[B.M. No. 1209. July 1, 2003]

IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE BAR MATTER NO. 1209 LAWYER’S OATH

EN BANC

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[1] 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.[2]

The petitioner was conditionally allowed to take the 2001 Bar Examinations[3] 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[4] 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 PERJURY and that should be acted upon by your respectable office 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 who passed 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.[5] Attached thereto was a certified true copy of the decision in the said criminal case and a certificate of finality of judgment.[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] 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[9] and 9019[10] issued by Fil-Global and SWIP Lending respectively dated May 7, 2003. Thereafter, an order of satisfaction of judgment[11] was correspondingly issued by the court in civil cases 26837[12] and 27447.[13]

Anent the IBP incident, the petitioner stated that an invitation[14] 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 awas 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[15] and the Office of the Barangay Council of Barangay Singcang Airport.[16]

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 docunments 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[17] 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.[18]

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 a

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.[19] This, the Court cannot quite fathom. As stated by Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, Ma. Cristina B. Layusa:[20]

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.[21] 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.[22]

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.[23]

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 petition is 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,[24] 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.[25] The petitioner should have realized the implication of any omission on his part, even if inadvertently made.

In the case of People v. Tuanda,[26] 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.[27] 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.[28]

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.[29] However, a perusal of the invitation[30] 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.[31] 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.[32] 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..[33]

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.[34]

The unauthorized use of the said appellation may render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.[35]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.[36] 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.[37]

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

[1] Entitled People v. Caesar Distrito, docketed as Criminal Case NO. 99609 before the MTCC of Bacolod City.

[2] Annex “A” of the Petition dated April 2, 2002.

[5] The dispositive portion reads:

With the foregoing discussion, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that accused is not criminally liable of the crime of Usurpation of Official Function charged in the Information.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Caesar Z. Distrito is ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

[7] The petitioner attached a copy of a Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor’s Office, Bacolod City dated December 28, 1999 (Annex “A”) withdrawing the said cases from the dockets in view of the receipt of the complainant’s letter of desistance.

[21] Yap Tan v. Sabandal, 170 SCRA 211 (1989).

[24] Rule 7:02 – A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact, in connection with his application for admission to the bar.

[25] In re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, 66 SCRA 245 (1975).

[27] Konegsberg v. State Bar of California, 353 US 252, 1 L ed2d 818 (1957); also cited in Agpalo, Legal Ethics 6^th ed (1997), p. 49.

[31] Section 17, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

[35] Section 3, Rule 71 of the revised Rules of Court:

After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished by indirect contempt:

. . .

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;