Du Fresne v. ...
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ernest F. Du Fresne applied to be admitted to the bar without taking the usual examination, invoking Section 2 of Act No. 1597. Procedural History: The Supreme Court had previously denied his application. This case concerns a motion for reconsideration of that denial. The Petition: The applicant sought admission to the bar without examination, asserting he had "held" the office of assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila by virtue of an appointment as acting assistant prosecuting attorney, made under Section 15 of Act No. 1698.
Issue(s)
Whether an appointment as "acting" assistant prosecuting attorney, under Section 15 of Act No. 1698, constitutes "holding" the office of assistant prosecuting attorney for the purpose of admission to the bar without examination under Section 2 of Act No. 1597.
Ruling
The application for admission to the bar without examination was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the applicant did not "hold" the office of assistant prosecuting attorney in the sense contemplated by Section 2 of Act No. 1597. The applicant's appointment was as an "acting" assistant prosecuting attorney, a designation made under Section 15 of Act No. 1698, which allows for temporary performance of duties by a subordinate without additional compensation. The Court distinguished this from a permanent appointment to the office itself. The statute under which the applicant was designated only authorized him to perform the duties of the absent or disabled official temporarily, without conferring upon him the rights and privileges of holding the office itself. Furthermore, the Court found that such temporary designations do not carry the same presumption of legal learning and proficiency as permanent appointments to the specified judicial and legal positions mentioned in Act No. 1597. Public policy requires satisfactory proof of qualifications for admission to the bar, and the exception in Act No. 1597 presumes that individuals appointed to certain high offices have undergone due inquiry into their character and qualifications. This presumption does not extend to those merely designated to perform duties temporarily, as the appointing authorities have no similar obligation to scrutinize the legal qualifications of such temporary designees. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that an appointment as an 'acting' assistant prosecuting attorney, made under a provision authorizing temporary performance of duties without additional compensation, does not constitute 'holding' the office of assistant prosecuting attorney in the sense contemplated by law for admission to the bar without examination. The rationale is that such temporary designations do not carry the same presumption of legal learning and proficiency as permanent appointments to statutory positions, which are subject to rigorous inquiry into qualifications.