Title: In Re: Rolando Torres

A.C. No. 5161 Date: August 25, 2015 Ponente: PER CURIAM

TOPIC: LEG PRO - Readmission to the Bar - Lawyers Disbarred

Facts:
1. Respondent Rolando S. Torres sought judicial clemency in order to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.
2. Respondet was administratively charged by his sister-in-law, Complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali for “presentation of false testimony;
participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery.”
3. There were three lots sold to Antel Holdings, Inc. by the Respondent’s wife Felicisima and his other sister-in-laws (Miriam and Marcelina),
claiming that they were the sole heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting. The payments for these lots were received
and misappropriated by Felicisima, Miriam, and Marcelina. They even forged the signature of the Complainant to enable them to sell one
of the three lots sold.
4. Respondent Torres was disbarred because the Court found him guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath and Canons
1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
5. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the Court denied.
6. Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File and Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration which the Court again denied for lack of merit.
7. Respondent filed an ex-parte Motion to Lift Disbarment begging that compassion, mercy, and understanding be bestowed upon him by
the Court in that his disbarment be lifted. The same was expunged from the records.
8. Respondent wrote letters addressed to former Assoc. Justice Dante O. Tinga and former Chief Justice Artemis V. Panganiban, reiterating
his pleas for compassion and mercy. These letters were likewise expunged from the records. These were followed by numerous
submissions either seeking his reinstatement to the bar or the reduction of his penalty of disbarment to suspension, all of which were
either expunged from the records or denied by the Court.
9. More than 10 years from his disbarment, Respondent filed THIS petition once more seeking judicial clemency from the Court to reinstate
him in the Roll of Attorneys.

Issue/s:
Was Respondent Rolando Torres able to sufficiently rehabilitate himself in conduct and character to be granted judicial clemency?

Ruling:
NO. The Court cited In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial
Clemency where the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
1. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform;
2. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good
use by giving him a chance to redeem himself;
3. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship
and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service;
2. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

The Court ruled that Respondent was not able to show substantial proof of his reformation as required from the guideline. Proof Respondent
presented and their respective reasons why the Court denied his petition:
1) Certification from Church — he did not prove that there were actual engagements or activities by which he had rendered free legal
services to indigents or had ministered to the members of his community or church
2) Testimonial from Atty. Teofilo Pugeda Jr. — Atty. Pugeda’s testimony all relate to conduct or attributions PRIOR to Respondent’s
disbarment
3) Testimonials attached to his previous Motion for Reconsideration — same with #2
4) No proof was presented to show that he had reconciled or even attempted to reconcile with his sister-in-law Complainant Isidra so as to
show remorse for his previous faults
5) No other evidence was presented in his Petition to demonstrate his potential for public service or that he — being 68 years old already —
still has productive years ahead of him that he can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself

The principle which should hold true not only for judges but also for lawyers, being officers of the court, is that judicial “clemency, as an act of
mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. Thus, the Court will grant it
only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable.”

The petition is DENIED.