Cases Art Viii

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4

Sec. 5. Powers of the Supreme Court; Power to Promulgate Rules; par.

5
In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful
Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL., petitioners.
Jose M. Aruego, M.H. de Joya, Miguel R. Cornejo, and Antonio Enrile Inton for
petitioners.
Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag for respondent.

FACTS:
Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the “Bar
Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” In accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed
and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent
by raising it to 75 percent. After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar
candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while other
motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the
aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are also others who have
simply sought the reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in
question. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions
for reconsideration, irrespective of whether they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA No. 972 is constitutional?

RULING:
NO. RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar,
those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate
preparation. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission,
suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the
profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and
responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been
derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment, or reinstatement of attorneys at law in
the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. On this matter, there is certainly a
clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the
government. It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the
practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on
the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the
minimum conditions for the license.
The takeaway is that the Supreme Court has the power and authority to establish
rules and requirements for admission to the legal profession. The authority of the
Supreme Court to establish rules and standards for admission to the bar, ensuring that
the legal profession maintains its integrity and that only qualified individuals are allowed
to practice law. It emphasizes the importance of fairness, equal protection, and due
process in determining a candidate's eligibility for admission to the bar.
In the case at hand, the unsuccessful candidates who sought admission to the
bar raised arguments regarding their exclusion from the legal profession due to their
failure to pass the required examinations. They challenged the constitutionality of the
rules governing bar admission, alleging that their exclusion violated their constitutional
rights and due process.
The Court's decision emphasized that the criteria for admission to the bar should
be reasonable and not arbitrarily applied. It expressed its commitment to evaluating the
qualifications of the petitioners beyond their examination results, considering other
relevant factors.
Deals with the eligibility and qualifications for admission to the bar. It focuses on
the Supreme Court's authority to establish rules and standards and highlights due
process concerns in the admission process. This case primarily revolves around the
procedural aspects of bar admission.
RE: LETTER OF THE UP-LAW FACULTY ENTITLED “RESTORING INTEGRITY: A
STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT” (plagiarism)
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 08, 2011, J. Leonardo-De Castro

FACTS:
This case involves the UP Law Faculty's response to a Show Cause Resolution
regarding their letter titled "Restoring Integrity," submitted to the Supreme Court. The
letter alleged plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Vinuya decision by Justice Del
Castillo. The faculty members faced disciplinary action for potential violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. They defended themselves citing freedom of
speech and academic freedom. The letter claimed the Supreme Court misrepresented
Professors Criddle and Fox-Descenten's work titled "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens,"
the main source of the plagiarized text, arguing that the Vinuya decision contradicted
their conclusions on crimes against humanity.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents UP Law professors have crossed the line of decency
and acceptable professional conduct and speech and violated the Rules of Court
through improper intervention or interference as third parties to a pending case?

RULING:
YES. The Court finds that respondents UP Law professors, except for one
respondent, have crossed the line of decency and acceptable professional conduct and
speech and violated the Rules of Court through improper intervention or interference as
third parties toa pending case.
The Court held that the manner of the criticism and the contumacious language by
which respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have
expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said pending case for the
"proper disposition" and consideration of the Court that gave rise to said Show Cause
Resolution. The Court detailed specific statements it deemed excessive and
inappropriate in the UP Law Faculty's "Restoring Integrity" Statement. This included the
opening sentence, seen as an institutional attack, which the Court found uncalled for
considering the context of issuance, publication, and submission to the Court. It reads:
“An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas
who had suffered abuse during a time of war. The first paragraph concludes with a
reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as a reprehensible act of
dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. x x x.”
The takeaway is that the faculty's letter serves as a reminder of the importance of
upholding ethical standards, intellectual honesty, and credibility within the judiciary. It
expresses the expectation that the Supreme Court will take necessary steps to address
allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation, thereby preserving the integrity of the
Court and the legal profession.
In the context of plagiarism, this provision empowers the Supreme Court to
establish rules and standards that ensure the integrity and originality of legal writings,
decisions, and opinions rendered by justices and court personnel.
The takeaway is that the faculty acknowledged the importance of upholding
integrity in the Supreme Court and addressing allegations of plagiarism and
misrepresentation.

Both cases:
While both cases touch on the topic of maintaining integrity and upholding ethical
standards within the legal profession, they tackle different aspects of the issue. The first
case focuses on the admission process and eligibility criteria for entering the profession,
while the second case addresses allegations of misconduct within the judiciary.
Thus, the relation between these two cases lies in the broader context of
upholding integrity in the legal profession. Both cases highlight the need for
transparency, fairness, and ethical conduct to preserve the credibility of the legal system
and maintain public trust.

You might also like