In the Matter of Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo Diao

vs.
Severino G. Martinez, petitioner
Facts
Telesforo Diao passed the bar examinations and was admitted to the bar in 1953. Two
years later, Severion G. Martinez, herein petitioner, charged him with having falsely represented
in his application for the Bar examination, that he had completed and met the required academic
qualifications.
The Solicitor General investigated and later recommended that Diaos name should be
strike out from the rolls of attorneys, because he had not completed the required pre-legal
education prescribed by the Department of Education, specifically Diao did not complete high
school training and He never attended Quisumbing College and never obtained a diploma which
a credential he used to support that he successfully completed the required pre-legal education.
Diao admitted that he did not complete high school, but, he entered in the service of the
US army and passed the General Classification Test given, which according to him was
equivalent to 3rd year and 4th year high school diploma. He provided no certification to back up
his claims, but the issue that he never attended Quisumbing College and obtained a diploma there
was meritorious. He only said he was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of
Quisumbing College in his school records, but he was a graduate of Arellano University in April
1949.
Issue
Whether or not Teleforo Diao shall continue his admission to the Bar?
Ruling
NO. His contention that it was due to erroneous certification was untenable
Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it
would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law
studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree.
And then he would not have been permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and
the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law,
he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as
prescribed by the Department of Private Education,"

Saturnino S. Monzon, complainant

vs.
Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes, respondent
Facts
On July 31, 1962, Ramona Roo died. Her surviving spouse Catalino C. Fausto filed and
intestate proceedings with the Court of First Instance of Manila praying, among others, that
letters of administration be issued in his favor. Upon the death of Ramona Roo, she left five
heirs, her husband and her four children. As Catalino Fausto was suffering and dying, in 1963
Fausto consented to have half of his share of the conjugal property administered by the
Philippine Trust Company.
Fausto executed a deed of absolute sale, he sold and transferred and conveyed unto the
vendee Gertrudes Francsico the half of his share, interest and participation of two parcels of land.
The deed of sale was ratified before the notary public Arsenio R. Reyes, it did not bear signature
of Fausto and the vendee Francisco, only the two witnesses thereto.
Atty. Reyes filed a petition with the probate court for the approval of the deed of sale.
Later on, Catalino Fausto died and his second wife Ponciana Fausto filed an intestate estate
proceeding, through Atty. Reyes. After that, the approval of the deed was granted by the court.
Fe-Fausto Monzon, one of Catalino Faustos children died and her surviving spouse
Saturnino Monzon was appointed to substitute her as the heirs of both intestate of her father and
mother. Saturnino filed a petition for relief alleging that the deed of absolute sale was without the
signature of the vendor and vendee. But it was dismissed. Atty. Reyes, presented an original copy
of the deed with signature in the Register of Deeds in Manila, then after that he said that what he
filed was a duplicate original and lastly he changed again his answer that he filed a certified true
copy. Complainant filed a disbarment for the lawyer.
Issues
Whether or not the attorney violated his oath for doing falsehood in the court
Whether or not the attorney corruptly or willingly appeared as an attorney for a party to a
case without proper authority?
Ruling
NO. The foregoing discussion merely describes respondent's conduct as a "careless or
reckless behavior in the making of the inaccurate or untruthful statements before the Court of
Appeals as well as before the Office of the Solicitor General, among others." Indeed, as it does
not appear that substantial prejudice has been actually caused complainant or the forum to whom

the statements have been addressed, the truth or falsity of the statement or representation in
question being irrelevant in the resolution of the cases at hand, the same do not justify his
disbarment. But he is censurable.
NO. From the declaration of Atty. Jazmines, the inevitable conclusion can be drawn that
he and respondent had acted as lawyers of Catalino Fausto. A client, no doubt, may have as many
lawyers as he can afford. One need not replace the other, just as in this case, Atty. Jazmines need
not have been replaced by respondent. Apparently, both of them coordinated and collaborated
with each other in solving the legal problems of Catalino Fausto and his family.