A.C. No.

244 March 29, 1963

In the Matter of Disbarment of Telosforo A. Diao
vs Severino G. Martinez
FACTS:
Two years after successfully passing the bar examinations held in
1963, the application for Bar examination of Telosforo Diao was
questioned.
Severino Martinez charged Diao with having falsely represented in
his application that he had the requisite academic qualifications. This
matter was refereed to the Solicitor General who submitted a report
recommending that Diao’s name be erased from the roll of attorneys
because contrary to his petition for examination, Diao had not
completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal
education prescribed by the Department of Private Education. The
Solicitor General contended that:
a. Diao did not complete his high school training; and
b. Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained
his Associate in Arts degree diploma therefrom.
In his response, Diao claims that although he had left high school in
third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General
Classification Test given therein, which is equivalent to high school
diploma. Moreover, Diao claimed that he obtained his A.A. title from
Arellano University in April 1949 and it was due to confusion that his
school records showed that he was a graduate of Quisumbing College.
ISSUE:
W/N Diao satisfied the requirements to take the bar examinations
RULING:
Supreme Court ruled that the second charge is clearly meritorious.
Had his application disclosed that he obtained his 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 six months before
obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been
permitted to take the bar tests, because the 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," (emphasis on "previous").

Page 1 of 2
 Thus, Telosforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar
examination but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take
it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. The fact that
he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such
examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law;
taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is
equally essential.
Supreme Court ordered the Clerk of Court to strike from the roll of
attorneys, the name of Telosforo A. Diao and Diao was required to return
his lawyer’s diploma within 30 days.

Page 2 of 2