Cabaguio, King Evaggelou P.

Bs Legal Management

Caronan vs Caronan
A.C. 11316
July 12, 2016
Complainant: Patrick A. Caronan
vs
Respondent: Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan”

FACTS:

Complainant and respondent are full siblings and both completed their
secondary education at Makati High School where they graduated in 1993 and in
1991, respectively. Complainant graduated at the University of Makati in 1997 with a
degree in Business Administration. He married Myrna G. Tapis in 2001 with whom
he has two daughters. Concurrently, respondent enrolled at Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) for one year and then transferred to Philippine Military
Academy in 1992 where he was discharged after a year.
Respondent was not able to obtain any college degree since then. In 1999,
respondent enrolled in St Mary’s Law School in Nueva Vizcaya and passed the Bar
examinations in 2004. Complainant had knowledge of such events but did not mind
as he did not anticipate any adverse consequences to him. In 2009, complainant
realized that respondent had been using his name to perpetrate crimes. Complainant
filed the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent's alleged use of the former's
name and identity, and illegal practice of law. Respondent denied all the allegations
against him and 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 dismissed the administrative case
filed against him, and which case had already been declared closed and terminated
by the Supreme 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. On June 15, 2015, IBP
Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera issued his Report and
Recommendation, finding respondent GUILTY of illegally and falsely assuming
complainant's name, identity, and academic records. 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 Roll of
Attorneys. 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.
ISSUE:
a. Whether or not the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) erred in their
ordering that the name “Patrick A. Caronan” be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys
b. Whether or not the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) erred in their
ordering that the name “Richard A. Caronan” be barred from being admitted to
the Bar.

RULING:
According to the Supreme Court, the IBP correctly observed that the
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. Since complainant never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys. The Office of the Court Administrator is ordered to Circulate notices and
post in the bulletin boards of all courts of the country a photograph of respondent
with his real name, " Richard A. Caronan," with a warning that he is not a member of
the Philippine Bar and a statement of his false assumption of the name and identity
of "Patrick A. Caronan."

The Supreme Court also justified that the IBP was correct in ordering that
respondent, whose real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to
the Bar in accordance with Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
 [Bar Matter No. 914. October 1, 1999.]
RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR
VICENTE D. CHING, applicant.

FACTS:
Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese
citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union
on 11 April 1964. Since his birth, Ching has resided in the Philippines. In 1998,
Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis University in Baguio City.
He eventually passed the bar but he was advised that he needs to show proof that
he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to take his oath.

Apparently, Ching’s father was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino
citizen. His parents were married before he was born in 1963. Under the 1935
Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner, acquires the foreign
citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always considered
himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified public accountant – a profession reserved
for Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a municipality in La Union.

The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a legitimate

child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should have elected Filipino citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority. Ching did elect Filipino citizenship, but he only did so
when he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of
majority. In conclusion, the OSG points out that Ching has not formally elected
Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would already be beyond the
"reasonable time" allowed by present jurisprudence. However, due to the peculiar
circumstances surrounding Ching's case, the OSG recommends the relaxation of the
standing rule on the construction of the phrase "reasonable period" and the
allowance of Ching to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with C.A. No. 625
prior to taking his oath as a member of the Philippine Bar.

ISSUE:
Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within "a reasonable time".

RULING:
No. In the present case, the Supreme Court noted that the period is originally
3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It seems it can’t be extended any further).
Ching’s special circumstances can’t be considered. It is not enough that he
considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that he is a professional and a public
officer (was) serving this country. The rules for citizenship are in place.
 Further, Ching didn’t give any explanation why he belatedly chose to elect
Filipino citizenship (but I guess it’s simply because he never thought he’s Chinese
not until he applied to take the bar). The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine
citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of
the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and,
thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Ching’s unreasonable and
unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over.