In Re: Albino Cunanan, G.R. No. L-6784.

March 18, 1954

In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to
1953; ALBINO CUNANAN
Resolution March 18, 1954

Facts:
Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of
1953.” In accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the
bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent.
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission
to the bar invoking its provisions, while other motions for the revision of their examination
papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for
admission. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades
without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners,
the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they
had invoked Republic Act No. 972.

Issue:
WON RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid?

Held:
RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those candidates
who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation.
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension,
disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their
supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in
the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment
or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been perpetually exercised by the
courts, it having been so generally held that the act of the court in admitting an attorney to
practice is the judgment of the court, and an attempt as this on the part of the Legislature to
confer such right upon any one being most exceedingly uncommon, it seems clear that the
licensing of an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function, no matter where
the power to determine the qualifications may reside.
On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and
legislative departments of the government.
It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law
belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of
permissive character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions
for the license.
 various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals.
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of standing, is entitled to practice law.
big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
the latter’s advertisements which contain the following:
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the
SECRET MARRIAGE? legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
P560.00 for a valid marriage. violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041 experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
8:30am – 6:00pm
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
GUAM DIVORCE
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
DON PARKINSON
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal
right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.
service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage
the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic. 1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. 2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy 3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in
Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of
specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is
as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his
staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it. The
Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor,
litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the
US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include