Objective

Facts

Issue(s)
Ruling &
Rationale

Petition for admission to the Philippine Bar without taking the examination.
ARTURO EFREN GARCIA, petitioner
Arturo Efren Garcia, files a petition for admission to the Philippine Bar without taking
the examination.
1. Garcia is a Filipino citizen born in Bacolod City of Filipino parentage, studied
and finished law course in Spain and was allowed to practice the law
profession in Spain.
2. Garcia cited that under the provision of the Treaty of Academic Degrees and
the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the
Spanish state, he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines
without submitting to the required bar examinations.
WON ARTURO EFREN GARCIA is allowed for admission to the Philippine Bar w/o
taking the examination.
COURT DENIED PETITION for the ff:
1. The provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of
Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State can
not be invoked by applicant. Under Article 11 thereof:
The Nationals of each of the two countries, who shall have obtained
recognition of the validity of their academic degrees by virtue of the
stipulations of this Treaty, can practice their professions within the territory of
the Other....
From which it could clearly be discerned that said Treaty was intended to
govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice their profession in Spain, and the
citizens of Spain desiring to practice their professions in the Philippines.
Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice the legal profession in
the Philippines. He is therefore subject to the laws of his own country and is
not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice
in the Philippines.
2. Article I of the Treaty, in its pertinent part, provides:
The nationals of both countries who shall have obtained degree or diplomas to
practice the liberal professions in either of the Contracting States, issued by
competent national authorities, shall be deemed competent to exercise said
professions in the territory of the Other, subject to the laws and regulations of
the latter...
It is clear, therefore, that the privileges provided in the Treaty invoked by the
applicant are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the
contracting State in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal
profession; and Section 1 Rule 127, in connection with Sections 2,9 & 16
thereof, which have the force of law, require that before anyone can practice
the legal profession in the Philippines he must first successfully pass the
required bar examinations;
3. The aforementioned Treaty, concluded between the Republic of the Philippines
and the Spanish State could not have been intended to modify the laws and
regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.

BAR MATTER
No. 914

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR vs. VICENTE D.

CHING, applicant

Objective
Facts

Issue(s)
Ruling
Rationale

GR No.
100113
Objective

Facts

Issue(s)
Ruling
Rationale

Objective

VICENTE D. CHING, files an application for admission to the Philippine Bar after proving
his Philippine Citizenship.
1. Vicente Ching, son of Tat Ching, Chinese Citizen and Prescila A. Dulay, Filipino
Mother was born in La Union. Since his birth, Ching resided in the Philippines.
2. Ching completed his Bachelor of Laws, allowed to take Bar Examinations after
submitting required proof of citizenship. He passed the Bar examination but was not
allowed to take oath because of the questionable status of his citizenship.
3. The OSG file its comment, that Ching, being the legitimate child of Chinese father and
a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution was a Chinese citizen and
continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine
citizenship in strict compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 625.
4. Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would
already be beyond the reasonable time allowed by present jurisprudence.
5. On 27 July 1999, Ching filed a Manifestation, attaching therewith his Affidavit of
Election of Philippine Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance, both dated 15 July
1999.
WON Vicente Ching is allowed admission to the Philippine Bar given his questionable
citizenship.
Court resolves to DENY Vicente D. Chings application for admission to the Philippine Bar.
The court holds that Ching failed to validity elect Philippine citizenship.
1. The span of fourteen (14) years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of
majority until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is
clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing upon reaching
the age the majority.
2. Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship. The
prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and
painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of
election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil
registry. Chings unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be
simply glossed over.
Cayetano vs. Monsod (1991)
Renato Cayetano, petitioner, filed an instant petition for certiorari and prohibition on the
appointment of Christian Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC, paying that said
confirmation be declared null and void.
1. In appointing the Chairman of COMELEC post, he must be a member of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
2. Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by Pres. Corazon Aquino to the Position
of Chairman of the COMELEC on a letter received by the Secretariat of the
Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991.
3. Petitioner Renato Cayetano, citizen & tax payer opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
4. There is no jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of law as a legal
qualification to an appointive office.
WON Christian Monsod is qualified to be appointed as Chairman of COMELEC.
The court dismissed the petition and validates that Christian Monsod is qualified to be
appointed as the Chairman of COMELEC.
Interpreted in the light of various definitions of the term Practice of law. Particularly the
modem concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended
by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyereconomist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor--verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement--that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.

VICENTE SOTTO, for contempt of court (1949)

VICENTE SOTTO was charged for contempt of court for having issued a written
statement in connection with the decision of the court in re Angel Parazo.

Facts

1. Vicente Sotto, wrote statement published in the Manila Times stating:

As author of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act. No. 53) interpreted by
the Supreme Court in the case of Angel Parazo, reporter of a local daily, who
now has to suffer 30 days imprisonment, for his refusal to divulge the source of
a news published in his paper, I regret to say that our High Tribunal has not
only erroneously interpreted said law, but that it is once more putting in
evidence the incompetency of narrow mindedness of the majority of its
members.
In the wake of so many mindedness of the majority deliberately committed
during these last years, I believe that the only remedy to put an end to so much
evil, is to change the members of the Supreme Court.
To his effect, I announce that one of the first measures, which as its objects the
complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. As it is now constituted, a
constant peril to liberty and democracy. It need be said loudly, very loudly, so
that even the deaf may hear: the Supreme Court very of today is a far cry from
the impregnable bulwark of Justice of those memorable times of Cayetano
Arellano, Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were
the honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary.
2. Court charges Vicente Sotto for contempt.
3. In the above-quoted written statement which he caused to be published in the
press, the respondent does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of
the Parazo case, which was then and still is pending reconsideration by this
Court upon petition of Angel Parazo.

Issue(s)
Ruling
Rationale

In response to charges against him, Sotto claims that that he made his statement in
the press with the utmost good faith and without intention of offending any of the
majority of the honourable members of this high Tribunal
WON Vicente Sotto is guilty of contempt.
The Court finds the respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto guilty of Contempt.
Sotto intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the presentation of a bill in
the next Congress, of which he is one of the members,

Reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the member Justices from
eleven to seven, so as to change the members of this Court
Who, according to his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in order
to influence the final decision of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or
obstruct the administration of justice.

His statement of good faith, if true, may mitigate, but not exempt him from liability.
However, his statements and actions claims otherwise.