Tan vs.

Sabandal 206 SCRA 473, February 24, 1992

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.