IN RE: VICTORIO D.

LANUEVO
A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975
Facts:
This is a disbarment matter with regards to Attorney Victorio Lanuevo, the Bar Confidant for the 1971 Bar
Examinations. Supreme Court received a confidential letter that speaks of the exam notebooks of a examinee
named Ramon Galang who has been re-evaluated and re-corrected such that he hurdled the Bar Exams and was
admitted to the Bar.
Lanuevo admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the respective
examiners for re-evalution or re-checking. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the
notebook to him by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same and that the examinee
concerned failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of passing. Ramon Galang was able to
pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevos move but the exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects
namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).
Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera, a law
student of MLQU.
The five examiners were led by Lanuevo to believe that it is the Bar Committees regular activity that when an
examinee has failed in one subject alone, the rest he passed, the examiner in that subject which he flunked will
review his exam notebook.
Afterwards, Lanuevo gained possession of few properties, including that of a house in BF Homes, which was
never declared in his declaration of assets and liabilities.
Issue:
WON Lanuevo was guilty of defrauding the examiners such that Galang passed the Bar? YES
Held:
It was plain, simple and unmitigated deception that characterized respondent Lanuevos well-studied and wellcalculated moves in successively representing separately to each of the five examiners concerned to the effect
that the examinee failed only in his particular subject and/or was on the borderline of passing. To repeat, the
before the unauthorized re-evaluations were made, Galang failed in the five (5) major subjects and in two (2)
minor subjects which under no circumstances or standard could it be honestly claimed that the examinee
failed only in one, or he was on the borderline of passing.

The Bar Confidant has absolutely nothing to do in the re-evaluation or reconsideration of the grades of
examinees who fail to make the passing mark before or after their notebooks are submitted to it by the
Examiners. The Bar Confidant has no business evaluating the answers of the examinees and cannot assume the
functions of passing upon the appraisal made by the Examiners concerned. He is not the over-all Examiner. He
cannot presume to know better than the examiner.
AS TO GALANGS CRIM CASE: The concealment of an attorney in his application to take the Bar
examinations of the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for
revocation of his license to practice law is well settled. The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be
granted every one who demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of sound
discretion. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to
escape the penalties of the criminal law.
Under the circumstances in which respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, was allowed to take
the Bar examinations and the highly irregular manner in which he passed the Bar, WE have no other alternative
but to order the surrender of his attorneys certificate and the striking out of his name from the Roll of
Attorneys.
DECISION: Lanuevo disbarred, Galang stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

IN RE: CUNANANFACTS OF THE CASE:

In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953;
AlbinoCunanan et. al petitioners.In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest
and concern as
R.A. 972
popularly known as the
Bar Flunkers Act of 1953.
Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtainsa
general ave of 75% in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any subject
, although for the past fewexams the passing grades were changed depending on the strictness of the correcting
of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-1953 75%).Believing
themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., andfeeling that
they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a fewpercentages
lower than those admitted to the bar went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill no.12, but was vetoed
by the president after he was given advise adverse to it.
Not overriding the veto
, thesenate then approved senate bill no. 372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The
billthen became law on June 21, 1953Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the
Bar those candidates whosuffered from
insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparations
. By and large, the law is
contrary to public interest
since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation for thepractice of law profession, as
evidenced by their failure in the exams.ISSUES OF THE CASE:Due to the far reaching effects that this law
would have on the legal profession and the administration of justice, the

S.C. would seek to know if it is CONSTITUTIONAL

.

An adequate
legal preparation
is one of the vital requisites for the practice of the law that should bedeveloped constantly and maintained
firmly.

The Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring,
andreinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.

The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C. equal responsibilities concerningthe admission to
the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the constitutionrecognizes continue to reside in
this court.

Its
retroactivity is invalid
in such a way, that what the law seeks to cure are not the rules set in place bythe S.C. but the lack of will or
the defect in judgment of the court, and this power is not included in the power granted by the Const. to
Congress,
it lies exclusively w/in the judiciary
.

Reasons for
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY:
1. There was a manifest
encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court
.2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them,
inattempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution.3. That
congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission tothe bar
(since the rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated areconsidered the
bare minimum.)4.
It is a class legislation
5.
Art. 2 of R.A. 972
is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, andbeing inseparable from the
provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.
1

HELD:
Under the authority of the court:1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring
to the examinations of 1946 to 1952
and all of art. 2 of thesaid law are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and effect.2. The part of
ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) isvalid and shall
continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 aredenied, and all the
candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting agrade of below 50% in
any subject are considered as having passed whether they have filed petitions for admissions or not.)16 07 2010