Tan vs.

Sabandal

FACTS:

Respondent Sabandal passed the 1975 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view of
the finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he has filed
numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer’s oath.

Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where Sabandal is
domiciled to submit a comment on respondent’s moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In
compliance therewith, the executive judge stated therewith in his comment that he is not aware of any
acts committed by the respondent as would disqualify him from admission to the Bar. However, he
added that respondent has a pending civil case before his Court for cancellation/reversion proceedings,
in which respondent, then working as Land Investigator in the Bureau of Lands is alleged to have
secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which upon investigation, turned
out to be a swampland and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later
mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold at public
auction and respondent has not redeemed the land since then.

The case was however settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement cancelled
the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the
surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public
domain the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising
acts of possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the
loan and interest.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering the he already
submitted three testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been
terminated.

RULING:

His petition must be denied. Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is a matter of right.
It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known
to possess good moral character. It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at
the Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the
property which he could not but have known was a public land. This was manipulative on his part and
does not speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in public
service, which cannot be erased by the termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or
innocence was made because his suit has been compromised. this is a sad reflection of his sense of
honor and fair dealings.

Although the term”good moral character” admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as
“including at least common dishonesty.” It has also been held that no moral qualification for
membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.