1947 the Court in effect
made 69 per cent as the passing average, and for the year 1948, 70 per
The right to admit members to the Bar is, and has always been, the cent; and this amounted, without being noticed perhaps, to an
exclusive privilege of this Court, because lawyers are members of the amendment of section 14 of Rule 127.
Court and only this Court should be allowed to determine admission
thereto in the interest of the principle of the separation of powers. The
power to admit is judicial in the sense that discretion is used in is Numerous flunkers in the bar examinations held subsequent to 1948,
exercise. This power should be distinguished from the power to whose general averages mostly ranged from 69 to 73 per cent, filed
promulgate rules which regulate admission. It is only this power (to motions for reconsideration invoking the precedents set by this Court in
promulgate amendments to the rules) that is given in the Constitution to 1947 and 1948, but said motions were uniformly denied.
the Congress, not the exercise of the discretion to admit or not to admit.
Thus the rules on the holding of examination, the qualifications of In the year 1951, the Congress, after public hearings where law deans
applicants, the passing grades, etc. are within the scope of the legislative and professors, practising attorneys, presidents of bar associations, and
power. But the power to determine when a candidate has made or has law graduates appeared and argued lengthily pro or con, approved a bill
not made the required grade is judicial, and lies completely with this providing, among others, for the reduction of the passing general
Court. average from 75 per cent to 70 per cent, retroactive to any bar
examination held after July 4, 1946. This bill was vetoed by the President
I hold that the act under consideration is an exercise of the judicial mainly in view of an unfavorable comment of Justices Padilla, Tuason,
function, and lies beyond the scope of the congressional prerogative of Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista and Jugo. In 1953, the Congress passed
amending the rules. To say that candidates who obtain a general another bill similar to the previous bill vetoed by the President, with the
average of 72 per cent in 1953, 73 per cent in 1954, and 74 per cent in important difference that in the later bill the provisions in the first bill
1955 should be considered as having passed the examination, is to mean regarding (1) the supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court of the
exercise of the privilege and discretion judged in this Court. It is a study of law, (2) the inclusion of Social Legislation and Taxation as new
mandate to the tribunal to pass candidates for different years with bar subjects, (3) the publication of the bar examiners before the holding
grades lower than the passing mark. No reasoning is necessary to show of the examination, and (4) the equal division among the examiners of
that it is an arrogation of the Court's judicial authority and discretion. It all the admission fees paid by bar applicants, were eliminated. This
is furthermore objectionable as discriminatory. Why should those taking second bill was allowed to become a law, Republic Act No. 972, by the
the examinations in 1953, 1954 and 1955 be allowed to have the President by merely not signing it within the required period; and in
privilege of a lower passing grade, while those taking earlier or later are doing so the President gave due respect to the will of the Congress
not? which, speaking for the people, chose to repass the bill first vetoed by
him.
I vote that the act in toto be declared unconstitutional, because it is not

embraced within the rule-making power of Congress, because it is an Under Republic Act No. 972, any bar candidates who obtained a general
undue interference with the power of this Court to admit members average of 70 per cent in any examinations after July 4, 1946 up to
thereof, and because it is discriminatory. August 1951; 71 per cent in the 1952 bar examinations; 72 per cent in
1953 bar examinations; 73 per cent in the 1954 bar examinations; and
74 per cent in the 1955 bar examinations, without obtaining a grade
below 50 per cent in any subject, shall be allowed to pass. Said Act also
provides that any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in
any subject in any examination after July 4, 1946, shall be deemed to
PARAS, C.J., dissenting: have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be
included in computing the passing in any subsequent examinations.
Under section 145 of Rule of Court No. 127, in order that a bar candidate
"may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must Numerous candidates who had taken the bar examinations previous to
have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without the approval of Republic Act No. 972 and failed to obtain the necessary
falling below 50 per cent in any subject.' This passing mark has always passing average, filed with this Court mass or separate petitions, praying
been adhered to, with certain exception presently to be specified. that they be admitted to the practice of law under and by virtue of said
Act, upon the allegation that they have obtained the general averages
prescribed therein. In virtue of the resolution of July 6, 1953, this Court
With reference to the bar examinations given in August, 1946, the held on July 11, 1953 a hearing on said petitions, and members of the
original list of successful candidates included only those who obtained a bar, especially authorized representatives of bar associations, were
general average of 75 per cent or more. Upon motion for invited to argue or submit memoranda as amici curiae, the reason
reconsideration, however, 12 candidates with general averages ranging alleged for said hearing being that some doubt had "been expressed on
from 72 to 73 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 972 in so far as it affects past
December 18, 1946. In the examinations of November, 1946 the list first bar examinations and the matter" involved "a new question of public
released containing the names of successful candidates covered only interest."
those who obtained a general average of 75 per cent or more; but, upon
motion for reconsideration, 19 candidates with a general average of 72
per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of March 31, 1947. This All discussions in support of the proposition that the power to regulate
would indicate that in the original list of successful candidates those the admission to the practice of law is inherently judicial, are immaterial,
having a general average of 73 per cent or more but below 75 per cent because the subject is now governed by the Constitution which in Article
were included. After the original list of 1947 successful bar candidates VII, section 13, provides as follows:
had been released, and on motion for reconsideration, all candidates
with a general average of 69 per cent were allowed to pass by resolution The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules
of July 15, 1948. With respect to the bar examinations held in August, concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and
1948, in addition to the original list of successful bar candidates, all the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not branches of the Government. Republic Act No. 972 has not produced a
diminish, increase or modify substantive right. The existing case involving two parties and decided by the Court in favor of one and
laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby repealed against the other. Needless to say, the statute will not affect the
as statutes and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the previous resolutions passing bar candidates who had obtained the
power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. general average prescribed by section 14 of Rule 127. A law would be
The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or objectionable and unconstitutional if, for instance, it would provide that
supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and those who have been admitted to the bar after July 4, 1946, whose
procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the general average is below 80 per cent, will not be allowed to practice law,
Philippines. because said statute would then destroy a right already acquired under
previous resolutions of this Court, namely, the bar admission of those
Under this constitutional provision, while the Supreme Court has the whose general averages were from 75 to 79 per cent.
power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of
law, the Congress has the power to repeal, alter or supplement said Without fear of contradiction, I think the Supreme Court, in the exercise
rules. Little intelligence is necessary to see that the power of the of its rule-making power conferred by the Constitution, may pass a
Supreme Court and the Congress to regulate the admission to the resolution amending section 14 of Rule 127 by reducing the passing
practice of law is concurrent. average to 70 per cent, effective several years before the date of the
resolution. Indeed, when this Court on July 15, 1948 allowed to pass all
The opponents of Republic Act No. 972 argue that this Act, in so far as it candidates who obtained a general average of 69 per cent or more and
covers bar examinations held prior to its approval, is unconstitutional, on April 28, 1949 those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent
because it sets aside the final resolutions of the Supreme Court refusing or more, irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration,
to admit to the practice of law the various petitioners, thereby resulting it in effect amended section 14 of Rule 127 retroactively, because during
in a legislative encroachment upon the judicial power. In my opinion this the examinations held in August 1947 and August 1948, said section
view is erroneous. In the first place, resolutions on the rejection of bar (fixing the general average at 75 per cent) was supposed to be in force.
candidates do not have the finality of decisions in justiciable cases where In stands to reason, if we are to admit that the Supreme Court and the
the Rules of Court expressly fix certain periods after which they become Congress have concurrent power to regulate the admission to the
executory and unalterable. Resolutions on bar matters, specially on practice of law, that the latter may validly pass a retroactive rule fixing
motions for reconsiderations filed by flunkers in any give year, are the passing general average.
subject to revision by this Court at any time, regardless of the period
within which the motion were filed, and this has been the practice Republic Act No. 972 cannot be assailed on the ground that it is
heretofore. The obvious reason is that bar examinations and admission unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, since this Court had already
to the practice of law may be deemed as a judicial function only because adopted as passing averages 69 per cent for the 1947 bar examinations
said matters happen to be entrusted, under the Constitution and our and 70 per cent for the 1948 examinations. Anyway, we should not
Rules of Court, to the Supreme Court. There is no judicial function inquire into the wisdom of the law, since this is a matter that is
involved, in the subject and constitutional sense of the word, because addressed to the judgment of the legislators. This Court in many
bar examinations and the admission to the practice of law, unlike instances had doubted the propriety of legislative enactments, and yet it
justiciable cases, do not affect opposing litigants. It is no more than the has consistently refrained from nullifying them solely on that ground.
function of other examining boards. In the second place, retroactive laws
are not prohibited by the Constitution, except only when they would To say that the admission of the bar candidates benefited under
be ex post facto, would impair obligations and contracts or vested rights Republic Act 972 is against public interest, is to assume that the matter
or would deny due process and equal protection of the law. Republic Act of whether said Act is beneficial or harmful to the general public was not
No. 972 certainly is not an ex post facto enactment, does not impair any considered by the Congress. As already stated, the Congress held public
obligation and contract or vested rights, and denies to no one the right hearings, and we are bound to assume that the legislators, loyal, as do
to due process and equal protection of the law. On the other hand, it is a the members of this Court, to their oath of office, had taken all the
mere curative statute intended to correct certain obvious inequalities circumstances into account before passing the Act. On the question of
arising from the adoption by this Court of different passing general public interest I may observe that the Congress, representing the people
averages in certain years. who elected them, should be more qualified to make an appraisal. I am
inclined to accept Republic Act No. 972 as an expression of the will of
Neither can it be said that bar candidates prior to July 4, 1946, are being the people through their duly elected representatives.
discriminated against, because we no longer have any record of those
who might have failed before the war, apart from the circumstance that I would, however, not go to the extent of admitting that the Congress, in
75 per cent had always been the passing mark during said period. It may the exercise of its concurrent power to repeal, alter, or supplement the
also be that there are no pre-war bar candidates similarly situated as Rules of Court regarding the admission to the practice of law, may act in
those benefited by Republic Act No. 972. At any rate, in the matter of an arbitrary or capricious manner, in the same way that this Court may
classification, the reasonableness must be determined by the legislative not do so. We are thus left in the situation, incidental to a democracy,
body. It is proper to recall that the Congress held public hearings, and where we can and should only hope that the right men are put in the
we can fairly suppose that the classification adopted in the Act reflects right places in our Government.
good legislative judgment derived from the facts and circumstances then
brought out.
Wherefore, I hold that Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional and should
therefore be given effect in its entirety.
As regards the alleged interference in or encroachment upon the
judgment of this Court by the Legislative Department, it is sufficient to
state that, if there is any interference at all, it is one expressly
sanctioned by the Constitution. Besides, interference in judicial
adjudication prohibited by the Constitution is essentially aimed at
protecting rights of litigants that have already been vested or acquired in
virtue of decisions of courts, not merely for the empty purpose of
creating appearances of separation and equality among the three

In Re Cunanan, Et Al., 94 Phil. 534, March 18, 1954

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

In Re Cunanan, Et Al., 94 Phil. 534, March 18, 1954

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Resolution, March 18, 1954] 6.ID.; TITLE OF LAW MUST EMBRACE ALL ITS PROVISIONS.

7.ID.; REPUBLIC ACT No. 972, PART OF SECTION 1 DECLARED TO BE IN

The motive for passing the act in question is apparent.

Percentage of success (per cent) 61.04 29. Condevillamar, 68 65 74 80 85 75 60 75 71.65

72. Patalinjug, Eriberto 73 77 78 73 78 71 55 75 71.25 111. Antiola, Anastacio R. 68 76 75 70 71 70 81 66 73.05

73. Paulin, Jose C. 66 69 71 77 83 82 65 75 72.1 112. Aquino, S. Rey A. 70 71 71 60 74 62 76 77 71.1

74. Pido, Serafin C. 72 78 63 80 71 85 70 80 72.05 113. Atienza, Manuel G. 71 78 68 80 86 51 82 75 73.85

75. Pimentel, Luis P. 77 75 76 81 76 68 55 80 71.6 114. Avanceña, Alfonso 71 71 65 75 70 72 78 80 71.8

76. Plantilla, Rodrigo C. 72 78 68 89 79 81 65 85 73.55 MR Balacuit, Camilo N. 75 73 75 70 72 65 75 76 73.25

84. Samano, Fortunato 75 84 72 77 70 82 60 75 71.9 121. Buela, Arcadio P. 72 77 61 70 71 58 79 71 69.75

85. Santos, Faustina C. 71 68 68 76 75 85 55 75 69.5 122. Cabilao, Leonardo S. 73 50 75 75 75 60 71 79 71.25

86. Santos, Josefina R. 68 69 76 71 77 82 65 75 72.3 123. Cabrera, Ireneo M. 75 66 70 65 72 81 70 79 72.4

87. Seludo, Ananias G. 75 80 69 79 77 82 65 75 73.25 124. Cacacho, Emilio V.

88. Semilia, Rafael I. 68 85 55 83 89 79 65 80 71.25 125. Calilung, Soledad C. 64 73 73 80 73 57 75 59 69.65

89. Telan, Gaudencio 77 79 70 75 70 75 60 75 70.85 MR Calimlim, Jose B. 64 73 73 80 73 57 75 59 69.65

91. Torre, Valentin S. 85 81 71 76 69 65 55 70 70.4 128. Camello, Sotero H. 70 77 63 65 75 66 84 64 71.55

92. Torres, Ariston L. 78 71 72 81 61 84 55 85 70.4 129. Campos, Juan A. 71 88 70 75 64 69 71 62 70.15

93. Veyra, Zosimo C. de 70 75 71 79 65 80 65 80 70.65 130. Castillo, Antonio del 78 78 70 60 79 67 69 76 72.65

94. Viado, Jose 67 70 74 75 75 90 55 80 70.7 MR Castillo, Dominador 75 61 72 75 74 71 67 66 71.1

MR Magsino, 77 66 70 70 76 71 75 61 72.75 MR 67 60 71 75 79 67 84 60 72.7

163. Manio, Gregorio 67 67 69 80 71 67 75 75 70.65 198. Tria, Hipolito 69 72 75 60 69 54 78 66 70.05

164. Puzon, Eduardo S. 72 82 60 60 69 70 68 72 62.05 199. Velasco, Avelino A. 65 72 75 75 71 67 78 76 72.1

MR Marcial, Meynardo 66 75 74 70 75 67 81 75 73.15 200. Villa, Francisco C. 65 80 73 75 68 79 65 75 70.2

MRP Amodia, Juan T. 75 79 68 85 62 64 75 78 71.4 MRP Bobila, Rosalio B. 76 86 76 83 68 59 71 78 73.05

MRP Antonio, Felino A. 71 76 81 83 79 52 72 70 73.3 247. Buenafe, Avelina R. 78 80 75 75 70 55 72 80 72.75

MRP Arribas, Isaac M. 75 78 70 81 73 70 67 78 72.2 MRP Cabrera, Irineo M. 79 88 53 91 71 85 75 76 73.3

MRP Azucena, Ceferino D. 72 67 78 89 72 67 77 65 73.95 253. Cabreros, Paulino N. 71 79 83 84 60 62 71 50 70.85

MRP Banta, Jose Y. 75 80 77 81 75 63 71 75 73.95 259. Canda, Benjamin S. 72 71 77 90 62 75 66 82 71.95

MRP Sandoval, Emmanuel 75 83 70 83 77 67 77 60 73.95 478. Trinidad, Pedro O. 66 78 78 85 78 51 64 75 70.8

489. Venus, Conrado B. 69 81 74 85 62 66 72 77 77.05 5. Ducusin,

MRP Villanueva, Cecilio C. 75 85 79 88 66 77 67 70 73.95 MRD-1949 60 70 82 79 70 69 60 80 69.25

1. Amao, 12. Rementizo,

1946 68 67 76 76 73 73 49 50 66.5 1949 65 75 72 75 60 75 55 85 66.65

1950 59 80 67 77 62 80 71 57 67.4 1951 68 57 48 60 91 66 55 75 64.05

2. Baldo, 1952 68 53 68 67 58 56 75 64 65.7

1952 65 68 75 84 72 59 73 57 69.75 1952 67 80 51 69 69 77 73 53 66.35

1953 57 74 68 68 76 52 71 76 66.7 1953 65 67 78 74 75 62 69 80 70.9

3. Blanco, Jose 14. Rodulfa,

MRD-1949 75 75 70 75 77 76 60 90 72.15 1951 67 60 70 65 68 56 75 66 67.75

1951 64 71 58 65 68 70 75 71 66.95 1952 70 71 67 78 67 75 71 70 70.1

4. Condeno, 15. Sanchez,

MRD-1949 67 56 69 75 72 77 60 75 68 20. Gapus, Rosita S. (Miss) 76 80 86 77 64 74 66 69 73.9

1952 62 76 54 82 72 77 66 65 66.65 24. Gutierrez, Antonio S. 68 77 66 70 72 59 71 74 69.1

1951 60 64 55 70 68 52 70 75 62.85 28. Lukman, Abdul-Hamid 76 64 67 69 73 59 73 75 70.45

1. Acenas, Calixto R. 73 70 68 62 82 51 67 77 73.4546. Radaza, Leovigildo 75 78 76 61 77 50 71 86 72.2

2. Alcantara, Pedro N. 67 70 75 85 87 54 71 80 72.8 47. Ramos, Bernardo M. 64 62 75 93 81 52 66 80 70.1

3. Alejandro, Exequiel 67 72 71 75 80 76 75 77 73.4 48. Rabaino, Andres D. 68 72 75 73 78 55 69 76 70.65

4. Andres, Gregorio M. 70 73 86 58 79 50 71 78 72.7 49. Ravanera, Oscar N. 70 77 80 71 82 62 69 78 73.6

5. Arnaiz, Antonio E. 66 80 76 58 79 68 77 81 73.4 50. Renovilla, Jose M. 65 75 80 68 79 52 62 78 69.5

6. Asis, Floriano U. de 66 78 75 81 77 55 73 69 71.2551. Sabaot, Solomon B. 69 73 80 69 82 69 69 79 73.85

7. Bacaiso, Celestino M. 71 65 76 68 76 50 75 70 70.9552. Sumaway, Ricardo S. 66 76 69 76 74 56 72 68 69.1

8. Bala, Florencio F. 64 82 47 70 82 58 75 82 67 53. Torrefiel, Sofronio O. 70 77 74 75 73 50 68 72 69.55

9. Baldo, Olegario A. 57 74 68 68 76 52 71 76 66.7 54. Vera, Federico V. de 60 61 47 77 69 50 67 77 60.9

10. Barrios, Benjamin O. 65 71 76 75 80 62 83 73 73.9555. Viray, Venancio Bustos 65 67 67 52 73 64 71 65 67.15

11. Buhay, Eduardo L. 73 76 71 91 76 61 74 78 73.3556. Ylaya, Angela P. (Miss) 63 70 56 75 68 54 70 77 64.5

12. Burgos, Dominador C. 72 80 89 61 66 37 69 68 70.05

10. Fernandez, Luis N. 70 75 77 75 78

29. Viray, Ruperto G. 76 73 76 73 80

I vote that the act in toto be declared unconstitutional, because it is not

You might also like