JE JESUS MA. MA. CUI vs. ANTONI ONIO MA. MA. CUI, RO ROMULO ULO CU CUIG.R. NO. L18727AUGUST 18727AUGUST 31, 1964 FACTS: Hosp Hospic icio io is a char charit itab able le inst instit itut utio ion n es esta tabl blis ishe hed d by the the spouses Don Pedro Cui and DoñaBenigna Cui, now deceased, "for the care and support, free of charge, of indigent invalids, and inca incapa paci cita tate ted d and and help helple less ss pers person ons. s."" It acu acuir ired ed corp corpor orat ate e e!istence by legislation and endowed with e!tensive properties by the said spouses through a series of donations, principally the deed of donation.#ection $ of %ct &o. '$'( gave the initial )anag )a nage) e)en entt to the the found founder ers s *oint *ointly ly and, and, inca incase of their incapacity or death, to "such persons as they )ay no)inate or designate, in the order prescribed to the)."Don Pedro Cui died in +($, and his widow continued to ad)inister the Hos osp pici icio until her death in +($(. -hereupon the ad)inistration passed to auricio Cui and Dionisio /a0osale) who both died. Dr. -eodoro Cui, only son of auricio Cui, beca)e the ad)inistrator.Plainti1 /es / esus us a . Cu i an d def de f enda en dan n t %nto %n to n io a. C ui a re bro br o ther th ers, s, being the sons of ariano ano Cui, one of the nephews of the spouses Don Pedro Cui and Doña Benigna Cui. 2n $3 4ebruary +(5 the then incu)bent ad)inistrator, Dr. -eodoro Cui, resigned in favor of %ntonio a. Cui pursuant to a "convenio" entered into between the) and e)bodied in a notarial docu)ent. -he ne!t day, $6 4ebruary, %ntonio a. Cui too0 his oath of o7ce. /esus a. Cui, however, had no prior notice of either the "convenio" or of his brother8s assu)ption of the position.Dr. -eodoro Cui died on %ugust $3, +(59 on #ept :, +(5 the plainti1 wrote a letter tothe defendant de)anding that the o7ce be turned over to hi)9 hi)9 and and the the de)a de)and nd not not havin aving g been been co)p co)pli lied ed wi with th the the plai plaint nti1 i1 ;led ;led the the co)p co)pla lain intt in this this case case..
aws fro) the ?niversity of #anto -o)as @Class+($A but is not a )e)ber of the Bar, not having passed the e!a)inations to ualify hi) as one. %ntonio
a. Cui, on the other hand, is a )e)ber of the Bar and although disbarred by this Court, he was reinstated by resolution pro)ulgated on +5 4ebruary+(5, about two wee0s before he assu)ed the position of ad)inistrator of the Hospiciode Barili.
C o u r t a quo decided in favor of the plainti1, said that the phrase "titulo de abogado,"ta0en alone, )eans that of a fulledged lawyer, but that has used in the deed of donation and considering the function or purpose of the ad)inistrator, it should not be given astrict interpretation but a liberal one," and therefore )eans a law degree or diplo)a of Bachelor of >aws. -his ruling is assailed as erroneous both by the defendant and by the intervenor. ISSUE: 2& the plainti1 is not entitled, as against the defendant, to the o7ce of ad)inistrator. @E#A RATIO: hether ta0en alone or in conte!t the ter) "titulo de abogado" )eans not )ere possession of the acade)ic degree of Bachelor of >aws but )e)bership in the Bar after due ad)ission thereto, ualifying one for the practice of law. % Bachelor8s degree alone, conferred by a law school upon co)pletion of certain acade)ic reuire)ents, does not entitle its holder to e!ercise the legal profession. -he English euivalent of "abogado" is lawyer or attorneyatlaw. -his ter) has a ;!ed and general signi;cation, and has reference to that class of persons who are by license o7cers of the courts, e)powered to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon who) peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a conseuence. In this *urisdiction ad)ission to the Bar and to the practice of law is under the authority of the #upre)e Court. %ccording to aws in itself has little to do with ad)ission to the Bar, e!cept as evidence of co)pliance with the reuire)ents that an applicant to the e!a)inations has "successfully co)pleted all the prescribed courses, in a law school or university, o7cially approved by the #ecretary of Education." 4or this purpose, however, possession of the degree itself is not indispensableF co)pletion of the prescribed courses )ay be shown in so)e other way. Indeed there are instances, particularly under the for)er Code of Civil Procedure, where persons who had not gone through any for)al legal education in college were
allowed to ta0e the Bar e!a)inations and to ualify as lawyers. @#ection +G of that code reuired possession of "the necessary uali;cations of learning ability."A et certainly it would be incorrect to say that such persons do not possess the "titulo de abogado" because they lac0 the acade)ic degree of Bachelor of >aws fro) so)e law school or university. -he founders of the Hospicio de #an /ose de Barili )ust have established the foregoing test advisely, and provided in the deed of donation that if not a lawyer, the ad)inistrator should be a doctor or a civil engineer or a phar)acist, in that order9 or failing all these, should be the one who pays the highest ta!es a)ong those otherwise uali;ed. % lawyer, ;rst of all, because under %ct &o. '$'( the )anagers or trustees of the Hospicio shall ")a0e regulations for the govern)ent of said institution9 shall "prescribe the conditions sub*ect to which invalids and incapacitated and destitute persons )ay be ad)itted to the institute"9 shall see to it that the rules and conditions pro)ulgated for ad)ission are not in conict with the provisions of the %ct9 and shall ad)inister properties of considerable value for all of which wor0, it is to be presu)ed, a wor0ing 0nowledge of the law and a license to practice the profession would be a distinct asset. ?nder this particular criterion we hold that the plainti1 is not entitled, as against the defendant, to the o7ce of ad)inistrator. %s far as )oral character is concerned, the standard reuired of one see0ing reinstate)ent to the o7ce of attorney cannot be less e!acting than that i)plied in paragraph ' of the deed of donation as a reuisite for the o7ce which is disputed in this case. hen the defendant was restored to the roll of lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resulting fro) his previous disbar)ent were wiped out. 4or the clai) of intervener and appellant
