tan vs del rosario jr. 237 scra 324.......dir of religious affairs vs. bayot or rayot 74 phil. report 749.....

in re
integration of the phil. bar 49 scra 22.....in re cunanan 94 scra 554....in re edillion 84 scra 554....ulep vs legal
clinic inc. 223 scra 378....

Tan vs. Del Rosario

237 SCRA 324

Facts:

Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of RA 7496 or the simplified income taxation

scheme (SNIT) under Arts (26) and (28) and III (1). The SNIT contained changes in the tax
schedules and different treatment in the professionals which petitioners assail as unconstitutional
for being isolative of the equal protection clause in the constitution.

Issue: is the contention meritorious?

Ruling:

No. uniformity of taxation, like the hindered concept of equal protection, merely
require that all subjects or objects of taxation similarly situated are to be treated alike both
privileges and liabilities. Uniformity, does not offend classification as long as it rest on substantial
distinctions, it is germane to the purpose of the law. It is not limited to existing only and must
apply equally to all members of the same class.

The legislative intent is to increasingly shift the income tax system towards the
scheduled approach in taxation of individual taxpayers and maintain the present global treatment
on taxable corporations. This classification is neither arbitrary nor inappropriate.

Dir. of religious affairs vs. bayot or rayot 74 phil. report 749

Facts: Respondent is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement in

Sunday Tribunal on June 13, 1943 which reads as follows

Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance and the annoyance of delay or
publicity avoided if desired and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any
matter free for the poor. Everything confidential.

Legal assistance service

12 Escolta, Manila
Room 105, Tel. 2-41-60

Issue: Whether or not the advertisement is ethical.

Held: It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the
respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the
public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that the practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice. It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents
or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and a trade. The lawyer
degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practice of merchantilism
by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles
the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the
temple of Jehovah. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer is the establishmentof a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct. (Canon 27,
Code of Ethics.)

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 Commission's] 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.

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.
In Re Cunanan
IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954]
In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to
1953;
ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL., petitioners.
Resoluti, 1954on
March 18
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: Whether or Not 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.
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.
Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.

in re edillion 84 scra 554

Facts: This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP membershipdues
assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article
III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment ofmembership fee and
suspension for failure to pay the same. He contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion
of his constitutional rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP in order to practice his
profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and thereby null and void.
Issue: Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property of the
respondent.

Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar
associations that are organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership of which is voluntary.
The IBP however is an official national body of which all lawyers must be a member and are
subjected to the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which includes
payment of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation
of regulations in the practice of law. The provisions assailed does not infringe the constitutional
rights of the respondent as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its
existence with regulatory measures to implement. The name of Edillon was stricken out from the
rolls of attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar.
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
FACTS: The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the respondents are champertous,
unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of
the members of the bar and that, to which as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by
the following advertisements:

Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call:521-0767,
LEGAL 5217232,5222041
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.

Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to
Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Force Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.

THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,

LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251;
522-2041; 521-0767

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services"
through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that
assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed
supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly
decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977. ISSUE:Whether or not, the advertised services
offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice of law and whether the same are in violation of the Code of
Professional responsibility RULING: The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of law
as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of
paralegal services in the Philippines. It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or
have been permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such
allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefore.
Canon 3 of the Code of Professional 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. Canon 3.01 adds that
he is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay or give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract
legal business (Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption of the CPR, had also
warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing
or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in
which the lawyer have been engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct, the magnitude of the interest
involved, the importance the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. There are existing exceptions
under the law on the rule prohibiting the advertisement of a lawyers services. However, taking into consideration
the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes
a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered, the court found and held
that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the exceptions. The respondents
defense with the case of Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to the prohibition against
advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon
request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such
exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the
present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the exceptions stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by
such authority in that state. The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing
or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar
tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity,
operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.