Case Digest: In Re Cunanan 94 Phil 534

In Re Cunanan 94 Phil 534

Subject: Basic Legal Ethics

FACTS

The case of In re: Cunanan was a 1954 case in which the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a law passed by Congress that would have admitted to the bar 1,094 law graduates who had failed to meet the minimum passing grade was unconstitutional. The court held that the law was contrary to the public interest because it would have admitted to the bar lawyers who were not adequately prepared to practice law.

The case arose out of a law passed by Congress in 1953, Republic Act No. 972, which would have admitted to the bar any law graduate who had obtained a general average of 70% in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952, without falling below 50% in any subject. The law was passed in response to a petition filed by a group of law graduates who had failed to pass the bar examinations.

ISSUE

Whether or not RA No. 972 is constitutional.

RULING

No. It is not constitutional.

By its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession, as was exactly found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations. The public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. 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 disputably a judicial function and responsibility. Even considering the power granted to Congress by our Constitution to repeal, alter supplement the rules promulgated by this Court regarding the admission to the practice of law, to our judgment and proposition that the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of the attorneys at law is a legislative function, properly belonging to Congress, is unacceptable.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the principle of separation of powers. The court held that the power to admit lawyers to the bar is a judicial function, and that Congress cannot usurp this power by passing a law that would automatically admit lawyers to the bar without any examination. The court also held that the law was contrary to the public interest. The court found that the law would have admitted to the bar lawyers who were not adequately prepared to practice law. The court noted that the bar examinations are designed to test the legal knowledge and skills of law graduates, and that the law would have allowed lawyers to practice law without having demonstrated their competence.