In Re: Lanuevo

66SCRA245 (1975)

Facts: Oscar Landicho brought the attention to the court by writing a confidential
letter about the fact that the grade in one examination of at least one bar candidate
was raised reason or another before the release of the results that year and that
there are grades in other examination notebooks on other subjects that underwent
to the same altercation to raise the grades prior to the release of results.

The Court checked the records of the 1971Bar examinations and found that the
grades in five subjects of a successful bar candidate named Ramon Galang,
underwent some changes, which, was duly initialed and authenticated by the
examiners concerned. Each of the examiners that re-evaluated and/or rechecked
the booklet involved the presentation to him by the Bar Confidant Victorio Lanuevo
saying that he has the authority to do so when an examine concerned asks to do so.

Lanuevo admitted having brought the five examination notebooks Ramon Galang to
each examiner concerned for re-evaluation or re-checking. The five examiners
admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the booklets with the Bar Confidant
saying that he has the authority to do so and that the examinee only failed or had a
borderline of passing only to his particular subject. As a consequence, Ramon Galang
was able to pass the 1971 bar examination.

An investigation made by the NBI, upon request by Chairman of the 1971 Bar
Examination, also showed that Ramon Galang was charged with slight physical
injuries committed on a certain Eufrosino F. de Vera, of MLQU. Confronted with this
information, Galang denied having been charged with such crime and did not, in all
his application to take the bar exmination, mention this fact, as required under the
rules.

Issue: WON Victorio Lanuevo be found guilty of defrauding the examiners into re-
evaluating Ramon Galang’s exam booklets.

WON Galang is guilty of fraudulently concealing and withholding from the Supreme
Court his pending criminal case

Held: The court held that it is evident that Lanuevo staged the plot to convince the
examiners to re-examine the grades if Galang for him to pass the Bar. The court
ruled that all that the respondent Bar Examiners, upon candidly admitting to have
re-evaluated/re-rechecked the booklet of the examinee, professed good faith that
they did the same without any consideration and such favorable re-evaluation/re-
checking was influenced by the misrepresentation and deception committed by the
then Bar Confidant. It should be stressed that the Bar confidant has nothing to do
with the re-evaluation of the grades of the exam booklets of the examinees and is
not allowed to withdraw such booklets for any purpose whatsoever without any
express authority from the Court.
The investigation led to a direct evidence that the illegal machination of Lanuevo to
enable Galang to pass the 1971 Bar examinations was committed for value
considerations, with Lanuevo’s acquisition made after the 1971 Bar that does not
reflect to his salary as Bar Confidant and Deputy Clerk of Court of the Supreme
Court.

As to Ramon Galangs’s fraudulent concealment and withholding from the Court of

his pending criminal case for slight physical injuries committed on one Eufrosino de
Vera, he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending
criminal court resulting to the unconditional permission from the Supreme Court for
him to take the Bar examinations 7 times and was allowed to take the Lawyer’s
Oath.

Furthermore, respondent’s persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case

despite his having been apprised by the Investigation of some of the circumstances
of the criminal case including the very name of the victim in that case and his
continued failure for about thirteen years to clear his name in that criminal case up
to the present time, indicate his lack of the requisite attributes of honesty, probity
and good demeanor. He is therefore unworthy of becoming a member of the noble
profession of law.

With all of the foregoing, the Supreme Court held that both Victorio Lanuevo and
Ramon Galang be disbarred from the practice of law and their names be stricken out
of the roll of attorneys.
First Lepanto Ceramics vs. CA
237SCRA519 (1994)

Facts: This case arose when the Bureau of Investments (BOI) granted petitioner’s
petition to amend its BOI certificate y changing its scope of registered product from
“glazed floor tiles” to “ceramic ties”. Mariwasa Manufacturing filed a motion for
reconsideration of the said BOI decision. After being denied, Mariwasa filed a
petition for review with the Court of Appeals pursuant to Circular 1-91.

CA granted such review and issued a temporary restraining order for 20 days from
receipt of notice without issuing a preliminary injunction. Petitioner then filed a
motion to dismiss and to lift the restraining order saying that the CA does not have
the jurisdiction over BOI cases, since such action is vested with the Supreme Court
pursuant to the Omnibus Election Code.

Petitioner argued that the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 or B.P. 129 and
Circular 1-91, "Prescribing the Rules Governing Appeals to the Court of Appeals
from a Final Order or Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial
Agencies" cannot be the basis of Mariwasa's appeal to respondent Court, because
the procedure for appeal laid down therein runs contrary to Article 82 of E.O. 226.

Mariwasa contends that whatever consistency there may be between the BP 29 and
Art. 28 of E.O. 226 on the venue of appeal, it has already been resolved by Circular 1-
91 of the Supreme Court, which was promulgated 4 years after EO 226 was enacted.

Issue: WON the Court of Appeals has Jurisdiction over the case.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction
over the BOI case.

The Supreme Court said that Circular 1-91 already appealed Art. 82 of E.O. 226
saying that the appeals from the decisions of the BOI which by statute is allowed to
be filed directly to the Supreme Court, should now be brought to the Court of
Appeals. The substantive right to appeal from decisions or orders of the BOI under
EO 226 remains and continues to be respected. Circular I-91 simply transferred the
venue of the appeals from the decisions of this agency to respondent CA.

The fact that BOI is not expressly included in the list of quasi-judicial agencies found
in Sec. 1 of Circular 1-91 does not mean that said circular does not apply to appeals
from final orders or decisions of the BOI. The second sentence of Section 1 thereof
expressly states that "They shall also apply to appeals from final orders or decisions
of any quasi-judicial agency from which an appeal is now allowed by statute to the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.