TITLE: PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v. RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent.

A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016

NATURE OF THE CASE: Administrative Case; Disbarment due to identity theft

SUPREME COURT DECISION: RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN was and prohibited from engaging in the
practice of law or making any representations as a lawyer. He is also barred from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar
in the future.

LEGAL DOCTRINE: Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be
admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course. A person who does not exhibit good moral character
by showing dishonesty by assuming the name, identity and school records of his own brother and dragging the latter into
controversies lacks the moral fitness to be a member of the Bar.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The real Patrick A. Caronan filed a complaint in 2013 before the Intergrated Bar of the Philippines against his brother Richard A.
Caronan a.k.a. Atty. Patrick A. Caronan.
Complainant and respondent are full brothers and both completed their secondary education in Makati High School. Complainant
graduated in University of Makati in 1997 with a degree in Business Administration. He married Myrna Tapis in 2001. On the other
hand, respondent studied in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila for one year, then transferred to Philippine Military Academy in
1992 where he was discharged after a year. Respondent was not able to get a college degree since then.
In 1999, respondent, using the complainants school records enrolled in St. Mary’s Law School in Nueva Vizcaya and passed the Bar
examinations in 2004. Complainant knew of these events but he did not mind as he did not anticipate any adverse consequences to
him.
In 2009, complainant realized that the respondent has been using his name to perpetrate different crimes, to the point that the
complainant eventually feared for his safety and lost his job due to the controversies. Complainant filed the present complain-
affidavit to stop the respondent’s alleged use of the former’s name and identity, and the illegal practice of law.
Respondent denied all allegations against him and used res judicata as defense. He said that his identity can no longer be questioned
as this was already resolved in CBD Case No. 09-2362 where the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case filed against him, and
which case had already been declared closed and terminated by the Supreme Court in A.C. Case No. 10074. According to him,
complainant is being used by Reyes and her spouse, Brigadier General Joselito M. Reyes, to humiliate, disgrace, malign, discredit,
and harass him because he filed several administrative and criminal complaints against them before the Ombudsman.
On June 15, 2015, IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera (Investigating Commissioner) issued his Report and
Recommendation, finding respondent guilty of illegally and falsely assuming complainant's name, identity, and academic records. He
observed that respondent failed to controvert all the allegations against him and did not present any proof to prove his identity.
Respondent admitted that he and complainant are siblings upon his arrest. He disclosed the name of their parents and that he is
married to Rosana Halili-Caronan. However, based on the NSO Marriage Certificate, “Patrick Caronan” is married to Myrna Tagpis.
These including some other evidence proved that respondent indeed assumed complainant’s identity to study law and take the Bar
examinations. Because of this, IBP Investigating Officer recommended that the name “Patrick Caronan” be dropped and stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys, and the name “Richard Caronan” be barred from being admitted as a member of the Bar, and lastly, IBP was
directed to institute appropriate actions against respondent for making a mockery of the judicial institution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be
barred from being admitted to the Bar.

RULING:
Yes, the name "Patrick A. Caronan" must be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys and the name "Richard A. Caronan" must be barred
from being admitted to the Bar.
Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
Section 6. Pre-Law. - No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has
satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course,
the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subject as major or field of
concentration: political science, logic, English, Spanish, history, and economics.
In In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations and for Disciplinary Action as
Member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez,59 the Court explained the essence of good moral character:
Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of
him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one
which corresponds to objective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it
merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral character includes at least common honesty.

In the case at hand, respondent never completed his college degree and just used his brother’s (complainant) name, identity and
academic records to obtain a law degree and take the Bar examinations. This has been proven with overwhelming evidence from the
real Patrick Caronan (complainant).

It is also clear that respondent exhibited dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Aside from assuming
his name, identity and school records, he has dragged his brother into controversies which has caused him to fear his life and to lose
his job. He had been engaged in unscrupulous activities that resulted in the filing of several criminal cases against him. This shows
that he lacks the good moral character that is essential in those who would be lawyers.

Therefore, respondent Richard Caronan should be barred from being admitted to the Bar and the name “Patrick Caronan” being
used by the respondent must be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.