Legal Profession Topics And Cases for tom. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993." Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench in the administration of justice and to develop social competence. Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education. Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education in the Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives: (1) to prepare students for the practice of law; (2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society; (3) to train persons for leadership; (4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and in other countries. (b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives: (1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various fields and of legal institutions; (2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues; (3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal problems of the present and the future; (4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for continuing study and self-improvement; (5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession; and (6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms. Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a representative from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board. With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar, who

have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the practice of law, as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or recognized law school. Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term of five (5) years without reappointment from a list of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with prior authorization from the Supreme Court, by the Judicial and Bar Council, for every position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the representatives of the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the representative from the ranks of active law practitioners and the representative of the law students' sector, for one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor. The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary and rank as the Chairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be diminished during their term of office. Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a principal office to be located in Metropolitan Manila. The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary in the performanceof its powers and functions. Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and functions: (a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Act; (b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and functions as herein enumerated; (c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning; (d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation; (e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty members; (f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges under the different levels of accreditation status; (g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual work of a new member of the Bar. (h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and (i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act. Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate a law school unless accredited by the Board. Accreditation of law schools may be granted only to educational institutions recognized by the Government. Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may withdraw or downgrade the

accreditation status of a law school if it fails to maintain the standards set for its accreditation status. Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive after the lapse ofthe semester or trimester following the receipt by the school of the notice of withdrawal or downgrading unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or upgrades the standards or corrects the deficiencies upon which the withdrawal or downgrading of the accreditation status is based. Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a special endowment fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of the Board, and administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest the same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety and liquidity. The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained from, the amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixty percent (60%) of the privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994; and from such donations, legacies, grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for the purposes of this Act. Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for faculty development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar programs for the advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law schools. The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be utilized. The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and regulations for the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund. Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and colleges of law which are presently under the supervision of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to the Board. Law schools and colleges which shall be established following the approval of this Act shall likewise be covered. Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the Contingent Fund for the initial expenses of the Board. To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually, under the budget of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective Fiscal Year 1994. Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person, circumstance or transaction is held invalid, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act and the applicability of such provisions to other persons, circumstances and transactions shall not be affected thereby. Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby repealed or amended accordingly. Section 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved: 23 December 1993 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993." Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the

importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench in the administration of justice and to develop social competence. Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education. Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education in the Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives: (1) to prepare students for the practice of law; (2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society; (3) to train persons for leadership; (4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and in other countries. (b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives: (1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various fields and of legal institutions; (2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues; (3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal problems of the present and the future; (4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for continuing study and self-improvement; (5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession; and (6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms. Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a representative from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board. With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the practice of law, as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or recognized law school. Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term of five (5) years without reappointment from a list of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with prior authorization from the Supreme Court, by the Judicial and Bar Council, for every position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the representatives of the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the representative from the ranks of active law practitioners and the representative of the law students' sector, for one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor.

The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary and rank as the Chairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be diminished during their term of office. Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a principal office to be located in Metropolitan Manila. The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary in the performanceof its powers and functions. Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and functions: (a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Act; (b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and functions as herein enumerated; (c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning; (d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation; (e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty members; (f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges under the different levels of accreditation status; (g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual work of a new member of the Bar. (h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and (i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act. Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate a law school unless accredited by the Board. Accreditation of law schools may be granted only to educational institutions recognized by the Government. Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may withdraw or downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if it fails to maintain the standards set for its accreditation status. Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive after the lapse ofthe semester or trimester following the receipt by the school of the notice of withdrawal or downgrading unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or upgrades the standards or corrects the deficiencies upon which the withdrawal or downgrading of the accreditation status is based. Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a special endowment fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of the Board, and administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest the same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety and liquidity. The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained from, the amounts appropriated

pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixty percent (60%) of the privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994; and from such donations, legacies, grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for the purposes of this Act. Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for faculty development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar programs for the advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law schools. The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be utilized. The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and regulations for the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund. Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and colleges of law which are presently under the supervision of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to the Board. Law schools and colleges which shall be established following the approval of this Act shall likewise be covered. Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the Contingent Fund for the initial expenses of the Board. To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually, under the budget of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective Fiscal Year 1994. Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person, circumstance or transaction is held invalid, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act and the applicability of such provisions to other persons, circumstances and transactions shall not be affected thereby. Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby repealed or amended accordingly. Section 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved: 23 December 1993 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993." Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench in the administration of justice and to develop social competence. Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education. Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education in the Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives: (1) to prepare students for the practice of law; (2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society; (3) to train persons for leadership;

(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and in other countries. (b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives: (1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various fields and of legal institutions; (2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues; (3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal problems of the present and the future; (4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for continuing study and self-improvement; (5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession; and (6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms. Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a representative from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board. With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the practice of law, as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or recognized law school. Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term of five (5) years without reappointment from a list of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with prior authorization from the Supreme Court, by the Judicial and Bar Council, for every position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the representatives of the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the representative from the ranks of active law practitioners and the representative of the law students' sector, for one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor. The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary and rank as the Chairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be diminished during their term of office. Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a principal office to be located in Metropolitan Manila. The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary in the performanceof its powers and functions. Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and functions: (a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent with the provisions of

this Act; (b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and functions as herein enumerated; (c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning; (d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation; (e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty members; (f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges under the different levels of accreditation status; (g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual work of a new member of the Bar. (h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and (i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act. Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate a law school unless accredited by the Board. Accreditation of law schools may be granted only to educational institutions recognized by the Government. Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may withdraw or downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if it fails to maintain the standards set for its accreditation status. Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive after the lapse ofthe semester or trimester following the receipt by the school of the notice of withdrawal or downgrading unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or upgrades the standards or corrects the deficiencies upon which the withdrawal or downgrading of the accreditation status is based. Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a special endowment fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of the Board, and administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest the same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety and liquidity. The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained from, the amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixty percent (60%) of the privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994; and from such donations, legacies, grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for the purposes of this Act. Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for faculty development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar programs for the advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law schools. The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be utilized. The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and regulations for the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund.

Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and colleges of law which are presently under the supervision of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to the Board. Law schools and colleges which shall be established following the approval of this Act shall likewise be covered. Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the Contingent Fund for the initial expenses of the Board. To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually, under the budget of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective Fiscal Year 1994. Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person, circumstance or transaction is held invalid, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act and the applicability of such provisions to other persons, circumstances and transactions shall not be affected thereby. Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby repealed or amended accordingly. Section 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved: 23 December 1993 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-1179 January 8, 1913 In re application of MARIO GUARIA for admission to the bar. Mario Guaria in his behalf. CARSON, J.: Relying upon the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 1597, the applicant in this case seeks admission to the bar, without taking the prescribed examination, on the ground that he holds the office of provincial fiscal for the Province of Batanes. Section 2 of Act No. 1597, enacted February 28, 1907, is as follows: SEC. 2. Paragraph one of section thirteen of Act Numbered One hundred and ninety, entitled "An Act providing a Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the Philippine Islands," is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Those who have been duly licensed under the laws and orders of the Islands under the sovereignty of Spain or of the United States and are in good and regular standing as members of the bar of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Code: Provided, That any person who, prior to the passage of this Act, or at any time thereafter, shall have held, under the authority of the United States, the position of justice of the Supreme Court, judge of the Court of First Instance, or judge or associate judge of the Court of Land Registration, of the Philippine Islands, or the position of Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Assistant Attorney-General, assistant attorney in the office of the Attorney-General, prosecuting attorney for the city of Manila, assistant 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 attorney for the Moro Province, may be licensed to practice law in the courts of the Philippine Islands without an examination, upon motion before the Supreme Court and establishing such fact to the satisfaction of said court." The records of this court disclose that on a former occasion this applicant took, and failed to pass the prescribed examination. The report of the examining board, dated March 23, 1907, shows that he received an average of only 71 per cent in the various branches of legal learning upon which he was

examined, thus falling four points short of the required percentage of 75. We would be delinquent in the performance of our duty to the public and to the bar, if, in the face of this affirmative indication of the deficiency of the applicant in the required qualifications of learning in the law at the time when he presented his former application for admission to the bar, we should grant him a license to practice law in the courts of these Islands, without first satisfying ourselves that despite his failure to pass the examination on that occasion, he now "possesses the necessary qualifications of learning and ability." But it is contended that under the provisions of the above-cited statute the applicant is entitled as of right to be admitted to the bar without taking the prescribed examination "upon motion before the Supreme Court" accompanied by satisfactory proof that he has held and now holds the office of provincial fiscal of the Province of Batanes. It is urged that having in mind the object which the legislator apparently sought to attain in enacting the above-cited amendment to the earlier statute, and in view of the context generally and especially of the fact that the amendment was inserted as a proviso in that section of the original Act which specifically provides for the admission of certain candidates without examination, the clause "may be licensed to practice law in the courts of the Philippine Islands without and examination" should be construed so as to mean "shall be licensed to practice law in the Philippine Islands without an examination." It is contended that this mandatory construction is imperatively required in order to give effect to the apparent intention of the legislator, and to the candidate's claim de jure to have the power exercised. It must be confessed that were the inquiry limited strictly to the provisions of local law touching this matter, the contentions of the applicant would have great weight . For it is well settled that in statutory interpretation the word "may" should be read "shall" where such construction is necessary to give effect to the apparent intention of the legislator. In Rock Island County Supervisors vs. United States (71 U.S., 435, 446), Mr. Justice Swayne says: The conclusion to be deduced from the authorities is that where power is given to public officers, in the language of the Act before us, or in equivalent language, whenever the public interest or individual rights call for its exercise, the language used, though permissive in form, is in fact peremptory. What they are empowered to do for a third person the law requires shall be done. The power is given, not for their benefit, but for his. It is placed with the depository to meet the demands of right, and to prevent a failure of justice. It is given as a remedy to those entitled to invoke its aid, who would otherwise be remediless. In all such cases it is held that the intent of the Legislature, which is the test, was not to devolve a mere discretion, but to impose a positive and absolute duty. Whether the word "may" in a statute is to be construed as mandatory and imposing a duty, or merely as permissive and conferring discretion, is to be determined in each case from the apparent intention of the statute as gathered from the context, as well as from the language of the particular provision. The question in each case is whether, taken as a whole and viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances, it can be said that a purpose existed on the part of the legislator to enact a law mandatory in its character. If it can, then it should be given a mandatory effect. (Colby University vs. Village of Canandaigua (U.S.), 69 Fed., 671, 673; Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. vs. Reynolds, 8 Kan., 623, 628; Kemble vs. McPhaill, 60 Pac., 1092, 1093, 128 Cal., 444; Inhabitants of Worcester County vs. Schlesinger, 82 Mass. (16 Gray), 166, 168; People vs. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 56 N.E., 953, 956, 184 Ill., 597; State vs. Withrow (Mo.), 24 S.W., 638, 641; Leavenworth & D. M.R. Co. vs. Platte County Court, 42 Mo., 171, 174.) Applying these canons of construction to the statute under consideration, and limiting ourselves strictly to the provisions of local law touching the admission of candidates to the bar, we might, as we have said, be inclined to give the statute the mandatory effect which applicant claims should be placed upon it. But we are of opinion that such a construction is precluded by the provisions of the Act of Congress enacted July 1, 1902, which confirm and secure to this court the jurisdiction theretofore conferred upon it. Section 9 of that Act is as follows: That the Supreme Courts of First Instance of the Philippine Islands shall possess and exercise

jurisdiction as heretofore provided and such additional jurisdiction as shall hereafter be prescribed by the Government of said Islands, subject to the power of said Government to change the practice and method of procedure. The municipal courts of said Islands shall possess and exercise jurisdiction as heretofore provided by the Philippine Commission, subject in all matters to such alteration and amendment as may be hereafter enacted by law; and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court shall hereafter be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive the compensation heretofore prescribed by the Commission until otherwise provided by Congress. The judges of the Court of First Instance shall be appointed by the Civil Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission: Provided, That the admiralty jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Courts of First Instance shall not be changed except by Act of Congress. Prior to the passage of this Act the power and jurisdiction of this court in relation to the admission of candidates to the bar of the Philippine Islands had been fixed by the provisions of the Organic Act (No. 136) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190); and as we understand these provisions this court was vested thereby with authority, and charged with a duty to pass upon the "moral character" and the "qualifications and ability" of all candidates for admission to the bar. The pertinent provisions of these statutes are as follows: (Act No. 136.) "SEC . 2. Constitution of judiciary. The judicial power of the Government of the Philippine Islands shall be vested in a Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance, and courts of justices of the peace, together with such special jurisdictions of municipal courts, and other special tribunals as now are or hereafter may be authorized by law. The two courts first named shall be courts of record. (Act No. 136.) "SEC. 16. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be of two kinds: 1. Original; and 2. Appellate. SEC. 17. Its original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto in the cases and in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, and to hear and to determine the controversies thus brought before it, and in other cases provided by law. (Act No. 190.) "SEC. 13. Who may practice as lawyers. The following persons, if not specially declared ineligible, are entitled to practice law in the courts of the Philippine Islands: 1. Those who have been duly licensed under the laws and orders of the Islands under the sovereignty of Spain or of the United States and are in good and regular standing as members of the bar of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Code; 2. Those who are hereafter licensed in the manner herein prescribed. SEC. 14. Qualifications of applicants. Any resident of the Philippine Islands, not a subject or citizen of any foreign government, of the age of twenty-three years, of good moral character, and who possesses the necessary qualifications of learning and ability, is entitled to admission as a member of the bar of the Islands and to practice as such in all their courts. SEC. 15. Certificate of good character required. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must produce the Supreme Court satisfactory testimonials of good moral character, and must satisfactorily pass a proper examination upon all the codes of law and procedure in force in the Philippine Islands, and upon such other branches of legal learning as the Supreme Court by general rule shall provide. . . . SEC. 16. Place and manner of examinations. Such examinations shall be conducted at Manila, by the judges of the Supreme Court or by a committee of competent lawyers by them to be appointed, and shall be held at such times as the judges of the court shall provide by general or special rules. Manifestly, the jurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by the Commission and confirmed to it by the Act of Congress would be limited and restricted, and in a case such as that under consideration

wholly destroyed, by giving the word "may," as used in the above citation from Act No. 1597, a mandatory rather than a permissive effect. But any Act of the Commission which has the effect of setting at naught in whole or in part the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, or of any Act of Congress prescribing, defining or limiting the power conferred upon the Commission is to that extent invalid and void, as transcending its rightful limits and authority. The Act of Congress was the creator of the Commission and indeed of the Government of these Islands, which is the creature of its creator. Its powers are defined, prescribed and limited by the Act which created it, and by such other lawful acts of its creator as may further define, prescribe, limit or expand these powers. It cannot lawfully transcend or infringe upon the limits thus prescribed, and any Act of the Commission repugnant to the Act of Congress which created it, or which is repugnant to any other lawful Act of its creator defining, prescribing or limiting its authority is void and invalid. The various Acts of Congress conferring power upon the Philippine Legislature, and defining, prescribing and limiting this power, especially the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, are to that Legislature in the nature of an organic act with its amendments, binding on it in like manner as is the Constitution of the United States upon Congress itself. In the great case of Marbury vs. Madison (1 Cranch, 175), the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision written by Chief Justice Marshall, laid down the doctrine in this regard which has been followed by that court unhesitatingly ever since. In that case the court held that an Act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become law, and that the courts of the United States are bound to take notice if the Constitution. Applying the reasoning of that case to the question of the validity of an Act of the Philippine Commission enacted since the date of the passage of the Philippine Bill which is found to be in conflict with the provisions of the Act of Congress dealing with the same subject matter, and especially with the provisions of the Philippine Bill itself, we think there can be no doubt as to the result. The Act of the Commission in so far as it is in conflict with or in any wise repugnant to the various Acts of Congress dealing with the same subject matter must be held to be void and of no effect. Paraphrasing slightly the language used in the early case of Kemper vs. Hawkins (1 Va. Cases, 20-24), it may be said that the Acts of the Congress of the United States are to the Commission, or rather to all the departments of the Philippine Government, what a law is to individuals; nay, they constitute not only a rule of action to the various branches of the Government, but it is from them that the very existence of the power of the Government flows, and it is by virtue of the Acts of Congress that the powers (or portions of the right to govern) which may have been committed to this Government are prescribed. The Act of Congress was the Commission's commission; nay, it was its creator. Section 9 of the Act of Congress, set out above, placed it beyond the power of the local Legislature to deprive this court of the jurisdiction or power theretofore granted to it; leaving however, to local legislative authority the right to confer additional jurisdiction, or to change the practice and method of procedure. The above-cited provisions of Act No. 190, in force at the time when the Act of Congress was enacted, conferred upon this court the power and jurisdiction to deny admission to candidates for the bar unless, in addition to certain other prescribed conditions, they satisfy the court that they possess the necessary learning in the law, by passing an examination prescribed by general rule. It seems clear, therefore, that the Commission, while it was undoubtedly authorized to modify the provision requiring the holding of examinations under general rules (that being merely the prescribed mode of procedure whereby the court was required to ascertain the qualifications of the candidate), had no authority to deprive this court of its power to deny admission to any candidate who fails to satisfy it that he possesses the necessary qualifications for admission to the bar of the Philippine Islands. In construing a statute enacted by the Philippine Commission we deem it our duty not to give it a construction which would be repugnant to an Act of Congress, if the language of the statute is fairly susceptible of another construction not in conflict with the higher law. In doing so, we think we should not hesitate to disregard contentions touching the apparent intention of the legislator which would lead

to the conclusion that the Commission intended to enact a law in violation of the Act of Congress. However specious the argument may be in favor of one of two possible constructions, it must be disregarded if on examination it is found to rest on the contention that the legislator designed an attempt to transcend the rightful limits of his authority, and that his apparent intention was to enact an invalid law. Black on Interpretation of Laws at page 87 says: "In construing a doubtful or ambiguous statute, the courts will presume that it was the intention of the legislature to enact a valid, sensible, and just law, and one which should change the prior law no further than may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the act in question. The construction should be in harmony with this assumption whenever possible." The same author, at pages 93 and 94, says: "Hence it follows that the courts will not so construe the law as to make it conflict with the constitution, but will rather put such an interpretation upon it as will avoid conflict with the constitution and give it full force and effect, if this can be done without extravagance. If there is doubt or uncertainty as to the meaning of the legislature, if the words of provisions of the statute are obscure, or if the enactment is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions, that interpretation will be adopted which will avoid the effect of unconstitutionality, even though it may be necessary, for this purpose, to disregard the more usual or apparent import of the language employed." Without undue straining of the language used in the statute under consideration, the word "may" may be construed as either mandatory or permissive in its effect. But to construe it as mandatory would bring it in direct conflict with the Act of Congress, and we conclude therefore, despite the contentions of the applicant as to the apparent intention of the legislator, that it should be given its permissive and not its mandatory effect, and that the true intention of the legislator was to leave it within the discretion of the court to admit to the bar without examination the officials mentioned in the Act in any case wherein the court is otherwise satisfied that they possess the necessary qualifications. Ordinarily, and in the absence of any showing to the contrary, it may fairly be assumed that an applicant who has held one of the offices mentioned in the statute, and who, prior to his appointment, had been admitted to the practice of law in the courts of these Islands under the former sovereign or in some other jurisdiction is duly qualified for admission to the bar of these Islands. In the case In re Du Fresne (20 Phil. Rep., 488, 492), speaking of the provisions of this Act, we said: Appointments to the positions mentioned in Act No. 1597 are made either by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands by and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission, and the legislator evidently conceived that the fact that such an appointment is made is a sufficient guaranty that after due inquiry the appointee has been found to be possessed of at least the necessary qualifications for admission to the bar. In the various cases wherein applications for admission to the bar under the provisions of this statute have been considered heretofore, we have accepted the fact that such appointments had been made as satisfactory evidence of the qualifications of the applicant. But in all of those cases we had reason to believe that the applicants had been practicing attorneys prior to the date of their appointment. In the case under consideration, however, it affirmatively appears that the applicant was not and never had been a practicing attorney in this or any other jurisdiction prior to the date of his appointment as provincial fiscal, and it further affirmatively appears that he was deficient in the required qualifications at the time when he last applied for admission to the bar. In the light of this affirmative proof of his deficiency on that occasion, we do not think that his appointment to the office of provincial fiscal is in itself satisfactory proof of his possession of the necessary qualifications of learning and ability. We conclude therefore that this application for license to practice in the courts of the Philippines should be denied. In view, however, of the fact that when he took the examination he fell only four points short of the

necessary grade to entitle him to a license to practice; and in view also of the fact that since that time he has held the responsible office of governor of the Province of Sorsogon and presumably gave evidence of such marked ability in the performance of the duties of that office that the Chief Executive, with the consent and approval of the Philippine Commission, sought to retain him in the Government service by appointing him to the office of provincial fiscal, we think we would be justified under the above-cited provisions of Act No. 1597 in waiving in his case the ordinary examination prescribed by general rule, provided he offers satisfactory evidence of his proficiency in a special examination which will be given him by a committee of the court upon his application therefor, without prejudice to his right, if he desires so to do, to present himself at any of the ordinary examinations prescribed by general rule. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, and Trent, JJ., concur RULE 138 Attorneys and Admission to Bar Section 1. Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America. Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking the following oath of office: I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions. Applicants for admission who, being Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination. Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics. Section 6. Pre-Law. No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics. Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship. Section 8. Notice of Applications. Notice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the beginning of the examination. Section 9. Examination; subjects. Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing). Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone. Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used. The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers. No oral examination shall be given. Section 11. Annual examination. Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (afternoon). Section 12. Committee of examiners. Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the official reports. Section 13. Disciplinary measures. No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the

committee, and during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court. Section 14. Passing average. In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent. Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. Not later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report. Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three times shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school. The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject. Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. An applicant who has passed the required examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.

Section 18. Certificate. The supreme Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of court, which certificate shall be his authority to practice. Section 19. Attorney's roll. The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his certificate. Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney: (a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines. (b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers; (c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; (e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval; (f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged; (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest; (h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed; (i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law. Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transactions. Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal. An attorney who appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue representing his client on appeal, unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the appellate court. Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash. Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

Section 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution. Section 26. Change of attorneys. An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the advance party. A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract. However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his rights. For the payment of his compensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client. Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. Section 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises. Section 29. Upon suspension by the Court of Appeals or Court of First Instance, further proceedings in Supreme Court. Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court of First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon the receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the facts involved and make such order revoking or extending the suspension, or removing the attorney from his office as such, as the facts warrant. Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte. Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown. Section 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio. Subject to availability of funds as may be provided by the law the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de oficio to be compensates in such sum as the court may fix in accordance with section 24 of this rule. Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall be not less than thirty pesos (P30) in any case, nor more than the

following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50) in light felonies; (2) One hundred pesos (P100) in less grave felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200) in grave felonies other than capital offenses; (4) Five Hundred pesos (P500) in capital offenses. Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Government. Any official or other person appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the Government of the Philippines shall have all the rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any case in which said government has an interest direct or indirect. Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for the purpose, or with the aid an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients. Section 36. Amicus Curiae. Experienced and impartial attorneys may be invited by the Court to appear as amici curiae to help in the disposition of issues submitted to it. Section 37. Attorneys' liens. An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have the caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have the caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse paty; and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO, vs. SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner. BENGZON, C.J.: After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar. About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. The matter was in due course referred to the Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated; and later he submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars: (a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and (b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education". Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but

he claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school. We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what with respondent's failure to exhibit any certification to that effect (the equivalence) by the proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records. Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education," (emphasis on "previous"). Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.. The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days. So ordered. Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur G.R. No. 000 July 18, 1975 IN RE: PEDRO A. AMPARO (1974 Bar Candidate), petitioner, RESOLUTION CASTRO, J.: Pedro A. Amparo of Guindulman, Bohol filed a petition to take the 1974 Bar examinations. This petition was granted. In the afternoon of December 1, 1974 he was at his assigned seat no. 17, room 401, fourth floor, Manuel L. Quezon University Building on R. Hidalgo, Manila. The Bar examination that afternoon was in Criminal Law. While the examination was in progress, the headwatcher in room 401, Lilian Mendigorin, reported that examinee Amparo was found reading, at approximately 3:15 o'clock, a piece of paper containing notes in Criminal Law. He at first refused to surrender the paper, but later gave it to Mendigorin when she threatened to report the matter to the authorities. A verbal report was relayed to the Bar Chairman who forthwith gave instructions that no investigation be then made in order to forestall any commotion that might disturb the other candidates. Amparo was permitted to continue answering the questions.

Headwatcher Mendigorin thereafter submitted a special report on the incident. On the following day, Clerk of Court Romeo Mendoza filed a formal report. Acting thereon, the Court en banc, on December 3, 1974, unanimously resolved "to disqualify Pedro Amparo from taking the Bar examinations still to be given, namely, in the subjects of Remedial Law and Labor and Social Legislation, on Sunday, December 8, 1974, without prejudice to allowing him to take the Bar examinations after this year." In a letter dated December 5, 1974, Amparo requested that "before final action is or becomes effective" he "be given a chance to explain" his side. On December 5, 1974 the Court reconsidered its prior resolution and allowed Amparo to take the Bar examinations on the coming Sunday, December 8, 1974, without prejudice to further action by the Court after a formal and more detailed investigation of the incident. As ordered, the Clerk of Court conducted an investigation on December 9, 1974 at which the respondent Amparo (a) appeared in his own behalf, (b) cross-examined the witnesses against him.(c) presented himself as his own witness, and (d) presented as his witnesses three Bar candidates who in the afternoon of December 1 were seated near him in the examination room. At the investigation, headwatcher Mendigorin identified Amparo as the Bar examinee whom she saw reading a piece of paper inside the examination room in the course of the examination in Criminal Law. The piece of paper, later marked as exhibit C, contains handwritten notes, on both sides, on the durations of penalties and a formula of computing them, particularly reclusion temporal. Mendigorin testified that she approached Amparo and asked for the piece of paper; that he refused and put the paper in his pocket; that when she approached him a second time, he fished the paper from his pocket and gave it to her; that when, at the end of the examination period, Amparo submitted his examination notebook, he told her that he really had intended to cheat. On cross-examination, she elaborated that Amparo gave the piece of paper only when she told him that she would bring the matter up to higher authority. Vernon B. Vasquez, a watcher under headwatcher Mendigorin, corroborated the latter's testimony. He declared that from a distance of five meters, he saw Amparo reading a piece of paper on his lap; that he wanted to approach him but his headwatcher was already ahead of him; and that Amparo thereupon placed the paper in his pocket, but when Mendigorin threatened to report the matter, Amparo yielded exhibit C with a smile. In his testimony, Amparo admitted having in his possession, in the course of the examination, the piece of paper, exhibit C, explaining that because he was perspiring, he took his handkerchief from his pocket, and out also came the piece of paper which fell to the floor; that the notes were not in his handwriting as they were given by a friend, and that it was by accident that he picked up the paper to find out what it was, as he had forgotten about it, but had no intention to use it; that while he was reading it, the headwatcher saw him and demanded it from him, but he refused because he thought that he might need it for "future reference," but when the headwatcher insisted as otherwise she would report the matter to her supervisor, Amparo surrendered the paper. On cross-examination, he declared that exhibit C had been in his pocket a long time before December 1; that he had not changed his pants for three weeks; that when the first bell rang for the examination in Criminal Law, he was required to put "all his things" out of the room; that he forgot about the paper inside his pocket; that when he took out his handkerchief to wipe his perspiration, the paper fell to the floor, and he wondered what it was and then recalled upon reading it that it had been given by a friend; and that as he was reading it, "that diligent headwatcher came and asked for that paper." He further admitted that he knew it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room. Bar candidates Jovencio Fajilan, Norman M. Balagtas and Apolinario O. Calix, Sr., who were seated near Amparo in room 401, were presented by the respondent as his witnesses, but all of them professed lack of knowledge about the incident as they were engrossed in answering the examination questions. It is clear that Amparo, in the course of the examination in Criminal Law, had possession of the piece

of paper containing notes on the durations of penalties and that he knew that it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room. It thus results that he knowingly violated Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides that "Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms." Amparo's impression that the notes had no "material use" to him is correct, in the sense that they bore no reference to any question asked in the examination in Criminal Law; even so he committed an overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading the notes, His refusal to surrender the paper containing the notes when first demanded; his eventual surrender of it only after he was informed that he would be reported; and the facts that the notes pertained to Criminal Law and the examination then in Criminal Law all these override and rebut his explanation that he merely read the notes to find out what they were as he had forgotten about them. We find the respondent Amparo guilty of (1) bringing notes into the examination room and (2) attempted cheating. According to the official report of the Bar Confidant, approved by the Court, Amparo did not pass the 1974 Bar examinations. ACCORDINGLY, it is the sense of the Court that Pedro A. Amparo should be as he is hereby disqualified from taking the Bar examinations for the year 1975. Makalintal, C.J., Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Muoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., and Martin, JJ., concur. Teehankee, J., is on leave In 1733, or 266 years ago, the University of Santo Tomas, which is older than Harvard University in the United States, opened a Faculty of Civil Law and a Faculty of Canon Law. From 1734 to 1800 (66 years), out of 3,360 students, it graduated only 40 students in its various law programs, to wit: 29 in Bachelor of Civil Law, 8 in Licentiate in Civil Law, and 3 in Doctor of Law, showing the rigid training in these courses. In 1898 the Universidad Literia Filipinas was established in Malolos, Bulacan and offered courses in law and notary public. It later moved to Tarlac. In 1899 Don Felipe Calderon (author of the 1899 Malolos Constitution) founded the Escuela de Derecho de Manila, which in 1924 was renamed the Manila Law School. In 1910 the College of Law of the University of the Philippines opened with 50 Filipino and American students. The first dean was Justice Sherman Moreland of the Philippine Supreme Court. He was replaced by George A. Malcolm, who later became a Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court. Other law schools followed: Philippine Law School, 1915; University of Manila College of Law, 1918; Far Eastern University Institute of Law, 1934; Southern College of Law, 1935; Arellano Law College, 1938; and Francisco Law School, 1940. Under the First Philippine Commission (1899) and the Second Philippine Commission (1900), laws were passed requiring the inspection of private schools, e.g. Act No. 74, which created the Department of Public Instruction; Act No. 459, or the Corporation Law; Act No. 2706; Act No. 3075