G.R. No. L-1045, November 23, 1911
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ERNEST F. DU FRESNE TO BE ADMITTED TO THE BAR WITHOUT TAKING THE USUAL EXAMINATION

FACTS

Ernest F. Du Fresne applied for admission to the Philippine Bar without taking the prescribed examination. He based his application on Section 2 of Act No. 1597 , which allows certain judicial and legal officers who have “held” specified positions to be licensed without examination. Du Fresne claimed he qualified because he had served as an “acting assistant prosecuting attorney” of Manila under a temporary designation made by the prosecuting attorney pursuant to Section 15 of Act No. 1698. This provision allowed bureau or office chiefs to designate a subordinate to temporarily perform the duties of an absent or disabled official without additional compensation.

ISSUE

Whether a person designated temporarily as an “acting assistant prosecuting attorney” under Section 15 of Act No. 1698 is considered to have “held” the position of “assistant prosecuting attorney” within the meaning of Section 2 of Act No. 1597 , so as to entitle him to admission to the bar without examination.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the application for reconsideration and upheld its previous ruling. The Court held that Du Fresne did not fall within either the letter or the spirit of Act No. 1597 .

1. Letter of the Law: Section 2 of Act No. 1597 expressly grants the privilege to those who have “held” the position of “assistant prosecuting attorney.” It does not mention “acting” or temporary designations. A temporary designation under Section 15 of Act No. 1698 merely authorizes a subordinate to perform the duties of another official temporarily; it does not confer the title or office itself. The designee continues to hold his original position and does not legally “hold” the office of assistant prosecuting attorney.

2. Spirit and Intent of the Law: The legislative intent behind Act No. 1597 is to presume that individuals appointed to the specified high judicial and legal offices possess the requisite learning and proficiency in the law, given that such appointments are made by high executive authority (the President of the United States or the Governor-General) with due scrutiny of qualifications. In contrast, a temporary designation under Section 15 of Act No. 1698 does not carry the same guarantee of comprehensive qualification examination. It could be made for employees with limited, specialized experience (e.g., only in criminal practice) without ensuring general legal competence. Allowing such designations to confer bar admission privileges would grant undue discretionary power to office chiefs and contravene public policy, which requires proof of adequate legal education and moral fitness for bar admission.

Thus, Du Fresne’s temporary service did not qualify him for admission without examination. The application was denied.