Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Caronan Vs Atty Caronan
Caronan Vs Atty Caronan
PATRICK A. CARONAN”
FACTS:
On 2013, a complaint was filed by the real Patrick A. Caronan against his
brother Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan” before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines. In his complaint, he stated that he and his older brother
both completed secondary education at the Makati High School and that he
finished his college education at the University of Makati. Thereafter, he applied
and got a job at a 7-11 convenience store in Muntinlupa City, working his way up
until he was promoted as its store manager. On the other hand, his brother enrolled
at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila and later managed to enter the
Philippine Military Academy in Baguio City but was discharged in 1993. The
respondent Richard then moved to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife and three
children.
Patrick said he learned from Richard that he had enrolled at St. Mary’s
University’s College of Law in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya using Patrick’s name
and college records from the UM and that he passed the Bar exams in 2004.
The respondent Richard denied the allegations but the SC said that the
identity of the real “Patrick A. Caronan” had been established based on the probe
conducted by the IBP.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name “Patrick A. Caronan”
be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name “Richard A. Caronan” be
barred from being admitted to the Bar.
HELD:
No. The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and
recommendations of the IBP. 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.
Clearly, respondent has not completed the requisite pre-law degree.