In the matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo Diao vs.

Severino Martinez

FACTS: DIAO was admitted to the Bar. 2 years later, Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for the Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys i. DIAO did not complete pre-law subjects:

1. Did not complete his high school training 2. Never attended Quisumbing College 3. Never obtained a diploma. DIAO admitting first charge but claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma Upon return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school. No certification. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious: i. Never obtained his diploma. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate. ii. in April, 1949 1. He said erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University

ISSUE: WON DIAO still continue admission to the Bar, for passing the Bar despite not completing pre-law requirements? NO.

HELD: STRIKE OUT NME OF DIAO IN ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. DIAO REQUIRED TO RETURN HIS LAWYERS DIPLOMA WITHIN 30 DAYS. Explanation of error or confusion is not acceptable. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. He would not have been permitted to take the bar tests: i. Bar applicant must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education (A.A.). ii. iii. hereby revoked. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential. Therefore, Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is

Tan vs. Sabandal TAN V. SABANDAL (170 SCRA 211 2/10/89

FACTS: Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of pending administrative complaints filed against him regarding instances when he called himself attorney knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar, he was not allowed to take the lawyers oath. Oppositors evidence sufficiently show that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he was paid for his legal services He then filed a petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. In a resolution promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied. Respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance

to be a member of the Phil. Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyers oath and conduct himself in an upright manner.

HELD: In our Resolution of 10 February 1989, Sabandal was allowed to take the oath, ten (10) years having elapsed from the time he took and passed the 1976 Bar examinations, after careful consideration of his show of contrition and willingness to reform. It turns out that Civil Case No. 3747 entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Nicolas Sabandal" was instituted by the Government in 1985 and was brought about because of respondent's procurement of a certificate of free patent over a parcel of land belonging to the public domain and its use as security for a mortgage in order to obtain a loan. It should be recalled that Sabandal worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over property which he could not but have known was 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 the public service. His failure to reveal to this Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting several Motions for Reconsideration before us also reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.There are testimonials attesting to his good moral character, yes. But those testimonials cannot, therefore, outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonesty and lack of good moral character.

The practice of law is not 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. The Supreme Court and the Philippine Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal profession, both in academic preparation and legal training as well as in honesty and fair dealing. The Court and the licensed lawyers themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to be honest and to possess good moral character. Although the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common honesty" (Royong v. Oblena, Adm. Case No. 376, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 859; In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 [1928]). It has also been held that no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor

In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo A. Diao vs. Severino G. MartinezFacts:
Telesforo A. Diao took the law examinations in 1953 and was admitted to the Bar. Two years later, Severino Martinez charged Diao of falsifying the information in his application for such BarExamination.

Upon further investigation, it was found that Diao did not finish his high school training, andneither did he obtain his Associate in Arts (AA) degree from Quisumbing College in 1941.Diao practically admits first charge, but claims that he served the US army, and took the General Classification Test which, according to Diao, is equivalent to a High School Diploma, although he failed to submit certificationfor such claim from any proper school officials. The claim was doubtlful, however, the second charge was clearly meritorious, as Diao did not obtain his AAdegree from Quisumbing College. Diao claims that he was erroneously certified, and asserts that he obtainedhis AA from Arellano University in 1949. This claim was still unacceptable, as records would have shown that Diao graduated from the University in April1949, but he started his Law studies in October 1948 (second semester, AY 1948-1949) and he would not havebeen permitted to take the Bar, as it is provided in the Rules, applicants under oath that Previous to the studyof law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education (AA) as required bythe Department of Private Education Issue: Whether Telesforo A Diao should be Disbarred. Ruling: Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the Bar Exams, but did by falsifying information. Admissionunder false pretenses thus give grounds for revoking his admission in the Bar, as passing the Bar Exam is notthe only requirement to become an attorney at law

In Re: Argosino B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995

FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant. Argosino was previously involved with hazing that caused the death of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced with homicide through reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced with 2 years imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafter which was granted by the court with a 2 yr probation. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take oath. He filed a petition to allow him to take the attorneys oath of office averring that his probation was already terminated. The court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was terminated.

ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office.

RULING: The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good morals of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed and have become a responsible member of the community through sworn statements of individuals who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The court also ordered that said a copy of the proceeding be furnished to the family/relatives of Raul Camaligan.