Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to the P.of Law by E.

Muneses

On June 8, 2009, a petition was filed by Epifanio B. Muneses with the OBC praying that he be granted the privilege to practice law
in the Philippines.

The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the IBP on March 21, 1966; that he lost his privilege to practice law when he
became a citizen of the USA on August 28, 1981; that on September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the "Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003" by taking his oath of allegiance as a
Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Washington, D.C., USA; that he intends to retire in the Philippines and if
granted, to resume the practice of law. Attached to the petition were several documents in support of his petition, albeit mere
photocopies thereof, to wit:

1. Oath of Allegiance dated September 15, 2006 before Consul General Domingo P. Nolasco;
2. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship of same date;
3. Order for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship also of same date;
4. Letter dated March 13, 2008 evidencing payment of membership dues with the IBP;
5. Attendance Forms from the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).

In B.M. 1678, dated Dec 17, 2007, the Court was confronted with a similar petition filed by Benjamin M. Dacanay (Dacanay) who
requested leave to resume his practice of law after availing the benefits of R.A. No. 9225. Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine
Bar in March 1960. In December 1998, he migrated to Canada to seek medical attention for his ailments and eventually became a
Canadian citizen in May 2004. On July 14, 2006, Dacanay re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 after
taking his oath of allegiance before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. He returned to the Philippines and
intended to resume his practice of law.

Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss
thereof means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Under
R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic.1 Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under
R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of
law is not automatic.2 R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.. It is so delicately affected with public interest that it is both the power
and duty of the State (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the legal
profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which
the courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional privilege.4

Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the practice of law, the OBC required the herein petitioner to
submit the original or certified true copies of the following documents in relation to his petition:

1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues;
7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.

In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted the following:

1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the IC;
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his updated
payment of annual membership dues;
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance period; and
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program, University of Cebu,
College of Law attesting to his compliance with the MCLE.
 The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance, particularly with the MCLE. After all the requirements were
satisfactorily complied with and finding that the petitioner has met all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for
membership in the bar, the OBC recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law.

Upon this favorable recommendation of the OBC, the Court adopts the same and sees no bar to the petitioner's resumption to the
practice of law in the Philippines.petition GRANTED, subject to the condition that he shall re-take the Lawyer's Oath on a date to be
set by the Court and subject to the payment of appropriate fees.Furthermore, the OBC is directed to draft the necessary guidelines
for the re-acquisition of the privilege to resume the practice of law for the guidance of the Bench and Bar.

In re Diao

FACTS:
DIAO was admitted to the Bar. 2 years later, Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for the Bar
examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diao's name
be erased from the roll of attorneys
i. DIAO did not complete pre-law subjects:
1. Did not complete his high school training
2. Never attended Quisumbing College
3. Never obtained a diploma.
2. DIAO admitting first charge but claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of
the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma
1. Upon return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd
and 4th year high school.
2. No certification. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious:
i. Never obtained his diploma. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination
represented him as an A.A. graduate.
ii. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, 1949
1. He said erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records.

ISSUE: WON DIAO still continue admission to the Bar, for passing the Bar despite not completing pre-law requirements?

HELD: NO.
STRIKE OUT NME OF DIAO IN ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. DIAO REQUIRED TO RETURN HIS LAWYER’S DIPLOMA WITHIN 30
DAYS.
1. Explanation of error or confusion is not acceptable.
1. 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.
2. He would not have been permitted to take the bar tests:
i. Bar applicant must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required
pre-legal education (A.A.).
ii. Therefore, Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations
iii. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked.
2. 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.

Patrick Caronan v. Richard Caronan

Complainant and respondent are siblings born to Porferio2 R. Caronan, Jr. and Norma A. Caronan. Respondent is
the older of the two, having been born on February 7, 1975, while complainant was born on August 5, 1976.3 Both
of them completed their secondary education at the Makati High School where complainant graduated in
19934 and respondent in 1991.5 Upon his graduation, complainant enrolled at the University of Makati where he
obtained a degree in Business Administration in 1997.6 He started working thereafter as a Sales Associate for
Philippine Seven Corporation (PSC), the operator of 7-11 Convenience Stores.7 In 2001, he married Myrna G.
Tagpis with whom he has two (2) daughters.8 Through the years, complainant rose from the ranks until, in 2009,
he was promoted as a Store Manager of the 7-11 Store in Muntinlupa. leslaw

Meanwhile, upon graduating from high school, respondent enrolled at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila (PLM), where he stayed for one (1) year before transferring to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in
1992.10 In 1993, he was discharged from the PMA and focused on helping their father in the family's car rental
business. In 1997, he moved to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife, Rosana, and their three (3) children. 11 Since then,
respondent never went back to school to earn a college degree. 12chanrobleslaw

In 1999, during a visit to his family in Metro Manila, respondent told complainant that the former had enrolled in a
law school in Nueva Vizcaya.13 Subsequently, in 2004, their mother informed complainant that respondent passed
the Bar Examinations and that he used complainant's name and college records from the University of Makati to
enroll at St. Mary's University's College of Law in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya and take the Bar
Examinations.14 Complainant brushed these aside as he did not anticipate any adverse consequences to him.

In 2006, complainant was able to confirm respondent's use of his name and identity when he saw the name
"Patrick A. Caronan" on the Certificate of Admission to the Bar displayed at the latter's office in Taguig
City.16 Nevertheless, complainant did not confront respondent about it since he was pre-occupied with his job and
had a family to support.
Sometime in May 2009, however, after his promotion as Store Manager, complainant was ordered to report to the
head office of PSC in Mandaluyong City where, upon arrival, he was informed that the NBI was requesting his
presence at its office in Taft Avenue, Manila, in relation to an investigation involving respondent who, at that point,
was using the najne "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan." 18 Accordingly, on May 18, 2009, complainant appeared before the
Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division of the NBI where he was interviewed and asked to identify documents
including: (1) his and respondent's high school records; (2) his transcript of records from the University of Makati;
(3) Land Transportation Office's records showing his and respondent's driver's licenses; (4) records from St. Mary's
University showing that complainant's transcript of records from the University of Makati and his Birth Certificate
were submitted to St. Mary's University's College of Law; and (5) Alumni Book of St. Mary's University showing
respondent's photograph under the name "Patrick A. Caronan." 19 Complainant later learned that the reason why he
was invited by the NBI was because of respondent's involvement in a case for qualified theft and estafa filed by
Mr. Joseph G. Agtarap (Agtarap), who was one of the principal sponsors at respondent's wedding.obleslaw

Realizing that respondent had been using his name to perpetrate crimes and commit unlawful activities,
complainant took it upon himself to inform other people that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan" and that
respondent's real name is Richard A. Caronan.21 However, problems relating to respondent's use of the name
"Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" continued to hound him. In July 2013, PSC received a letter from Quasha Ancheta Pena
& Nolasco Law Offices requesting that they be furnished with complainant's contact details or, in the alternative,
schedule a meeting with him to discuss certain matters concerning respondent. 22 On the other hand, a fellow
church-member had also told him that respondent who, using the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan," almost
victimized his (church-member's) relatives.23 Complainant also received a phone call from a certain Mrs. Loyda L.
Reyes (Reyes), who narrated how respondent tricked her into believing that he was authorized to sell a parcel of
land in Taguig City when in fact, he was not.24 Further, he learned that respondent was arrested for gun-running
activities, illegal possession of explosives, and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.

Due to the controversies involving respondent's use of the name "Patrick A. Caronan," complainant developed a
fear for his own safety and security.26 He also became the subject of conversations among his colleagues, which
eventually forced him to resign from his job at PSC.27 Hence, complainant filed the present Complaint-Affidavit to
stop respondent's alleged use of the former's name and identity, and illegal practice of law. 28chanrobleslaw

Respondent denied all the allegations against him arid invoked res judicata as a defense. He maintained that his
identity can no longer be raised as an issue as it had already been resolved in CBD Case No. 09-2362 where the
IBP Board of Governors dismissed30 the administrative case31 filed by Agtarap against him, and which case had
already been declared closed and terminated by this Court in A.C. No. 10074. 32 Moreover, 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.33chanrobleslaw

On March 9, 2015, the IBP-CBD conducted the scheduled mandatory conference where both parties failed to
appear.34 Instead, respondent moved to reset the same on April 20, 2015. 35 On such date, however, both parties
again failed to appear, thereby prompting the IBP-CBD to issue an Order36 directing them to file their respective
position papers. However, neither of the parties submitted any.37chanrobleslaw

The IBP's R&R: resp guilty of illegally and falsely assuming complainant's name, identity, and academic
records.39 He observed that respondent failed to controvert all the allegations against him and did not present any
proof to prove his identity. On the other hand, complainant presented clear and overwhelming evidence that he is
the real "Patrick A. Caronan."

Further, he noted that respondent admitted that he and complainant are siblings when he disclosed upon his arrest
on August 31, 2012 that: (a) his parents are Porferio Ramos Caronan and Norma Atillo; and (b) he is married to
Rosana Halili-Caronan.42 However, based on the Marriage Certificate issued by the National Statistics Office (NSO),
"Patrick A. Caronan" is married to a certain "Myrna G. Tagpis," not to Rosana Halili-Caronan.w

The Investigating Commissioner also drew attention to the fact that .the photograph taken of respondent when he
was arrested as "Richard A. Caronan" on August 16, 2012 shows the same person as the one in the photograph in
the IBP records of "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan." 44 These, according to the Investigating Commissioner, show that
respondent indeed assumed complainant's identity to study law and take the Bar Examinations.45 Since respondent
falsely assumed the name, identity, and academic records of complainant and the real "Patrick A. Caronan" neither
obtained the bachelor of laws degree nor took the Bar Exams, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that
the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 be dropped and stricken off the ROA. He also
recommended that respondent and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a member of
the Bar; and finally, for making a mockery of the judicial institution, the IBP was directed to institute appropriate
actions against respondent.
the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution adopting the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation.

I: WON IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the ROA; and (b) the name
"Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted to the Bar.
H: As correctly observed by the IBP, complainant has established by clear and overwhelming evidence that he is
the real "Patrick A. Caronan" and that respondent, whose real name is Richard A. Caronan, merely assumed the
latter's name, identity, and academic records to enroll at the St. Mary's University's College of Law, obtain a law
degree, and take the Bar Examinations.

As pointed out by the IBP, respondent admitted that he and complainant are siblings when he disclosed upon his
arrest on August 31, 2012 that his parents are Porferio Ramos Caronan and Norma Atillo. 49 Respondent himself
also stated that he is married to Rosana Halili-Caronan.50 This diverges from the official NSO records showing that
"Patrick A. Caronan" is married to Myrna G. Tagpis, not to Rosana Halili-Caronan.51 Moreover, the photograph
taken of respondent when he was arrested as "Richard A. Caronan" on August 16, 2012 shows the same person as
the one in the photograph in the IBP records of "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan." 52 Meanwhile, complainant submitted
numerous documents showing that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan," among which are: (a) his transcript of
records from the University of Makati bearing his photograph; 53 (b) a copy of his high school yearbook with his
photograph and the name "Patrick A. Caronan" under it;54 and (c) NBI clearances obtained in 2010 and 2013

To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that respondent falsely used complainant's name, identity,
and school records to gain admission to the Bar. Since complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the
Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.

The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from
admission to the Bar. 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, viz.:

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. (Emphases supplied)

In the case at hand, respondent never completed his college degree. While he enrolled at the PLM in 1991, he left
a year later and entered the PMA where he was discharged in 1993 without graduating. 56 Clearly, respondent has
not completed the requisite pre-law degree.

The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent may later on complete his college education and earn a
law degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of his brother's name, identity, and educational
records renders him unfit for admission to the Bar. The practice of law, after all, is not a natural, absolute or
constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. 57 Rather, it is a privilege limited to citizens of good
moral character.58 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.[60] (Emphasis supplied)

Here, respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he
assumed the name, identity, and school records of his own brother and dragged the latter into controversies which
eventually caused him to fear for his safety and to resign from PSC where he had been working for years. Good
moral character is essential in those who would be lawyers. 61 This is imperative in the nature of the office of a
lawyer, the trust relation which exists between him and his client, as well as between him and the
court.62chanrobleslaw

Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have the necessary qualifications to
be a lawyer. He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the
filing of several criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts do not have a place in the legal
profession where one of the primary duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and dignity.63chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" (respondent) is found GUILTY of
falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of complainant Patrick A. Caronan (complainant) to
obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations. Accordingly, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate civil
and/or criminal cases, the Court hereby resolves that:

(1) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" is ordered DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys;
(2) respondent is PROHIBITED from engaging in the practice of law or making any representations as a lawyer;
(3) respondent is BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in the future;
(4) the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to respondent under the name "Atty.
Patrick A. Caronan" and the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificates issued in such name
are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED;

In re Al Argosino
On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged with the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul
Camaligan. The death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of severe physical injuries uponhim in course of "hazing" conducted as part
of the university fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the accused were consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period
ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed an
application for probation with the lower court. The application was granted on June 18 1993. The period of probation was set at two (2) years,
counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation officer assigned to supervise him. Less than a month later, Argosino filed a
petition to take the bar exam. He was allowed and he passed the exam, but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.On April 15,
1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow him to take the attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of law. He averred that his probation
period had been terminated. It is noted that his probation period did not last for more than 10 months.

ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of attorney and be admitted to the practice of law

HELD: Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral
character imposed upon those who are seeking admission to the bar. He should show to the Court how he has tried to make up for the
senseless killing of a helpless student to the family of the deceased student and to the community at large. In short, he mustshow evidence
that he is a different person now, that he has become morally fitfor admission to the profession of law.
He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written manifestation, of the names of the parents or brothers and sisters of
Camaligan from notice.

NOTES:
 The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of goodmoral character, with special education qualifications, duly
ascertained and certified.
 Requirement of good moral character is of greater importance so far as the general public and proper administration of justice is concerned.
 All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar.
 Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who wouldseek admission to the bar must be a necessity more stringent than
the norm of conduct expected from members of the general public.
 Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that moral duty and
was totally irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the participant was possessed of good moral character.
 Good moral character is a requirement possession of which must be demonstrated at the time of the application for permission to take the
barexaminations and more importantly at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney's oath of office.

In the Matter of the DQ of Melendres

MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases both for Grave
Oral Defamation and for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.
Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that
he is not a member of the Bar.
MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle
misunderstanding.
Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that
arose from a single incident as “closed and terminated.”
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve moral turpitude.
Use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his communications really contained the word “Attorney” as they were typed by the
office clerk.
OBC disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling: Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can
dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still pending.
Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.

ISSUE: WON Meling’s act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.

HELD: PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the suspension to take effect
immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a
member of the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic (Meling did not pass the bar).

Rule 7.01: “A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.”
He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he signed as “attorney” whoever may have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation “attorney” may render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.
PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are
concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant that applicant to aver that he or she “has not been charged with any act or
omission punishable by law, rule or regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by
any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case or charge against him/her.”
Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.
Bar Matter No. 1153

"B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court). - The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138, to wit:
SEC. 5.Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. — All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding sections
shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the
proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.

No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has
satisfactorily completed the following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law,
remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and
legal ethics.

A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court
of certifications showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or
accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic
program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.

SEC. 6.Pre-Law. — An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present a certificate issued by the proper government agency that,
before commencing the study of law, he or she 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.

A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of
having completed a separate bachelor's degree course.

The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, is hereby directed to CIRCULARIZE this resolution among all law schools in the
country."

RE: 2003 Bar Exam, Atty Daniel De Guzman

The subject of the Resolution is the leakage of questions in Mercantile Law during the 2003 Bar Examinations. Petitioner at that
time was employed as an assistant lawyer in the law firm of Balgos & Perez, one of whose partners, Marcial Balgos, was the
examiner for Mercantile Law during the said bar examinations. The Court had adopted the findings of the IC, which identified
petitioner as the person who had downloaded the test questions from the computer of Balgos and faxed them to other persons.

The OBC has favorably recommended the reinstatement of petitioner in the Philippine Bar. In a Report dated January 6, 2009, the
OBC rendered its assessment of the petition, the relevant portions of which we quote hereunder:

Petitioner narrated that he had labored to become a lawyer to fulfill his father’s childhood dream to become one. This task was not
particularly easy for him and his family but he willed to endure the same in order to pay tribute to his parents.

Petitioner added that even at a very young age, he already imposed upon himself the duty of rendering service to his fellowmen. At
19 years, he started his exposure to public service when he was elected Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of Barangay
Tuktukan, Taguig City. During this time, he initiated several projects benefiting the youth in their barangay.

Thereafter, petitioner focused on his studies, taking up Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and eventually pursuing Bachelor of
Laws. In his second year in law school, he was elected as the President of the Student Council of the Institute of Law of the FEU).
Here, he spearheaded various activities including the conduct of seminars for law students as well as the holding of bar operations
for bar examinees.

Despite his many extra-curricular activities as a youth and student leader, petitioner still managed to excel in his studies. Thus, he
was conferred an Academic Excellence Award upon his graduation in Bachelor of Laws.

Upon admission to the bar in April 1999, petitioner immediately entered government service as a Legal Officer assigned at the
Sangguniang Bayan of Taguig. Simultaneously, he also rendered free legal services to less fortunate residents of Taguig City who
were then in need of legal assistance.

In March 2000, petitioner was hired as one of the Associate Lawyers at the Balgos and Perez Law Offices. It was during his stay
with this firm when his craft as a lawyer was polished and developed. Despite having entered private practice, he continued to
render free legal services to his fellow Taguigeños.

Then in February 2004, by a sudden twist of fate, petitioner’s flourishing career was cut short as he was stripped of his license to
practice law for his alleged involvement in the leakage in the 2003 Bar Examinations.

Devastated, petitioner then practically locked himself inside his house to avoid the rather unavoidable consequences of his
disbarment.

On March 2004, however, petitioner was given a new lease in life when he was taken as a consultant by the City Government of
Taguig. Later, he was designated as a member of the Secretariat of the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). For the next five
(5) years, petitioner concentrated mainly on rendering public service.

Petitioner humbly acknowledged the damaging impact of his act which unfortunately, compromised the integrity of the bar
examinations. As could be borne from the records of the investigation, he cooperated fully in the investigation conducted and took
personal responsibility for his actions. Also, he has offered his sincerest apologies to Atty. Balgos, to the Court as well as to all the
2003 bar examinees for the unforeseen and unintended effects of his actions.
Petitioner averred that he has since learned from his mistakes and has taken the said humbling experience to make him a better
person.

Meanwhile, as part of his Petition, petitioner submitted the following testimonials and endorsements of various individuals and
entities all attesting to his good moral character:

1) Resolution No. 101, Series of 2007, "Resolution Expressing Full Support to Danilo G. De Guzman in his Application
for Judicial Clemency, Endorsing his Competence and Fitness to be Reinstated as a Member of the Philippine Bar and
for Other Purposes" dated 4 June 2007 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, City of Taguig;
2) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at
mga Kasapi ng Southeast People’s Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA) kay Danilo G. De Guzman sa
Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang
Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" dated 1 June 2007 of the Southeast People’s Village
Homeowners Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA), Ibayo-Tipas, City of Taguig;
3) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at
mga Kasapi ng Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc. (SAREMAC) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang
Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa
Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" dated 1 June 2007 of the Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc.
(SAREMAC), Lower Bicutan, City of Taguig;
4) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at
mga Kasapi ng Samahan ng mga Maralita (PULONG KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA) kay G. Danilo
G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang
Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" dated 1 June 2007 of the Samahan ng
mga Maralita (PULONG KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA), Sta. Ana, City of Taguig;
5) "An Open Letter Attesting Personally to the Competence and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman as to Warrant the
Grant of Judicial Clemency and his Reinstatement as Member of the Philippine Bar" dated 8 June 2007 of Miguelito
Nazareno V. Llantino, Laogan, Trespeses and Llantino Law Offices;
6) "Testimonial to the Moral and Spiritual Competence of Danilo G. De Guzman to be Truly Deserving of Judicial
Clemency and Compassion" of Rev. Fr. Paul G. Balagtas, Parish Priest, Archdiocesan Shrine of St. Anne;
7) "Testimonial Letter" dated 18 February 2008 of Atty. Loreto C. Ata, President, Far Eastern University Law Alumni
Association (FEULAA), Far Eastern University (FEU);
8) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at
mga Kasapi ng Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (SABISKA) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang
Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa
Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" dated 8 July 2008 of the Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc.);
9) Board Resolution No. 02, Series of 2008, "A Resolution Recognizing the Contributions of Danilo G. De Guzman to
the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) – Taguig City, Attesting to his Utmost Dedication and Commitment to the
Call of Civic and Social Duty and for Other Purposes" dated 11 July 2008 of the People’s Law Enforcement Board;
10) "A Personal Appeal for the Grant of Judicial Forgiveness and Compassion in Favor of Danilo G. De Guzman" dated
14 July 2008 of Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval, Professor, College of Law, San Sebastian College – Recoletos;
11) "An Open Letter Personally Attesting to the Moral competence and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman" dated 5
September 2008 of Mr. Nixon F. Faderog, Deputy Grand [Kn]ight, Knights of Columbus and President, General Parent-
Teacher Association, Taguig National High School, Lower Bicutan, Taguig City;
12) "Testimonial Letter" of Atty. Primitivo C. Cruz, President, Taguig Lawyers League, Inc., Tuktukan, Taguig City;
13) "Testimonial Letter" of Judge Hilario L. Laqui, Presiding Judge, (RTC Quezon City; and
14) "Testimonial Letter" of Justice Oscar M. Herrera, former Justice, CA and former Dean, Institute of Law, FEU.

Citing the case of In Re: Carlos S. Basa, petitioner pleaded that he be afforded the same kindness and compassion in order that,
like Atty. Basa, his promising future may not be perpetually foreclosed. In the said case, the Court had the occasion to say:

Carlos S. Basa is a young man about 29 years of age, admitted to the bars of California and the Philippine Islands. Recently, he
was charged in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila with the crime of abduction with consent, was found guilty in a
decision rendered by the Honorable M.V. De Rosario, Judge of First Instance, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of
two years, eleven months and eleven days of prision correccional. On appeal, this decision was affirmed in a judgment handed
down by the second division of the Supreme Court. x x x x

Petitioner promised to commit himself to be more circumspect in his actions and solemnly pledged to exert all efforts to atone for his
misdeeds. There may be a reasonable ground to consider the herein Petition.

In the case of Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyer’s Oath, which may be applied in the instant case, the Court said:

After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the
Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the following admonition:

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On
the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts, to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give
him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating. x x x x

Meanwhile, in Bernardo vs. Atty. Ismael F. Mejia, the Court [in] deciding WON to reinstate Atty. Mejia to the practice of law stated:
The Court will take into consideration the applicant’s character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the
charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment and the time that has elapsed in between the
disbarment and the application for reinstatement.

Petitioner was barely thirty (30) years old and had only been in the practice of law for five (5) years when he was disbarred from the
practice of law. It is of no doubt that petitioner had a promising future ahead of him where it not for the decision of the Court
stripping off his license.

Petitioner is also of good moral repute, not only before but likewise, after his disbarment, as attested to overwhelmingly by his
constituents, colleagues as well as people of known probity in the community and society.

Way before the petitioner was even admitted to the bar, he had already manifested his intense desire to render public service as
evidenced by his active involvement and participation in several social and civic projects and activities. Likewise, even during and
after his disbarment, which could be perceived by some as a debilitating circumstance, petitioner still managed to continue
extending his assistance to others in whatever means possible. This only proves petitioner’s strength of character and positive
moral fiber.

However, still, it is of no question that petitioner’s act in copying the examination questions from Atty. Balgos’ computer without the
latter’s knowledge and consent, and which questions later turned out to be the bar examinations questions in Mercantile Law in the
2003 BE, is not at all commendable. While we do believe that petitioner sincerely did not intend to cause the damage that his action
ensued, still, he must be sanctioned for unduly compromising the integrity of the bar examinations as well as of this Court.

We are convinced, however, that petitioner has since reformed and has sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in view of
the circumstances and likewise for humanitarian considerations, the penalty of disbarment may now be commuted to suspension.
Considering the fact, however, that petitioner had already been disbarred for more than five (5) years, the same may be considered
as proper service of said commuted penalty and thus, may now be allowed to resume practice of law.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that the instant Petition for Judicial Clemency and
Compassion dated 10 November 2008 of petitioner DANILO G. DE GUZMAN be GRANTED. Petitioner’s disbarment is now
commuted to suspension, which suspension is considered as served in view of the petitioner’s five (5) year disbarment. Hence,
petitioner may now be allowed to resume practice of law.

The recommendation of OBC is well-taken in part. We deem petitioner worthy of clemency to the extent of commuting his penalty to
7 years suspension from the practice of law, inclusive of the 5 years he has already served his disbarment.

Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders.2 While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to
discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose.3

In cases where we have deigned to lift or commute the supreme penalty of disbarment imposed on the lawyer, we have taken into
account the remorse of the disbarred lawyer4 and the conduct of his public life during his years outside of the bar.5 For example, in
Valencia v. Antiniw, we held: However, the record shows that the long period of respondent's disbarment gave him the chance to
purge himself of his misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up
once again to the exacting standards of conduct demanded of every member of the bar and officer of the court. During respondent's
disbarment for more than fifteen (15) years to date for his professional infraction, he has been persistent in reiterating his apologies
and pleas for reinstatement to the practice of law and unrelenting in his efforts to show that he has regained his worthiness to
practice law, by his civic and humanitarian activities and unblemished record as an elected public servant, as attested to by
numerous civic and professional organizations, government institutions, public officials and members of the judiciary.6

And in Bernardo v. Atty. Mejia,7 we noted: Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejia’s disbarment, it also cannot
close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced years. While the age of the petitioner and the length of time during which
he has endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court takes
cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he
has shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his punishment has lasted long enough. x x x

Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse expected of him considering the gravity of his transgressions. Even more to his
favor, petitioner has redirected focus since his disbarment towards public service, particularly with the People’s Law Enforcement
Board. The attestations submitted by his peers in the community and other esteemed members of the legal profession, such as
retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui, Professor Edwin Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata,
and the ecclesiastical community such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtas testify to his positive impact on society at large since the
unfortunate events of 2003.

Petitioner’s subsequent track record in public service affords the Court some hope that if he were to reacquire membership in the
Philippine bar, his achievements as a lawyer would redound to the general good and more than mitigate the stain on his record.
Compassion to the petitioner is warranted. Nonetheless, we wish to impart to him the following stern warning:

"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all
men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bands of society, argues
recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body
politic."8

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The
disbarment of DANILO G. DE GUZMAN from the practice of law is hereby COMMUTED to SEVEN (7) YEARS SUSPENSION
FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW, reckoned from February 4, 2004.