there were other cases filed against the petitioner which were not duly
disclosed in the latter's petition to take the bar examinations, to wit:
1.Two counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P.) 22 filed sometime in
1999, docketed as B.C.I.S. 99-6735 and 99-6736, before the City Prosecutor's
Office of Bacolod;
2.Civil Case No. 27447 for "Sum of Money" filed on July 26, 2001, before the
MTCC, Bacolod, in which an adverse decision dated April 1, 2002 was
[B.M. No. 1209. July 1, 2003]
rendered;
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE BAR MATTER NO. 1209 LAWYER'S OATH
3.Civil Case No. 27447 for "Sum of Money" filed on March 15, 2002, before
MTCC, Bacolod.
EN BANC
Mr. Montinola also alleged in his letter that the petitioner took his oath as an
Gentlemen: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) member, knowing fully well that he had
not yet taken his oath as a lawyer before the Supreme Court nor signed in the
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL Roll of Attorneys Mr. Montinola further averred:
1 2003.
The fact that CAESAR Z. DISTRITO have (sic)not disclosed the above-
RESOLUTION. B.M. No. 1209(In Re: Petition to Take the Bar Matter No. 1209 mentioned criminal and civil case filed against him in his application form
Lawyer's Oath, Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner.) despite his personal knowledge of the same when he applied for the Bar
Exams sometime in 2001, is tantamount to PERJURY and that should be acted
upon by your respectable office to protect the integrity of our present lawyers
Before the court is a Petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign in the Roll of
who will be our future Prosecutors, Judges, Justices or even High Ranking
Attorneys dated April 22, 2002 filed by Caesar Z. Distrito, a successful 2001
Cabinet or Government Officials or even President of our country.
Bar Examinee.
The unethical act of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO when he took his oath as a
The petitioner is a former Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman of Barangay
lawyer/member before a testimonial dinner tendered by the IBP-Negros
Singcang Airport, Bacolod City.On September 18, 1999, an Information for
Occidental Chapter and witnessed not only by it's Officials, present members
Usurpation of Authority or Official Function under Article 177 of the Revised
and honored guests but by thousands of Television viewers not only in Bacolod
Penal Code[1] was filed against him which read:
City but the whole of Western Visayas if not the whole country, despite also of
cralaw
his personal knowledge that he is not qualified to do so for the same reason
That on or about the 18th day of September, 1999, in the City of Bacolod, above-stated, is tantamount to IMPERSONATION that should be properly acted
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein upon by the said body who will be furnished a copy of this information and to
accused, not being the President of the Bacolod City Sangguniang Kabataan also protect their integrity and to avoid similar incident that may happen in the
Federation, a government agency, did then and there under pretense of official future for lack of proper screening.
position and without being lawfully entitled to do so, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously preside over the special session of the said Federation, in violation
Mr. Montinola attached to his letter copies of the complaint as well as a copy of
of the aforestated law.[2]
the decision in Civil Case No. 26837.
cralaw
The petitioner was conditionally allowed to take the 2001 Bar
On August 15, 2002, the OBC received another letter from a certain Ms.
Examinations[3] and passed the same.He could not, however, take the
Christine Angelie M. Espinosa, then SK Federation President of Bacolod City,
cralaw
Lawyer's Oath nor sign in the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the
which read:
above-mentioned case.
Your Honor:
On August 2, 2002, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a
letter[4] from a certain Mr. Benjie Montinola informing the said office that
cralaw
May I inquire from your good office, whether a bar passer who has not taken and SWIP Lending respectively dated May 7, 2003.Thereafter, an order of
his oath in view of the pending criminal case filed against him can attached satisfaction of judgment[11] was correspondingly issued by the court in civil
cralaw
(sic) to his name the nomenclature atty.?Such is the case of Mr. Caesar Z. cases 26837[12] and 27447.[13]
cralaw cralaw
Distrito , SK Federation, Bacolod City Vice-President whopassed the bar last
May 2002, but has not taken his oath due to the pending criminal case lodged Anent the IBP incident, the petitioner stated that an invitation[14] was sent to
in MTCC branch 4, Bacolod City for Usurpation of Power charge against him by
cralaw
him by the IBP Negros Occidental Chapter to attend the testimonial dinner and
the undersigned. the annual judicial excellence awarding ceremonies, but that there was no
mention of any induction ceremony.Considering the he in fact successfully
Ms. Espinosa attached a copy of an attendance sheet of a Sangguniang passed the bar examinations and was being recognized therefore he was
Panglungsod committee hearing dated June 21, 2002 where the petitioner's inspired to attend the occasion.He admitted that during the occasion, all those
name appeared to have been signed, along with the word "Atty." who just passed the bar exams were called for the induction of new members,
and that he was left with no choice but to join the others onstage when his
On April 23, 2003, the petitioner filed his Petition to take the Lawyer's Oath name was called.However, the petitioner did not intend to deceive or to keep
and to sign the Roll of Attorneys alleging that on April 4, 2003, the Municipal the IBP in the dark, as he in fact informed them of his status.To prove the
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod, rendered a decision acquitting him in absence of malice on his part, he did not sign any document that night.
Criminal Case No. 99609.[5] Attached thereto was a certified true copy of the
cralaw
decision in the said criminal case and a certificate of finality of The petitioner also stated that after some verification as to the identity of the
judgment.[6] The OBC informed the petitioner of the above-mentioned charges
cralaw complainant in the Letter-complaint dated August 22, 2002, he found out that
and required him to comment on the same. Benjie Montinola awas a non-existing person who cannot claim to be a
"guardian of proper civi[c] responsibility" considering that he is not even a
In his Comment dated May 12, 2003, the petitioner avers that when he filed registered voter of Bacolod City and that he could not be located in the
his petition to take the 2001 bar exams, the criminal case for usurpation of address given, as indicated in a Certification issued by the Commission on
authority or official function was the only pending case against him at the Elections, Bacolod City[15] and the Office of the Barangay Council of Barangay
cralaw
time.He did not mention I.S.B.C. Case Nos. 99-6735 and 6736 for Violation of Singcang Airport.[16] cralaw
B.P. Blg. 22 in his petition because he was of the honest belief that it was no
longer necessary for him to do so, considering that the cases had long been Regarding the use of the appellation "Atty.", The petitioner admitted writing
settled and dismissed without even reaching the arraignment stage.[7] The
cralaw the same in the attendance sheet in a committee hearing of the Sangguniang
said criminal cases apparently stemmed from the debts of some 50 fish Panglungsod of Bacolod City.He reasoned that he was of the notion that a bar
vendors at Magsungay Village.The petitioner's father, as the punong barangay, passer can be called "Attorney," and that what is only prohibited is to practice
had guaranteed the same in order to help the fishermen.But as the drawer of law, such as appearing in court and notarizing docunments without the
the two checks, the complainant filed the action against the petitioner when requisite oath-taking before the Supreme Court and signing in the Roll of
the debts remained unpaid. Attorneys.
As regards the civil cases, the petitioner avers that the same stemmed from The petitioner averred that the complainant in this case, Ms. Matus Espinosa,
salary loans that he, along with other barangay officials and employees, had in fact executed an affidavit of desistance[17] to attest that there was
cralaw
obtained from Fil-Global Credit and Asset Management Inc. and SWIP Lending indeed no misrepresentation on his part.
Corporation on January 13, 2000 and August 22, 2000, respectively, when he
was Barangay SK Chairman.The barangay treasurer regularly deducted from The petitioner manifested his sincere apology to the Court for any mistake he
his salary the payment for the said loans until such time when he completed may have committed.
the payment to Fil-Global on January 31, 2001 and for SWIUP Lending on April
30, 2001.The barangay treasurer thereafter issued a certification of complete
payment.[8] When the petitioner came back to Bacolod after the bar exams,
cralaw
On May 22, 2003, the OBC made the following recommendation:
he was surprised to learn that their barangay officials and employees were
facing cases for sum of money filed by Fil-Global and SWIP Lending because Considering that there is no more pending civil, criminal or administrative
apparently, their payments were not duly remitted.He received summons only cases against herein petitioner, he may now be admitted as a member of the
on October 22, 2001 and April 4, 2002 from the MTCC, Bacolod City.The Bar.
finance officer and the treasurer promised to settle everything, but they failed
to do so until their term expired on August 15, 2002.After the decision was
rendered by the MTCC, the petitioner paid the plaintiffs in the said cases, as
evidenced by official receipt nos. 8169[9] and 9019[10] issued by Fil-Global
cralaw cralaw
Foregoing considered, it is respectfully recommended that Mr. CAESAR Z. Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates the
DISTRITO be now allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar, to wit:
Attorneys upon payment of the required fees.[18] cralaw
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the
There are thus three important matters raised before this Court, the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a
determination of which would materially affect the fate of the present petition: resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against
First.The petitioner's non-disclosure of a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in
and of two other civil cases filed against him, albeit already dismissed at the the Philippines.
time of the filing of his petition to take the 2001 bar examinations.
Whether or not the petitioner shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a
Second.The petitioner's attendance and participation in an IBP testimonial great extent in the sound discretion of the Court.An applicant must satisfy the
dinner for new lawyers, when he had not yet taken his oath as a lawyer nor Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice
signed in the Roll of Attorneys. law.[21] The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to
cralaw
be granted to everyone who demands it.Rather, it is a high personal privilege
limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational
Third.The petitioner's admitted use of the appellation "Atty." When he had no qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.[22]
authority to do so as yet.
cralaw
It has been held that moral character is what a person really is, as
The Court sees fit to discuss each one, to serve as reminder to law students distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained
and prospective applicants to the bar. of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is
known.Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to
The petitioner's non-disclosure of a objective reality.The standard of personal and professional integrity is not
Criminal case for violation of B.P. satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty
Blg. 22 and two other civil cases filed of criminal law.Good moral character includes at least common honesty.[23] cralaw
against him, albeit already dismissed
at the time of the filing of his petition Admittedly, the petitioner was less than honest when he failed to disclose the
to take the 2001 bar examinations. two other cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and the civil cases involving sums
of money which were filed against him, in his petition to take the bar
The petitioner insists that he had not read any requirement in the petition to examinations.He should have known that the said petitionis not to be taken
include cases that had already been dismissed.[19] This, the Court cannot quite
cralaw
lightly as it is made under oath.The petitioner, in so doing, violated Rule 7.02
fathom.As stated by Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, Ma. Cristina B. of the Code of Professional Responsibility,[24] which requires of every applicant
cralaw
Layusa:[20]cralaw
candor and truthfulness.Every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court
all his involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to
The petitioner's contention is quite hard to accept.In the ready-made petition enable the Court to fully ascertain or determine the applicant's moral
character.[25] The petitioner should have realized the implication of any
form to take the Bar Examination, the following is written clearly:
cralaw
omission on his part, even if inadvertently made.
"Note: Indicate any pending or dismissed civil, criminal or administrative case
against you and attach pertinent In the case of People v. Tuanda,[26] the Court held that "violation of B.P. Blg.
cralaw
22 is a serious criminal offense which deleteriously affects public interest and
documents:____________________________."
public order," and considered the same an offense involving moral
turpitude.The erring lawyer was consequently suspended from the practice of
If petitioner had not read the notation, as what he claimed, why did he law.
disclose his pending case for Usurpation of authority or Official
Function.Moreover, the said instruction is written in the middle of the form, so
In this case, the fact that the criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
if petitioner had not really read the same, he was not mindful of what he was
did not even reach the arraignment stage is of no moment; it was the
doing which should not be the case of a Bar applicant.
petitioner's duty to disclose the same as it was a material fact which could
affect his application for admission to the bar.
It has also been held that an applicant for the admission to the bar who made
a false statement in his application is not of good moral character.[27] The
cralaw
The petitioner's erroneous belief that a person who passed the bar
concealment or withholding from the court of the fact that an applicant has examinations may allow himself to be called an attorney should be
been charged with or indicated for an alleged crime is a ground for corrected.An applicant who has passed the required examination or has been
disqualification of the applicant to take the bar examination, or for revocation otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe
of the license to practice, if he has already been admitted to the bar.If what before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.[31] The Court shall
the applicant concealed is a crime which does not involve moral turpitude, it is
cralaw
thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all the courts of
the fact of concealment and not the commission of the crime itself that makes the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its
him morally unfit to become a lawyer.It should be noted that the application records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of
was made under oath, which he lightly took when he made the court, which certificates shall be his authority to practice.[32] The clerk of the
concealment.[28]
cralaw
cralaw
Supreme Court shall keep a Roll of Attorneys admitted to practice, which roll
shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his certificate.. [33] cralaw
The petitioner's attendance and
participation in an IBP testimonial The Oath is thus a prerequisite to the admission to the practice of law, while
dinner for new lawyers, when he had the signing in the Roll is the last act that finally signifies membership in the
not yet taken his oath as a lawyer nor bar, giving the applicant the right to call himself "attorney".Continued
signed in the Roll of Attorneys. membership in the IBP and regular payment of membership dues and other
lawful assessments that it may levy are conditions sine qua non to the
As to the IBP incident, the petitioner claims that he though the occasion was privilege to practice law and to the retention of his name in the Roll of
just a plain and simple testimonial dinner for successful bar examinees that Attorneys.[34]
cralaw
included an awarding ceremony for judges.It was only later when he
discovered that the program was actually a testimonial for new The unauthorized use of the said appellation may render a person liable for
lawyers.[29] However, a perusal of the invitation[30] sent by the IBP to the
cralaw cralaw
indirect contempt of court.[35] The Court may deny the applicant's petition to
petitioner reveals that there was an express mention that the affair was for
cralaw
take the Lawyer's Oath for grave misconduct, such as calling himself and
new lawyers, to wit: "attorney" and appearing as counsel for clients in courts even before being
admitted to the bar.[36] Although the evidence in this case does not include
cralaw
Dear Atty. Distrito: that the petitioner actually engaged in the practice of law, the fact is that he
signed in an attendance sheet as "Atty. Caesar Distrito."He called himself
The IBP-Negros Occidental Chapter will hold its Chapter's Judicial Award "attorney" knowing fully well that he was not yet admitted to the bar.[37] cralaw
of Excellence to Outstanding Judges and Proscutors and Testimonial
Dinner for new lawyers on June 28, 2002, 7:00 P.M., at the Ballroom-A, Thus, we disagree with the findings of the OBC, and find that the petitioner is
Business Inn, Lacson Street, Bacolod City. unfit to become a member of the bar.The petitioner must show this Court that
he has satisfied the moral requirements before he can be admitted to the
In behalf of the Officers and members of the IBP-Negros Occidental practice of law.
Chapter, I am inviting you to attend said after being one of the new
members of the Bar.Please come in formal attire. ACCORDINGLY, the petition of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO to be allowed to take
the oath as member of the Philippine Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys in
Your presence on this occasion will be highly appreciated. accordance with Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court is hereby DENIED.
The Court can only conclude that the petitioner did not take his petition to take Very truly yours,
the Lawyer's Oath and to sign in the Roll of Attorneys seriously.He would have
us believe that he attended an affair, believing in good faith that it was meant
for those who recently passed the bar, when the invitation he himself attached
to his petition states otherwise.The petitioner's forthrightness and candor with
the Court leave much to be desired.
The petitioner's admitted use of the
Appellation "Atty." When he had no
Authority to do so as yet.
