INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

49 SCRA 22
FACTS:
Republic Act. No. 6397 entitled An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar and
Appropriating Funds Therefore was passed in September 1971, ordaining Within two years
from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the
integration of the Philippine Bar. The Supreme Court formed a Commission on Bar Integration
and in December 1972, the Commission earnestly recommended the integration of the bar. The
Court accepted all comments on the proposed integration.
ISSUES:
Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine bar?
Would the integration of the bar be constitutional?
Should the Court ordain the integration of the bar at this time?
RULING:
In ruling on the issues raised, the Court first adopted the definition given by the Commission to
integration in this wise: Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the
entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support (in
reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the
retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. The term Bar refers to the
collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or
unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with power to do so; the
State. Bar integration therefore, signifies the setting up by government authority of a national
organization of the legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of the
court.
Designed to improve the positions of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice and the rule of law,
integration fosters cohesion among lawyers, and ensures, through their own organized action
and participation, the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the
principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme
Court.
On the first issue, the Court held that it may integrate the Bar in the exercise of its power to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission
to the practice of law. Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Courts
constitutional authority over the Bar.
The second issue hinges on the following constitutional rights: freedom of association and of
speech, as well as the nature of the dues exacted from the lawyer, i.e., whether or not the Court
thus levies a tax. The Court held:

Page 1 of 5

Integration is not violative of freedom of association because it does not compel a lawyer to
become a member of any group of which he is not already a member. All that it does is to
provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive
group of which every lawyer is already a member. The lawyer too is not compelled to attend
meetings, participate of activities, etc. The only compulsion is the payment of annual dues.
Assuming, however, that it does compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated bar, the court
held that such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the state
Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech just because dues paid b the lawyer
may be used for projects or programs, which the lawyer opposes. To rule otherwise would make
every government exaction a free speech issue. Furthermore, the lawyer is free to voice out
his objections to positions taken by the integrated bar.
The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a levy but is purely for purposes of
regulation.
As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the integration. Survey showed an
overwhelming majority of lawyers who favored integration.

In Re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973]
[Per Curiam]
FACTS:
[T]he Commission on Bar Integration submitted its Report with the earnest recommendation
on the basis of the said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. 526 of
the Court, and consistently with the views and counsel received from its [the Commissions]
Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine
Bench and Bar that (the) Honorable (Supreme) Court ordain the integration of the
Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate
Court Rule. The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration
of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible and practicable to
existing provincial and other local Bar associations.
ISSUES:
(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?
(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?
(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?
HELD:
YES. On all issues.
Page 2 of 5

RATIO:
[T]he Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power,
under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning x x x the
admission to the practice of law.
The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments
adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual data
contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration of
the Philippine Bar is perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable, within the context of
contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative means to raise the
standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.
[T]he Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution,
ordained the integration of the Bar of the Philippines effective January 16, 1973.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

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,
Page 3 of 5

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.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991
Cayetano vs. Monsod
201 SCRA 210
September 1991

Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly
Monsod does not posses required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for
at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a
Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.

Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.

Page 4 of 5

Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and
other papers incident to actions and special proceeding, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In
general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance
before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in
matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law
means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsods past work
experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor verily more
than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The
respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of
the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.

Page 5 of 5