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