in Re Cunanan Digest

Legally Yours: In Re Cunanan

6/26/14, 9:43 AM

0

Higit Pa

Susunod na Blog»

Bumuo ng Blog

Mag-sign in

Legally Yours A collection of digested cases for hopeful Law students. These cases were assigned for us to digest. I would like to share them to you guys. If you want to print it, please cite my blog site for my credit. Leave a comment. This site also includes Philippines Law Cases, Research Papers, and pretty much everything they ask you to do and read in Law School.

T h u r s d a y, D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 0

Hi! WELCOME TO MY BLOG!

In Re Cunanan

Thank you for visiting my blog. There are lots of case digests here that you can use for your easy reference.

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

One of the reasons why I made this blog is to help my fellow law students who otherwise find it hard or have less time to digest cases. So, if you have cases that you want to be digested, please feel free to leave a comment including the full citation of the case. I'll try to digest them for you, ASAP. Of course, that will be subject to my time availability.

Facts:

Have fun! :)

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:

About Me

Vienda Valle A graduate of Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at Ateneo de Naga University. Currently a Law Student. View my complete profile

Labels

Constitutional Law (1) Criminal Law I (3) Insurance Law (3) International Law (1) Intro To Law (8) Labor Relations (20)

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 http://mviendavalle.blogspot.com/2010/12/in-re-cunanan.html

Legal Ethics (5) Legal Research (1) Papers (1) Persons (2) Statutory Page 1 of 3

Legally Yours: In Re Cunanan

6/26/14, 9:43 AM

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.

Construction (7)

Archives

► 2013 (5) ► 2012 (20) ► 2011 (5) ▼ 2010 (38) ▼ December (38) Opening Statement: Parliamentary Government Definition of Terms

Posted by Vienda Valle at 12:10 PM

Lawyer's Apology Letter

Recommend this on Google

Republic vs. CA and Molina

Labels: Intro To Law

Santos vs. Ca Caltex vs. Palomar Daoang vs. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas

No comments:

IBAA Employees Union vs. Inchiong Melchor vs. COA

Post a Comment

Mutuc vs. COMELEC Pascual vs. pascual-Bautista Tañada vs. Yulo

Enter your comment...

Vitug vs. Rongcal Canlas vs. CA Cayetano vs. Monsod

Comment as:

In Re Cunanan

Google Account

Gonzales vs. Alcaraz Ferancullo vs. Ferancullo

Publish

Tan vs. Sabandal

Preview

Alonte vs. Savellano, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Cabato People of the Philippines vs. Pineda Newer Post

Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Older Post

People of the Philippines vs. Castillo People of the Philippines vs. De la Cruz People of the Philippines vs. De los Santos People of the Philippines vs. Omine People of the Philippines vs. Patriarca, et. al. People of the Philippines vs. Saliling People of the Philippines vs. Sanchez, et. al. People of the Philippines vs. Suarez, et. al. Romera vs. People of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Libao People of the Philippines vs. Mauricio People of the Philippines vs. Talavera People of the Philippines vs. Quindoy and Ventura People of the Philippines vs. Gonzales, Jr. Manuel vs People of the Philippines Manaban vs. CA and People of the Philippines

http://mviendavalle.blogspot.com/2010/12/in-re-cunanan.html

Page 2 of 3

Legally Yours: In Re Cunanan

6/26/14, 9:43 AM

Simple template. Template images by sndr. Powered by Blogger.

http://mviendavalle.blogspot.com/2010/12/in-re-cunanan.html

Page 3 of 3