Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 64

Republic of the Philippines applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patent, is in

SUPREME COURT excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.


Manila
In his answer, respondent Director, through the Solicitor General, maintains that
EN BANC the prosecution of patent cases "does not involve entirely or purely the practice of
law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and training,
G.R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959 so much so that, as a matter of actual practice, the prosecution of patent cases
may be handled not only by lawyers, but also engineers and other persons with
sufficient scientific and technical training who pass the prescribed examinations as
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION, petitioner, given by the Patent Office; . . . that the Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent
vs. Office, or any other quasi-judicial body from requiring further condition or
CELEDONIO AGRAVA, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent qualification from those who would wish to handle cases before the Patent Office
Office, respondent. which, as stated in the preceding paragraph, requires more of an application of
scientific and technical knowledge than the mere application of provisions of law; . .
Arturo A. Alafriz for petitioner. . that the action taken by the respondent is in accordance with Republic Act No.
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law of the Philippines, which similar to the
for respondent. United States Patent Law, in accordance with which the United States Patent
Office has also prescribed a similar examination as that prescribed by
respondent. . . .
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
Respondent further contends that just as the Patent law of the United States of
This is the petition filed by the Philippine Lawyer's Association for prohibition and America authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to prescribe examinations to
injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines determine as to who practice before the United States Patent Office, the
Patent Office. respondent, is similarly authorized to do so by our Patent Law, Republic Act No.
165.
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had
scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who Although as already stated, the Director of Patents, in the past, would appear to
are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office, have been holding tests or examinations the passing of which was imposed as a
the said examination to cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of required qualification to practice before the Patent Office, to our knowledge, this is
practice before said office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, the first time that the right of the Director of Patents to do so, specially as regards
engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are members of the bar, has been questioned formally, or otherwise put in issue. And
qualified to take the said examination. It would appear that heretofore, respondent we have given it careful thought and consideration.
Director has been holding similar examinations.
The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to
It is the contention of the petitioner Philippine Lawyer's Association that one who admission to the practice of law in the Philippines 1 and to any member of the
has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law anywhere and before any entity,
law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the Philippines. Naturally, the
before the Philippines Patent Office, and that consequently, the cat of the question arises as to whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the
respondent Director requiring members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is
take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office as a condition precedent included in the practice of law.
to their being allowed to practice before said office, such as representing
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. For instance:
social proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of Section 8 of our Patent Law provides that an invention shall not be patentable if it
clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, alladvice is contrary to public order or morals, or to public health or welfare. Section 9 says
to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the that an invention shall not be considered new or patentable if it was known or used
law corporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating by others in the Philippines before the invention thereof by the inventor named in
an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement any printed publication in the Philippines or any foreign country more than one year
of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting before the application for a patent therefor, or if it had been in public use or on sale
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been in the Philippines for more than one year before the application for the patent
held to constitute law practice as do the preparation and drafting of legal therefor. Section 10 provides that the right to patent belongs to the true and actual
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal inventor, his heirs, legal representatives or assigns. Section 25 and 26 refer to
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis connection of any mistake in a patent. Section 28 enumerates the grounds for
supplied). cancellation of a patent; that although any person may apply for such cancellation,
under Section 29, the Solicitor General is authorized to petition for the cancellation
Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work of a patent. Section 30 mentions the requirements of a petition for cancellation.
performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in Section 31 and 32 provide for a notice of hearing of the petition for cancellation of
court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of the patent by the Director of Patents in case the said cancellation is warranted.
subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an Under Section 34, at any time after the expiration of three years from the day the
extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these patent was granted, any person patent on several grounds, such as, if the patented
transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are invention is not being worked in the Philippines on a commercial scale, or if the
always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a demand for the patented article in the Philippines on a commercial scale, or if the
high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great demand for the patented article in the Philippines is not being met to an adequate
capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary extent and reasonable terms, or if by reason of the patentee's refusal to grant a
functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the license on reasonable terms or by reason of the condition attached by him to the
administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the license, purchase or use of the patented article or working of the patented process
question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part which involves or machine of production, the establishment of a new trade or industry in the
advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of Philippines is prevented; or if the patent or invention relates to food or medicine or
the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons is necessary to public health or public safety. All these things involve the
possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at applications of laws, legal principles, practice and procedure. They call for legal
all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. knowledge, training and experience for which a member of the bar has been
(Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 (1953 ed.), p. 665-666, citing In re prepared.
Opinion of the Justices (Mass.), 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. vs.
Automobile Service Assoc. (R. I. ) 179 A. 139, 144). (Emphasis ours). In support of the proposition that much of the business and many of the act, orders
and decisions of the Patent Director involve questions of law or a reasonable and
In our opinion, the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent correct evaluation of facts, the very Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, Section 61,
Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the provides that:
prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the
enforcement of their rights in patent cases. In the first place, although the . . . . The applicant for a patent or for the registration of a design, any party to a
transaction of business in the Patent Office involves the use and application of proceeding to cancel a patent or to obtain a compulsory license, and any party to
technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such business has to be any other proceeding in the Office may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final
rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the order or decision of the director.
Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law.
Not only this, but practice before the Patent Office involves the interpretation and
In other words, the appeal is taken to this Tribunal. If the transaction of business in Registration of attorneys and agents. A register of an attorneys and a register
the Patent Office and the acts, orders and decisions of the Patent Director involved agents are kept in the Patent Office on which are entered the names of all persons
exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then logically, recognized as entitled to represent applicants before the Patent Office in the
the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of preparation and prosecution of applicants for patent. Registration in the Patent
scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case. Office under the provisions of these rules shall only entitle the person registered to
practice before the Patent Office.
Another aspect of the question involves the consideration of the nature of the
functions and acts of the Head of the Patent Office. (a) Attorney at law. Any attorney at law in good standing admitted to practice
before any United States Court or the highest court of any State or Territory of the
. . . . The Commissioner, in issuing or withholding patents, in reissues, United States who fulfills the requirements and complied with the provisions of
interferences, and extensions, exercises quasi-judicial functions. Patents are public these rules may be admitted to practice before the Patent Office and have his
records, and it is the duty of the Commissioner to give authenticated copies to any name entered on the register of attorneys.
person, on payment of the legal fees. (40 Am. Jur. 537). (Emphasis supplied).
xxx xxx xxx
. . . . The Commissioner has the only original initiatory jurisdiction that exists up to
the granting and delivering of a patent, and it is his duty to decide whether the (c) Requirement for registration. No person will be admitted to practice and
patent is new and whether it is the proper subject of a patent; and his action in register unless he shall apply to the Commissioner of Patents in writing on a
awarding or refusing a patent is a judicial function. In passing on an application the prescribed form supplied by the Commissioner and furnish all requested
commissioner should decide not only questions of law, but also questions of fact, information and material; and shall establish to the satisfaction of the
as whether there has been a prior public use or sale of the article invented. . . . (60 Commissioner that he is of good moral character and of good repute and
C.J.S. 460). (Emphasis supplied). possessed of the legal and scientific and technical qualifications necessary to
enable him to render applicants for patent valuable service, and is otherwise
The Director of Patents, exercising as he does judicial or quasi-judicial functions, it competent to advise and assist him in the presentation and prosecution of their
is reasonable to hold that a member of the bar, because of his legal knowledge and application before the Patent Office. In order that the Commissioner may determine
training, should be allowed to practice before the Patent Office, without further whether a person seeking to have his name placed upon either of the registers has
examination or other qualification. Of course, the Director of Patents, if he deems it the qualifications specified, satisfactory proof of good moral character and repute,
advisable or necessary, may require that members of the bar practising before him and of sufficient basic training in scientific and technical matters must be submitted
enlist the assistance of technical men and scientist in the preparation of papers and an examination which is held from time to time must be taken and passed. The
and documents, such as, the drawing or technical description of an invention or taking of an examination may be waived in the case of any person who has served
machine sought to be patented, in the same way that a lawyer filing an application for three years in the examining corps of the Patent Office.
for the registration of a parcel of land on behalf of his clients, is required to submit
a plan and technical description of said land, prepared by a licensed surveyor. Respondent states that the promulgation of the Rules of Practice of the United
States Patent Office in Patent Cases is authorized by the United States Patent Law
But respondent Director claims that he is expressly authorized by the law to require itself, which reads as follows:
persons desiring to practice or to do business before him to submit an examination,
even if they are already members of the bar. He contends that our Patent Law, The Commissioner of Patents, subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Republic Act No. 165, is patterned after the United States Patent Law; and of the Commerce may prescribe rules and regulations governing the recognition of
United States Patent Office in Patent Cases prescribes an examination similar to agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants or other parties before
that which he (respondent) has prescribed and scheduled. He invites our attention his office, and may require of such persons, agents, or attorneys, before being
to the following provisions of said Rules of Practice: recognized as representatives of applicants or other persons, that they shall show
they are of good moral character and in good repute, are possessed of the
necessary qualifications to enable them to render to applicants or other persons and to carry into full effect the laws relating to matters within the jurisdiction of his
valuable service, and are likewise to competent to advise and assist applicants or bureau. Section 608 of Republic Act 1937, known as the Tariff and Customs Code
other persons in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other of the Philippines, provides that the Commissioner of Customs shall, subject to the
business before the Office. The Commissioner of Patents may, after notice and approval of the Department Head, makes all rules and regulations necessary to
opportunity for a hearing, suspend or exclude, either generally or in any particular enforce the provisions of said code. Section 338 of the National Internal Revenue
case from further practice before his office any person, agent or attorney shown to Code, Commonwealth Act No. 466 as amended, states that the Secretary of
be incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross misconduct, or who refuses to Finance, upon recommendation of the Collector of Internal Revenue, shall
comply with the said rules and regulations, or who shall, with intent to defraud in promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the
any matter, deceive, mislead, or threaten any applicant or prospective applicant, or provisions of the code. We understand that rules and regulations have been
other person having immediate or prospective applicant, or other person having promulgated not only for the Bureau of Customs and Internal Revenue, but also for
immediate or prospective business before the office, by word, circular, letter, or by other bureaus of the Government, to govern the transaction of business in and to
advertising. The reasons for any such suspension or exclusion shall be duly enforce the law for said bureaus.
recorded. The action of the Commissioner may be reviewed upon the petition of
the person so refused recognition or so suspended by the district court of the Were we to allow the Patent Office, in the absence of an express and clear
United States for the District of Columbia under such conditions and upon such provision of law giving the necessary sanction, to require lawyers to submit to and
proceedings as the said court may by its rules determine. (Emphasis supplied) pass on examination prescribed by it before they are allowed to practice before
said Patent Office, then there would be no reason why other bureaus specially the
Respondent Director concludes that Section 78 of Republic Act No. 165 being Bureau of Internal Revenue and Customs, where the business in the same area
similar to the provisions of law just reproduced, then he is authorized to prescribe are more or less complicated, such as the presentation of books of accounts,
the rules and regulations requiring that persons desiring to practice before him balance sheets, etc., assessments exemptions, depreciation, these as regards the
should submit to and pass an examination. We reproduce said Section 78, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the classification of goods, imposition of customs
Republic Act No. 165, for purposes of comparison: duties, seizures, confiscation, etc., as regards the Bureau of Customs, may not
also require that any lawyer practising before them or otherwise transacting
SEC. 78. Rules and regulations. The Director subject to the approval of the business with them on behalf of clients, shall first pass an examination to qualify.
Secretary of Justice, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations, not
inconsistent with law, for the conduct of all business in the Patent Office. In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar
authorized by this Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their
The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and by far, are different from the profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business in
provisions of the United States Patent Law as regards authority to hold said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and
examinations to determine the qualifications of those allowed to practice before the application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation
Patent Office. While the U.S. Patent Law authorizes the Commissioner of Patents of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent
to require attorneys to show that they possess the necessary qualifications and director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and
competence to render valuable service to and advise and assist their clients in decisions are, under the law, taken to the Supreme Court.
patent cases, which showing may take the form of a test or examination to be held
by the Commissioner, our Patent Law, Section 78, is silent on this important point. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for prohibition is granted and the respondent
Our attention has not been called to any express provision of our Patent Law, Director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to
giving such authority to determine the qualifications of persons allowed to practice submit to an examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted to
before the Patent Office. appear and practice before the Patent Office. No costs.

Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizes every chief of bureau to Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
prescribe forms and make regulations or general orders not inconsistent with law, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.
to secure the harmonious and efficient administration of his branch of the service
In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there had grown a strong
nationwide sentiment in favor of Bar integration, the Court created the Commission
on Bar Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of unifying the
Republic of the Philippines Philippine Bar.
SUPREME COURT
Manila In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled "An Act
Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds
EN BANC Therefor." The measure was signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on
September 17, 1971 and took effect on the same day as Rep. Act 6397. This law
provides as follows:

SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court
January 9, 1973 may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such
conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal profession,
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.
RESOLUTION
SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out of
any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the
purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the same
purpose shall be included in the annual appropriations for the Supreme Court.
PER CURIAM:
SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration 1 submitted its Report
dated November 30, 1972, with the "earnest recommendation" on the basis of The Report of the Commission abounds with argument on the constitutionality of
the said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. 526 2 of the Bar integration and contains all necessary factual data bearing on the advisability
Court, and "consistently with the views and counsel received from its [the (practicability and necessity) of Bar integration. Also embodied therein are the
Commission's] Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhelming nationwide views, opinions, sentiments, comments and observations of the rank and file of the
sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar" that "this Honorable Court ordain Philippine lawyer population relative to Bar integration, as well as a proposed
the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption and integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission and presented to them by that
promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule." body in a national Bar plebiscite. There is thus sufficient basis as well as ample
material upon which the Court may decide whether or not to integrate the
The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration Philippine Bar at this time.
of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible and
practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar associations. On August 16, The following are the pertinent issues:
1962, arguments in favor of as well as in opposition to the petition were orally
expounded before the Court. Written oppositions were admitted, 3 and all parties
were thereafter granted leave to file written memoranda. 4 (1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?

Since then, the Court has closely observed and followed significant developments (2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?
relative to the matter of the integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction.
(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time? (5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading,
practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public,
A resolution of these issues requires, at the outset, a statement of the meaning of and publish information relating thereto;
Bar integration. It will suffice, for this purpose, to adopt the concept given by the
Commission on Bar Integration on pages 3 to 5 of its Report, thus: (6) Encourage and foster legal education;

Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer (7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective
population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support (in law, and make reports and recommendations thereon; and
reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of
law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. (8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively.

The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Integration of the Bar will, among other things, make it possible for the legal
Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must include all profession to:
lawyers.

(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of Law;


Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with power to
do so: the State. Bar integration, therefore, signifies the setting up by Government
authority of a national organization of the legal profession based on the recognition (2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of tyrannical judges and
of the lawyer as an officer of the court. prosecuting officers;

Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice and the (3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the disciplining and/or removal
Rule of Law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers, and ensures, through of incompetent and unworthy judges and prosecuting officers;
their own organized action and participation, the promotion of the objectives of the
legal profession, pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with (4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself except within its own
minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court. forum, from the assaults that politics and self-interest may level at it, and assist it to
maintain its integrity, impartiality and independence;
The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:
(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and prosecuting officers;
(1) Assist in the administration of justice;
(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break up any monopoly of local
(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity, learning, practice maintained through influence or position;
professional competence, public service and conduct;
(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased lawyers;
(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid offices and set up lawyer
(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood; reference services throughout the country so that the poor may not lack competent
legal service;
(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that are difficult to obtain in Judicial Pronouncements.
many of our provinces;
In all cases where the validity of Bar integration measures has been put in issue,
(10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal education for practising the Courts have upheld their constitutionality.
attorneys in order to elevate the standards of the profession throughout the
country; The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:

(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate minimum fees schedules; Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.

(12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal research; The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover,
clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but
(13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal rights and obligations, also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation; and takes
on the importance of preventive legal advice, and on the functions and duties of the part in one of the most important functions of the State, the administration of
Filipino lawyer; and justice, as an officer of the court.

(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful country-wide involvement of Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is far and
the lawyer population in the solution of the multifarious problems that afflict the just that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the
nation. lawyer's public responsibilities.

Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective action;
in the exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to but there can be no collective action without an organized body; no organized body
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and can operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair and just that
the admission to the practice of law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent all attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such organized body; and,
part of the Court's constitutional authority over the Bar. In providing that "the given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of doing so is by integrating
Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the
Bar," Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's Integrated Bar.
inherent power, but is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar
will promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the standards of the 1. Freedom of Association.
legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility more effectively."
To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is not violative of his
constitutional freedom to associate (or the corollary right not to associate).
Resolution of the second issue whether the unification of the Bar would be
constitutional hinges on the effects of Bar integration on the lawyer's
constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech, and on the Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not
nature of the dues exacted from him. already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which
The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent discussion made by the every lawyer is already a member.
Commission on Bar Integration pages 44 to 49 of its Report:

Constitutionality of Bar Integration


Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to 3. Freedom of Speech.
attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to
vote in its elections as he chooses. The body compulsion to which he is subjected A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on any subject in any
is the payment of annual dues. manner he wishes, even though such views be opposed to positions taken by the
Unified Bar.
Otherwise stated, membership in the Unified Bar imposes only the duty to pay
dues in reasonable amount. The issue therefore, is a question of compelled For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote measures to which said
financial support of group activities, not involuntary membership in any other member is opposed, would not nullify or adversely affect his freedom of speech.
aspect.

Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to practice law upon
The greater part of Unified Bar activities serves the function of elevating the membership in the Integrated Bar, it is difficult to understand why it should become
educational and ethical standards of the Bar to the end of improving the quality of unconstitutional for the Bar to use the member's dues to fulfill the very purposes for
the legal service available to the people. The Supreme Court, in order to further the which it was established.
State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional services, may
require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the
subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers. The objection would make every Governmental exaction the material of a "free
speech" issue. Even the income tax would be suspect. The objection would carry
us to lengths that have never been dreamed of. The conscientious objector, if his
Assuming that Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be a member of the liberties were to be thus extended, might refuse to contribute taxes in furtherance
Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of of war or of any other end condemned by his conscience as irreligious or immoral.
the State. The legal profession has long been regarded as a proper subject of The right of private judgment has never yet been exalted above the powers and the
legislative regulation and control. Moreover, the inherent power of the Supreme compulsion of the agencies of Government.
Court to regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate the Bar.

4. Fair to All Lawyers.


2. Regulatory Fee.

Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising because although the
For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean that the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it will give the members of the
Court levies a tax. Bar a new system which they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper
work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed, and discharge
A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation, while the their public responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have been able to
purpose of a tax is revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it do in the past. Because the requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of
follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that regulatory power by the Court, because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young
purpose. It would not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar program and old, at the time Bar integration takes effect, and because it is a new regulation
without means to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied powers in exchange for new benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not unfair.
necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.
To resolve the third and final issue whether the Court should ordain the
The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the Bar is that the regulation integration of the Bar at this time requires a careful overview of the practicability
does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The public interest promoted by the and necessity as well as the advantages and disadvantages of Bar integration.
integration of the Bar far outweighs the inconsequential inconvenience to a
member that might result from his required payment of annual dues. In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the United States, Bar
integration has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved discipline among the
members of the Bar; (2) greater influence and ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar
and more meaningful participation of the individual lawyer in the activities of the Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly constitutional and
Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar facilities and services; (5) elimination of legally unobjectionable," within the context of contemporary conditions in the
unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance of costly membership campaigns; (7) Philippines, has become an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal
establishment of an official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession; and profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge
(9) better and more effective discharge by the Bar of its obligations and its public responsibility fully and effectively.
responsibilities to its members, to the courts, and to the public. No less than these
salutary consequences are envisioned and in fact expected from the unification of ACCORDINGLY, the Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of
the Philippine Bar. Article VIII of the Constitution, hereby ordains the integration of the Bar of the
Philippines in accordance with the attached COURT RULE, effective on January
Upon the other hand, it has been variously argued that in the event of integration, 16, 1973.
Government authority will dominate the Bar; local Bar associations will be
weakened; cliquism will be the inevitable result; effective lobbying will not be Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castillo, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
possible; the Bar will become an impersonal Bar; and politics will intrude into its Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
affairs.

Republic of the Philippines


It is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils prophesied by opponents of SUPREME COURT
Bar integration have failed to materialize in over fifty years of Bar integration Manila
experience in England, Canada and the United States. In all the jurisdictions where
the Integrated Bar has been tried, none of the abuses or evils feared has arisen; on
the other hand, it has restored public confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional EN BANC
consciousness, energized the Bar's responsibilities to the public, and vastly
improved the administration of justice.

How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar integration? The official A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975
statistics compiled by the Commission on Bar integration show that in the national
poll recently conducted by the Commission in the matter of the integration of the
Philippine Bar, of a total of 15,090 lawyers from all over the archipelago who have IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO, former Bar Confidant and Deputy Clerk of
turned in their individual responses, 14,555 (or 96.45 per cent) voted in favor of Bar Court, respondent.
integration, while only 378 (or 2.51 per cent) voted against it, and 157 (or 1.04 per
cent) are non-commital. In addition, a total of eighty (80) local Bar association and A.C. No. 1163 August 29, 1975
lawyers' groups all over the Philippines have submitted resolutions and other
expressions of unqualified endorsement and/or support for Bar integration, while
not a single local Bar association or lawyers' group has expressed opposed IN RE: RAMON E. GALANG, alias ROMAN E. GALANG, 1971 Bar
position thereto. Finally, of the 13,802 individual lawyers who cast their plebiscite Examinee, respondent.
ballots on the proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission, 12,855
(or 93.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof, 662 (or 4.80 per cent) vote against it, and A.M. No. 1164 August 29, 1975
285 (or 2.06 per cent) are non-committal. 5 All these clearly indicate an
overwhelming nationwide demand for Bar integration at this time. IN RE: HON. BERNARDO PARDO, HON. RAMON PAMATIAN, ATTY. MANUEL
TOMACRUZ, ATTY. FIDEL MANALO and ATTY. GUILLERMO PABLO, JR.,
The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the Members, 1971 Bar Examining Committee, respondent.
arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the
considered as 75% by virtue of a Court of 74.15%, which was considered as 75%
as the passing mark for the 1971 bar examinations.
MAKASIAR, J.:
Upon the direction of the Court, the 1971 Bar Examination Chairman requested
Administrative proceedings against Victorio D. Lanuevo for disbarment; Ramon Bar Confidant Victorio D. Lanuevo and the five (5) bar examiners concerned to
E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang for disbarment; Hon. Bernardo Pardo, Hon. submit their sworn statements on the matter, with which request they complied.
Ramon Pamatian, Atty. Manuel C. Tomacruz; Atty. Manuel G. Montecillo, Atty. Fidel
Manalo and Atty. Guillermo Pablo, Jr. for disciplinary action for their acts and In his sworn statement dated April 12, 1972, said Bar Confidant admitted having
omissions during the 1971 Bar Examinations. brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang, alias Ramon E.
Galang, back to the respective examiners for re-evaluation and/or re-checking,
In his request dated March 29, 1972 contained in a confidential letter to the Court stating the circumstances under which the same was done and his reasons for
for re-correction and re-evaluation of his answer to the 1971 Bar Examinations doing the same.
question, Oscar Landicho who flunked in the 1971, 1968 and 1967 Bar
Examinations with a grade of 70.5%, 65.35% and 67.55%, respectively invited Each of the five (5) examiners in his individual sworn statement admitted having re-
the attention of the Court to "The starling fact that the grade in one examination evaluated and/or re-checked the notebook involved pertaining to his subject upon
(Civil Law) of at least one bar candidate was raised for one reason or another, the representation to him by Bar Confidant Lanuevo that he has the authority to do
before the bar results were released this year" (Confidential Letter, p. 2. Vol. I, the same and that the examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject
rec.). This was confirmed, according to him, by the Civil Law Examiner himself and/or was on the borderline of passing.
(Hon. Ramon C. Pamatian) as well as by Bar Confidant Victorio D. Lanuevo. He
further therein stated "that there are strong reasons to believe that the grades in Finding a prima facie case against the respondents warranting a formal
other examination notebooks in other subjects also underwent alternations to investigation, the Court required, in a resolution dated March 5, 1973, Bar
raise the grades prior to the release of the results. Note that this was without Confidant Victorio Lanuevo "to show cause within ten (10) days from noticewhy his
any formal motion or request from the proper parties, i.e., the bar candidates name should not be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys" (Adm. Case No. 1162, p.
concerned. If the examiners concerned reconsidered their grades without formal 34, rec.). Considering that the re-evaluation of the examination papers of Ramon
motion, there is no reason why they may not do so now when proper request E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, was unauthorized, and therefore he did not
answer motion therefor is made. It would be contrary to due process postulates. obtain a passing average in the 1971 bar examinations, the Court likewise resolved
Might not one say that some candidates got unfair and unjust treatment, for their on March 5, 1971 to requires him "to show cause within ten (10) days from
grades were not asked to be reconsidered 'unofficially'? Why the discrimination? notice why his name should not be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys" (Adm. Case
Does this not afford sufficient reason for the Court en banc to go into these matters No. 1163, p. 99, rec.). The five examiners concerned were also required by the
by its conceded power to ultimately decide the matter of admission to the bar?" (p. Court "to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why no disciplinary action
2, Confidential Letter, Vol. I, rec.). should be taken against them" (Adm. Case No. 1164, p. 31, rec.).

Acting on the aforesaid confidential letter, the Court checked the records of the Respondent Tomacruz filed his answer on March 12, 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1164,
1971 Bar Examinations and found that the grades in five subjects Political Law p. 70, rec.). while respondents Pardo, Pamatian, Montecillo, Manalo and Lanuevo
and Public International Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law and filed theirs on March 19, 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1162, pp. 60-63, 32-35, 40-41, 36-
Remedial Law of a successful bar candidate with office code No. 954 underwent 39 and 35-38, rec.). At the hearing on August 27, 1973, respondent Lanuevo filed
some changes which, however, were duly initialed and authenticated by the another sworn statement in addition to, and in amplication of, his answer filed on
respective examiner concerned. Further check of the records revealed that the bar March 19, 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1162, pp. 45-47, rec.). Respondent Galang filed
candidate with office code No. 954 is one Ramon E. Galang, a perennial bar his unverified answer on March 16, 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1163, pp. 100-104, rec.).
candidate, who flunked in the 1969, 1966, 1964, 1963, and 1962 bar examinations He was required by the Court to verify the same and complaince came on May 18,
with a grade of 67.55%, 68.65%, 72.75%, 68.2%, 56.45% and 57.3%, respectively. 1973 (Adm. Case No. 1163, pp. 106-110,) rec.).
He passed in the 1971 bar examinations with a grade of 74.15%, which was
In the course of the investigation, it was found that it was not respondent Bernardo At the joint investigation, all respondents, except respondent Pablo, who offered as
Pardo who re-evaluated and/or re-checked examination booklet with Office Code evidence only his oral testimony, submitted as their direct evidence only his oral
No. 954 in Political Law and Public International Law of examinee Ramon Galang, testimony, submitted as their direct evidence the affidavits and answers earlier
alias Roman E. Galang, but Guillermo Pablo, Jr., examiner in Legal Ethics and submitted by them to the Court. The same became the basis for their cross-
Practical Exercise, who was asked to help in the correction of a number of examination.
examination notebooks in Political Law and Public International Law to meet the
deadline for submission (pp. 17-24, Vol. V, rec.). Because of this development, Atty. In their individual sworn statements and answer, which they offered as their direct
Guillermo Pablo, Jr. was likewise included as respondent in Administrative Case testimony in the investigation conducted by the Court, the respondent-examiners
No. 1164. Hon. Bernardo Pardo remainded as a respondent for it was also recounted the circumstances under which they re-evaluated and/or re-checked the
discovered that another paper in Political Law and Public International Law also examination notebooks in question.
underwent re-evaluation and/or re-checking. This notebook with Office Code No.
1662 turned out to be owned by another successful candidate by the name
of Ernesto Quitaleg. Further investigation resulted in the discovery of another re- In His affidavit dated April 11, 1972, respondent Judge (later Associate Justice of
evaluation and/or re-checking of a notebook in the subject of Mercantile Law the Court of Appeals) Ramon C. Pamatian, examiner in Civil Law, affirmed:
resulting in the change of the grade from 4% to 50% This notebook bearing Office
Code No. 110 is owned by another successful candidate by the name of Alfredo Ty 2. That one evening sometime in December last year, while I was correcting the
dela Cruz. Quitaleg and Ty dela Cruz and the latter's father were summoned to examination notebooks, Atty. Lanuevo, Bar Confidant, explained to me that it is the
testify in the investigation. practice and the policy in bar examinations that he (Atty. Lanuevo) make a review
of the grades obtained in all subjects and if he finds that candidate obtained an
An investigation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation upon request of extraordinary high grade in one subject and a rather low one in another, he will
the Chairman of the 1971 Bar Examination Committee as Investigation Officer, bring back the latter to the examiner concerned for re-evaluation and change of
showed that one Romy Galang y Esguerra, alias Ramon E. Galang, a student in grade;
the School of Law of Manuel L. Quezon University, was, on September 8, 1959,
charged with the crime of slight physical injuries in the Municipal Court of Manila 3. That sometime in the latter part of January of this year, he brought back to me
committed on Eufrosino F. de Vera, another student of the same university. an examination booklet in Civil Law for re-evaluation, because according to him
Confronted with this information at the hearing of August 13, 1973 (Vol. V, pp. 20- the owner of the paper is on the borderline and if I could reconsider his grade to
21, 32, rec.), respondent Galang declared that he does not remember having been 75% the candidate concerned will get passing mark;
charged with the crime of slight physical injuries in that case. (Vol. VI, pp. 45-60,
rec.).
4. That taking his word for it and under the belief that it was really the practice and
policy of the Supreme Court to do so in the further belief that I was just manifesting
Respondent Galang, in all his application to take the bar examinations, did not cooperation in doing so, I re-evaluated the paper and reconsidered the grade to
make mention of this fact which he is required under the rules to do. 75%;

The joint investigation of all the cases commenced on July 17, 1973 and was 5. That only one notebook in Civil Law was brought back to me for such re-
terminated on October 2, 1973. Thereafter, parties-respondents were required to evaluation and upon verifying my files I found that the notebook is numbered '95;
submit their memoranda. Respondents Lanuevo, Galang and Pardo submitted
their respective memorandum on November 14, 1973.
6. That the original grade was 64% and my re-evaluation of the answers were
based on the same standard used in the correction and evaluation of all others;
Before the joint hearing commenced, Oscar Landicho took up permanent thus, Nos. 3 and 4 with original grades of 7% each was reconsidered to 10%; No. 5
residence in Australia, where he is believed to be gainfully employed. Hence, he with 4% to 5%; No. 7 with 3% to 5%; and No. 8 with 8% to 10% (emphasis
was not summoned to testify. supplied).
His answer dated March 19, 1973 substantially reiterated his allegations in his April Then Assistant Solicitor General, now CFI Judge, Bernardo Pardo, examiner in
11, 1972 affidavit with following additional statements: Political Law and Public International Law, confirmed in his affidavit of April 8, 1972
that:
xxx xxx xxx
On a day or two after the Bar Confidant went to my residence to obtain from me
3. ... However the grades in Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10, were not reconsidered as it is the last bag of two hundred notebooks (bearing examiner's code numbers 1200 to
no longer to make the reconsideration of these answers because of the same 1400) which according to my record was on February 5, 1972, he came to my
evaluation and standard; hence, Nos. 1, 2 and 10 remainded at 5% and Nos. 6 and residence at about 7:30 p.m. riding in a Vokswagen panel of the Supreme Court,
9 at 10%; with at least two companions. The bar confidant had with him an examinee's
notebook bearing code number 661, and, after the usual amenties, he requested
me if it was possible for me to review and re-examine the said notebook because it
4. That at the time I made the reconsideration of examination booklet No. 951 I did appears that the examinee obtained a grade of 57, whereas, according to the Bar
not know the identity of its owner until I received this resolution of the Honorable Confidant, the said examinee had obtained higher grades in other subjects, the
Supreme Court nor the identities of the examiners in other subjects; highest of which was 84, if I recall correctly, in remedial law.

5. That the above re-evaluation was made in good faith and under the belief that I I asked the Bar Confidant if I was allowed to receive or re-examinee the notebook
am authorized to do so in view of the misrepresentation of said Atty. Lanuevo, as I had submitted the same beforehand, and he told me that I was authorized to
based on the following circumstances: do so because the same was still within my control and authority as long as the
particular examinee's name had not been identified or that the code number
a) Since I started correcting the papers on or about October 16, 1971, relationship decode and the examinee's name was revealed. The Bar Confidant told me that
between Atty. Lanuevo and myself had developed to the point that with respect to the name of the examinee in the case present bearing code number 661 had not
the correction of the examination booklets of bar candidates I have always followed been identified or revealed; and that it might have been possible that I had given a
him and considered his instructions as reflecting the rules and policy of the particularly low grade to said examinee.
Honorable Supreme Court with respect to the same; that I have no alternative but
to take his words; Accepting at face value the truth of the Bar Confidant's representations to me, and
as it was humanly possible that I might have erred in the grading of the said
b) That considering this relationship and considering his misrepresentation to me notebook, I re-examined the same, carefully read the answer, and graded it in
as reflecting the real and policy of the Honorable Supreme Court, I did not bother accordance with the same standards I had used throughout the grading of the
any more to get the consent and permission of the Chairman of the Bar entire notebooks, with the result that the examinee deserved an increased grade of
Committee. Besides, at that time, I was isolating myself from all members of the 66. After again clearing with the Bar Confidant my authority to correct the grades,
Supreme Court and specially the chairman of the Bar Committee for fear that I and as he had assured me that the code number of the examinee in question had
might be identified as a bar examiner; not been decoded and his name known, ... I therefore corrected the total grade in
the notebook and the grade card attached thereto, and properly initia(l)ed the
same. I also corrected the itemized grades (from item No. 1 to item No. 10) on the
xxx xxx xxx two sets of grading sheets, my personal copy thereof, and the Bar Confidant
brought with him the other copy thereof, and the Bar Confidant brought with him
e) That no consideration whatsoever has been received by me in return for such the other copy the grading sheet" (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 58-59; rec.; emphasis
recorrection, and as proof of it, I declined to consider and evaluate one booklet in supplied)
Remedial Law aforesaid because I was not the one who made the original
correction of the same (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 32-35, rec.; emphasis supplied). In his answer dated March 17, 1973 which he denominated as "Explanation",
respondent Bernardo P. Pardo adopted and replaced therein by reference the facts
stated in his earlier sworn statement and in additional alleged that:
xxx xxx xxx points, resulting in a final grade of 66%. Still, the examinee did not pass the
subject, and, as heretofore stated, my aim was not to make the examinee pass,
3. At the time I reviewed the examinee's notebook in political and international notwithstanding the representation that he had passed the other subjects. ...
law, code numbered 661, I did know the name of the examinee. In fact, I came to
know his name only upon receipt of the resolution of March 5, 1973; now knowing 9. I quite recall that during the first meeting of the Bar Examiners' Committee
his name, I wish to state that I do not know him personally, and that I have never consensus was that where an examinee failed in only one subject and passed the
met him even up to the present; rest, the examiner in said subject would review the notebook. Nobody objected to it
as irregular. At the time of the Committee's first meeting, we still did not know the
4. At that time, I acted under the impression that I was authorized to make such names of the candidates.
review, and had repeatedly asked the Bar Confidant whether I was authorized to
make such revision and was so assured of my authority as the name of the 10. In fine, I was a victim of deception, not a party to it. It had absolutely no
examinee had not yet been decoded or his identity revealed. The Bar Confidant's knowledge of the motives of the Bar Confidant or his malfeasance in office, and did
assurance was apparently regular and so appeared to be in the regular course of not know the examinee concerned nor had I any kind of contract with him before or
express prohibition in the rules and guidelines given to me as an examiner, and the rather the review and even up to the present (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 60-63; rec.;
Bar Confidant was my official liaison with the Chairman, as, unless called, I emphasis supplied).
refrained as much as possible from frequent personal contact with the Chairman
lest I be identified as an examiner. ...; Atty. Manuel Tomacruz, examiner in Criminal Law, affirmed in his affidavit dated
April 12, 1972:
5. At the time the Bar Confidant came to see me at about 7:30 o'clock in the
evening at my residence, I felt it inappropriate to verify his authority with the 1. xxx xxx xxx
Chairman. It did not appear to me that his representations were unauthorized or
suspicious. Indeed, the Bar Confidant was riding in the official vehicle of the
Supreme Court, a Volkswagen panel, accompanied by two companions, which was 2. That about weekly, the Bar Confidant would deliver and collect examination
usual, and thus looked like a regular visit to me of the Bar Confidant, as it was books to my residence at 951 Luna Mencias, Mandaluyong, Rizal.
about the same hour that he used to see me:
3. That towards the end when I had already completed correction of the books in
xxx xxx xxx Criminal Law and was helping in the correction of some of the papers in another
subject, the Bar Confidant brought back to me one (1) paper in Criminal Law
saying that that particular examinee had missed the passing grade by only a
7. Indeed, the notebook code numbered 661 was still in the same condition as fraction of a percent and that if his paper in Criminal Law would be raised a few
when I submitted the same. In agreeing to review the said notebook code points to 75% then he would make the general passing average.
numbered 661, my aim was to see if I committed an error in the correction, not to
make the examinee pass the subject. I considered it entirely humanly possible to
have erred, because I corrected that particular notebook on December 31, 4. That seeing the jurisdiction, I raised the grade to 75%, that is, giving a raise of, if
1971, considering especially the representation of the Bar Confidant that the said I remember correctly, 2 or 3 points, initialled the revised mark and revised also the
examinee had obtained higher grades in other subjects, the highest of which was mark and revised also the mark in the general list.
84% in remedial law, if I recall correctly. Of course, it did not strike me as unusual
that the Bar Confidant knew the grades of the examinee in the position to know 5. That I do not recall the number of the book of the examinee concerned" (Adm.
and that there was nothing irregular in that: Case No. 1164, p. 69, rec.; emphasis supplied).

8. In political and international law, the original grade obtained by the examinee In his answer dated March 12, 1973, respondent Tomacruz stated that "I accepted
with notebook code numbered 661 was 57%. After review, it was increased by 9 the word of the Bar Confidant in good faith and without the slightest inkling as to
the identity of the examinee in question who up to now remains a total stranger and 5. In agreeing to re-evaluate the notebook, with resulted in increasing the total
without expectation of nor did I derive any personal benefit" (Adm. Case No. 1164, grade of the examinee-concerned in Remedial Law from 63.75% to 74.5%, herein
p. 70, rec.; emphasis supplied). respondent acted in good faith. It may well be that he could be faulted for not
having verified from the Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners the
Atty. Fidel Manalo, examiner in Remedial Law, stated in his affidavit dated April 14, legitimacy of the request made by Mr. Lanuevo. Herein respondent, however,
1972, that: pleads in attenuation of such omission, that

xxx xxx xxx a) Having been appointed an Examiner for the first time, he was not aware, not
having been apprised otherwise, that it was not within the authority of the Bar
Confidant of the Supreme Court to request or suggest that the grade of a particular
2. Sometime about the late part of January or early part of February 1972, Attorney examination notebook be revised or reconsidered. He had every right to presume,
Lanuevo, Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court, saw me in my house at No. 1854 owing to the highly fiduciary nature of the position of the Bar Confidant, that the
Asuncion Street, Makati, Rizal. He produced to me an examinee's notebook in request was legitimate.
Remedial Law which I had previously graded and submitted to him. He informed
me that he and others (he used the words "we") had reviewed the said notebook.
He requested me to review the said notebook and possibly reconsider the grade xxx xxx xxx
that I had previously given. He explained that the examine concerned had done
well in other subjects, but that because of the comparatively low grade that I had c) In revising the grade of the particular examinee concerned, herein respondent
given him in Remedial Law his general average was short of passing. Mr. Lanuevo carefully evaluated each and every answer written in the notebook. Testing the
remarked that he thought that if the paper were reviewed I might find the examinee answers by the criteria laid down by the Court, and giving the said examinee the
deserving of being admitted to the Bar. As far as I can recall, Mr. Lanuevo benefit of doubt in view of Mr. Lanuevo's representation that it was only in that
particularly called my attention to the fact in his answers the examinee expressed particular subject that the said examine failed, herein respondent became
himself clearly and in good enough English. Mr. Lanuevo however informed me convinced that the said examinee deserved a higher grade than that previously
that whether I would reconsider the grades I had previously given and submitted given to him, but that he did not deserve, in herein respondent's honest appraisal,
was entirely within my discretion. to be given the passing grade of 75%. It should also be mentioned that, in
reappraising the answers, herein respondent downgraded a previous rating of an
3. Believing fully that it was within Mr. Lanuevo's authority as Bar Confidant to answer written by the examinee, from 9.25% to 9% (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 36-
address such a request to me and that the said request was in order, I, in the 39, rec.; emphasis supplied).
presence of Mr. Lanuevo, proceeded tore-read and re-evaluate each and every
item of the paper in question. I recall that in my re-evaluation of the answers, I Atty. Manuel Montecillo, examiner in Mercantile Law, affirmed in his affidavit dated
increased the grades in some items, made deductions in other items, and April 17, 1972:
maintained the same grades in other items. However, I recall that after Mr.
Lanuevo and I had totalled the new grades that I had given after re-evaluation, the xxx xxx xxx
total grade increased by a few points, but still short of the passing mark of 75% in
my subject.
That during one of the deliberations of the Bar Examiners' Committee after the Bar
Examinations were held, I was informed that one Bar examinee passed all other
xxx xxx xxx (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 74-75, rec.; emphasis supplied). subjects except Mercantile Law;

In his answer (response) dated March 18, 1973, respondent Manalo reiterated the That I informed the Bar Examiners' Committee that I would be willing to re-evaluate
contents of his sworn statement, adding the following: the paper of this particular Bar candidate;.

xxx xxx xxx


That the next day, the Bar Confidant handed to me a Bar candidate's notebook I took it upon myself to bring them back to the respective examiners for re-
(No. 1613) showing a grade of 61%; evaluation and/or re-checking.

That I reviewed the whole paper and after re-evaluating the answers of this It is our experience in the Bar Division that immediately after the release of the
particular Bar candidate I decided to increase his final grade to 71%; results of the examinations, we are usually swarmed with requests of the
examinees that they be shown their notebooks. Many of them would copy their
That consequently, I amended my report and duly initialed the changes in the answers and have them checked by their professors. Eventually some of them
grade sheet (Adm. Case No. 1164, p. 72, rec.; emphasis supplied). would file motions or requests for re-correction and/or re-evaluation. Right now, we
have some 19 of such motions or requests which we are reading for submission to
the Honorable Court.
In his answer dated March 19, 1973, respondent Montecillo restated the contents
of his sworn statement of April 17, 1972, and
Often we feel that a few of them are meritorious, but just the same they have to be
denied because the result of the examinations when released is final and
xxx xxx xxx irrevocable.

2. Supplementary to the foregoing sworn statement, I hereby state that I re- It was to at least minimize the occurrence of such instances that motivated me to
evaluated the examination notebook of Bar Candidate No. 1613 in Mercantile bring those notebooks back to the respective examiners for re-evaluation" (Adm.
Law in absolute good faith and in direct compliance with the agreement made Case No. 1162, p. 24, rec.; emphasis supplied).
during one of the deliberations of the Bar Examiners Committee that where a
candidate fails in only one subject, the Examiner concerned should make a re-
evaluation of the answers of the candidate concerned, which I did. In his answer dated March 19, 1973, respondent Lanuevo avers:

3. Finally, I hereby state that I did not know at the time I made the aforementioned That he submitted the notebooks in question to the examiners concerned in his
re-evaluation that notebook No. 1613 in Mercantile Law pertained to bar examine hotest belief that the same merited re-evaluation; that in so doing, it was not his
Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, and that I have never met up to this intention to forsake or betray the trust reposed in him as bar confidant but on the
time this particular bar examinee (Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 40-41, rec.; emphasis contrary to do justice to the examinee concerned; that neither did he act in a
supplied). presumptuous manner, because the matter of whether or not re-evaluation was
inorder was left alone to the examiners' decision; and that, to his knowledge, he
does not remember having made the alleged misrepresentation but that he
In his sworn statement dated April 12, 1972, Bar Confidant Lanuevo stated: remembers having brought to the attention of the Committee during the meeting a
matter concerning another examinee who obtained a passing general average but
xxx xxx xxx with a grade below 50% in Mercantile Law. As the Committee agreed to remove
the disqualification by way of raising the grade in said subject, respondent brought
the notebook in question to the Examiner concerned who thereby raised the grade
As I was going over those notebooks, checking the entries in the grading sheets thus enabling the said examinee to pass. If he remembers right, the examinee
and the posting on the record of ratings, I was impressed of the writing and the concerned is one surnamed "de la Cruz" or "Ty-de la Cruz".
answers on the first notebook. This led me to scrutinize all the set of notebooks.
Believing that those five merited re-evalation on the basis of the memorandum
circularized to the examiners shortly earlier to the effect that Your Honors, respondent never entertained a notion that his act would stir such
serious charges as would tend to undermine his integrity because he did it in all
good faith.
... in the correction of the papers, substantial weight should then be given to clarify
of language and soundness of reasoning' (par. 4),
xxx xxx xxx (Adm. Case No. 1162, p. 35, rec.; emphasis supplied).
On August 27, 1973, during the course of the investigation, respondent Lanuevo Exh. 5-a Lanuevo; 1969 Master List as Exh. 6-Lanuevo and the figure "227" at the
filed another sworn statement in addition to, and in amplification of, his answer, beginning of the list, as Exh. 6-a-Lanuevo; 1970 Master List as Exh. 7-Lanuevo
stating: and the figure "227" at the beginning of the list as Exh. 7-a-Lanuevo; and the 1971
Master List as Exh. 8-Lanuevo and the figure "227" at the end of the list as Exh. 8-
xxx xxx xxx a-Lanuevo).

1. That I vehemently deny having deceived the examiners concerned into believing The significance to me of this number (27) was born out of these incidents in my
that the examinee involved failed only in their respective subjects, the fact of the life, to wit: (a) On November 27, 1941 while with the Philippine Army stationed at
matter being that the notebooks in question were submitted to the respective Camp Manacnac, Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, I was stricken with pneumonia and
examiners for re-evaluation believing in all good faith that they so merited on the was hospitalized at the Nueva Ecija Provincial Hospital as a result. As will be
basis of the Confidential Memorandum (identified and marked as Exh. 1-Lanuevo, recalled, the last Pacific War broke out on December 8, 1941. While I was still
particularly that portion marked as Exh. 1-a-Lanuevo)which was circulated to all the confined at the hospital, our camp was bombed and strafed by Japanese planes on
examiners earlier, leaving to them entirely the matter of whether or not re- December 13, 1941 resulting in many casualties. From then on, I regarded
evaluation was in order, November 27, 1941 as the beginning of a new life for me having been saved from
the possibility of being among the casualties;(b) On February 27, 1946, I was able
to get out of the army byway of honorable discharge; and (c) on February 27, 1947,
2. That the following coincidence prompted me to pry into the notebooks in I got married and since then we begot children the youngest of whom was born on
question: February 27, 1957.

Sometime during the latter part of January and the early part of February, 1972, on Returning to the office that same afternoon after buying the ticket, I resumed my
my way back to the office (Bar Division) after lunch, I though of buying a work which at the time was on the checking of the notebooks. While thus checking,
sweepstake ticket. I have always made it a point that the moment I think of so I came upon the notebooks bearing the office code number "954". As the number
buying, I pick a number from any object and the first number that comes into my was still fresh in my mind, it aroused my curiosity prompting me to pry into the
sight becomes the basis of the ticket that I buy. At that moment, the first number contents of the notebooks. Impressed by the clarity of the writing and language and
that I saw was "954" boldly printed on an electrical contribance (evidently the apparent soundness of the answers and, thereby, believing in all good faith on
belonging to the MERALCO) attached to a post standing along the right sidewalk of the basis of the aforementioned Confidential Memorandum (Exh. 1-Lanuevo and
P. Faura street towards the Supreme Court building from San Marcelino street and Exh. 1-a-Lanuevo) that they merited re-evaluation, I set them aside and later on
almost adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the fence of the Araullo High took them back to the respective examiners for possible review recalling to them
School(photograph of the number '954', the contrivance on which it is printed and a the said Confidential Memorandum but leaving absolutely the matter to their
portion of the post to which it is attached is identified and marked as Exhibit 4- discretion and judgment.
Lanuevo and the number "954" as Exh. 4-a-Lanuevo).
3. That the alleged misrepresentation or deception could have reference to either
With this number (954) in mind, I proceeded to Plaza Sta. Cruz to look for a ticket of the two cases which I brought to the attention of the committee during the
that would contain such number. Eventually, I found a ticket, which I then bought, meeting and which the Committee agreed to refer back to the respective examines,
whose last three digits corresponded to "954". This number became doubly namely:
impressive to me because the sum of all the six digits of the ticket number was
"27", a number that is so significant to me that everything I do I try somewhat
instinctively to link or connect it with said number whenever possible. Thus even in (a) That of an examinee who obtained a passing general average but with a grade
assigning code numbers on the Master List of examinees from 1968 when I first below 50% (47%) in Mercantile Law(the notebooks of this examinee bear the
took charge of the examinations as Bar Confidant up to 1971, I either started with Office Code No. 110, identified and marked as Exh. 9-Lanuevo and the notebook in
the number "27" (or "227") or end with said number. (1968 Master List is identified Mercantile Law bearing the Examiner's Code No. 951 with the original grade of 4%
and marked as Exh. 5-Lanuevo and the figure "27" at the beginning of the list, as increased to 50% after re-evaluation as Exh. 9-a-Lanuevo); and
(b) That of an examinee who obtained a borderline general average of 73.15% with 4. That it has been the consistent policy of the Supreme Court not to reconsider
a grade below 60% (57%) in one subject which, at the time, I could not pinpoint "failure" cases; after the official release thereof; why should it now reconsider a
having inadvertently left in the office the data thereon. It turned out that the subject "passing" case, especially in a situation where the respondent and the bar
was Political and International Law under Asst. Solicitor General Bernardo Pardo confidant do not know each other and, indeed, met only once in the ordinary
(The notebooks of this examinee bear the Office Code No. 1622 identified and course of official business?
marked as Exh. 10-Lanuevo and the notebook in Political and International Law
bearing the Examiner's Code No. 661 with the original grade of 57% increased to It is not inevitable, then, to conclude that the entire situation clearly manifests a
66% after re-evaluation, as Exh. 10-a-Lanuevo). This notebook in Political and reasonable doubt to which respondent is richly entitled?
International Law is precisely the same notebook mentioned in the sworn
statement of Asst. Solicitor General Bernardo Pardo(Exh. ------- Pardo).
5. That respondent, before reading a copy of this Honorable Court's resolution
dated March 5, 1973, had no knowledge whatsoever of former Bar Confidant
4. That in each of the two cases mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, only Victorio Lanuevo's actuations which are stated in particular in the resolution. In
one (1) subject or notebook was reviewed or re-evaluated, that is, only Mercantile fact, the respondent never knew this man intimately nor, had the herein respondent
Law in the former; and only Political and International Law in the latter, under the utilized anyone to contact the Bar Confidant Lanuevo in his behalf.
facts and circumstances I made known to the Committee and pursuant to which
the Committee authorized the referral of the notebooks involved to the examiners
concerned; But, assuming as true, the said actuations of Bar Confidant Lanuevo as stated in
the Resolution, which are evidently purported to show as having redounded to the
benefit of herein respondent, these questions arise: First, was the re-evaluation of
5. That at that juncture, the examiner in Taxation even volunteered to review or re- Respondent's examination papers by the Bar Examination Committee done only or
check some 19, or so, notebooks in his subject but that I told the Committee that especially for him and not done generally as regards the paper of the other bar
there was very little time left and that the increase in grade after re-evaluation, candidates who are supposed to have failed? If the re-evaluation of Respondent's
unless very highly substantial, may not alter the outcome since the subject carries grades was done among those of others, then it must have been done as a matter
the weight of only 10% (Adm. Case No. 1162, pp. 45-47, rec.). of policy of the Committee to increase the percentage of passing in that year's
examination and, therefore, the insinuation that only respondent's papers were re-
The foregoing last-minute embellishment only serves to accentuate the fact that evaluated upon the influence of Bar Confidant Lanuevo would be unjustifiable, if
Lanuevo's story is devoid of truth. In his sworn statement of April 12, 1972, he was not far fetched. Secondly, is the fact that BarConfidant Lanuevo's actuations
"led to scrutinize all the set of notebooks" of respondent Galang, because he "was resulted in herein Respondent's benefit an evidence per se of Respondent's having
impressed of the writing and the answers on the first notebook "as he "was going caused actuations of Bar confidant Lanuevo to be done in former's behalf? To
over those notebooks, checking the entries in the grading sheets and the posting assume this could be disastrous in effect because that would be presuming all the
on the record of ratings." In his affidavit of August 27, 1973, he stated that the members of the Bar Examination Committee as devoid of integrity, unfit for the bar
number 954 on a Meralco post provoked him "to pry into the contents of the themselves and the result of their work that year, as also unworthy of anything. All
notebooks" of respondent Galang "bearing office code number '954." of these inferences are deductible from the narration of facts in the resolution, and
which only goes to show said narration of facts an unworthy of credence, or
Respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, asserted, among others; consideration.

1. That herein respondent is not acquainted with former BarConfidant Victorio xxx xxx xxx
Lanuevo and never met him before except once when, as required by the latter
respondent submitted certain papers necessary for taking the bar examinations. 7. This Honorable Tribunal's Resolution of March 5, 1973 would make this
Respondent Account or answer for the actuations of Bar Confidant Lanuevo as well
xxx xxx xxx as for the actuations of the Bar Examiners implying the existence of some
conspiracy between them and the Respondent. The evident imputation is denied
and it is contended that the Bar Examiners were in the performance of their duties Before Justice Pamatian made the revision, Examinee Galang failed in seven
and that they should be regarded as such in the consideration of this case. subjects including Civil Law. After such revision, examinee Galang still failed in six
subjects and could not obtain the passing average of 75% for admission to the Bar.
xxx xxx xxx (Adm. Case No. 1163, pp. 100-104, rec.).
Thereafter, about the latter part of January, 1972 or early part of February, 1972,
I respondent Lanuevo went to the residence of respondent-examiner Fidel Manalo
at 1854 Asuncion Street, Makati, Rizal, with an examinee's notebook in Remedial
Law, which respondent Manalo and previously corrected and graded. Respondent
The evidence thus disclosed clearly demonstrates how respondent Lanuevo Lanuevo then requested respondent Manalo to review the said notebook and
systematically and cleverly initiated and prepared the stage leading to the re- possibly to reconsider the grade given, explaining and representing that "they" has
evalation and/or recorrection of the answers of respondent Galang by deceiving reviewed the said notebook and that the examinee concerned had done well in
separately and individually the respondents-examiners to make the desired other subjects, but that because of the comparatively low grade given said
revision without prior authority from the Supreme Court after the corrected examinee by respondent Manalo in Remedial Law, the general average of said
notebooks had been submitted to the Court through the respondent Bar Confidant, examinee was short of passing. Respondent Lanuevo likewise made the remark
who is simply the custodian thereof for and in behalf of the Court. and observation that he thought that if the notebook were reviewed, respondent
Manalo might yet find the examinee deserving of being admitted to the Bar.
It appears that one evening, sometime around the middle part of December, 1971, Respondent Lanuevo also particularly called the attention of respondent Manalo to
just before Christmas day, respondent Lanuevo approached Civil Law examiner the fact that in his answers, the examinee expressed himself clearly and in good
Pamatian while the latter was in the process of correcting examination booklets, English. Furthermore, respondent Lanuevo called the attention of respondent
and then and there made the representations that as BarConfidant, he makes a Manalo to Paragraph 4 of the Confidential Memorandum that read as follows:
review of the grades obtained in all subjects of the examinees and if he finds that a
candidate obtains an extraordinarily high grade in one subject and a rather low one 4. Examination questions should be more a test of logic, knowledge of legal
on another, he will bring back to the examiner concerned the notebook for re- fundamentals, and ability to analyze and solve legal problems rather than a test of
evaluation and change of grade(Exh. 2-Pamatian, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 55-56; memory; in the correction of papers, substantial weight should be given to clarify of
Vol. V, pp. 3-4, rec.). language and soundness of reasoning.

Sometime in the latter part of January, 1972, respondent Lanuevo brought back to Respondent Manalo was, however, informed by respondent Lanuevo that the
respondent-examiner Pamatian an examination booklet in Civil Law for re- matter of reconsideration was entirely within his (Manalo's) discretion. Respondent
evaluation, representing that the examinee who owned the particular notebook is Manalo, believing that respondent Lanuevo, as Bar Confidant, had the authority to
on the borderline of passing and if his grade in said subject could be reconsidered make such request and further believing that such request was in order, proceeded
to 75%, the said examine will get a passing average. Respondent-examiner to re-evaluate the examinee's answers in the presence of Lanuevo, resulting in an
Pamatian took respondent Lanuevo's word and under the belief that was really the increase of the examinee's grade in that particular subject, Remedial Law, from
practice and policy of the Supreme Court and in his further belief that he was just 63.25% to 74.5%. Respondent Manalo authenticated with his signature the
manifesting cooperation in doing so, he re-evaluated the paper and reconsidered changes made by him in the notebook and in the grading sheet. The said notebook
the examinee's grade in said subject to 75% from 64%. The particular notebook examiner's code number is 136, instead of 310 as earlier mentioned by him in his
belonged to an examinee with Examiner's Code Number 95 and with Office Code affidavit, and belonged to Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang (Exhs. 1 & 2-
Number 954. This examinee is Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang. Manalo, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 36-39, 74-75; Vol. V, pp. 50-53, rec.).
Respondent Pamatian did not know the identity of the examinee at the time he re-
evaluated the said booklet (Exhs. 1-Pamatian, 2-Pamatian, and 3-Pamatian, Adm.
Case No. 1164, pp. 32-33, 55-56, 57; Vol. V, pp. 3-4, rec.). But even after the re-evaluation by Atty. Manalo, Examinee Galang could not make
the passing grade due to his failing marks in five subjects.
Likewise, in the latter part of January, 1972, on one occasion when respondent evaluation; but he remembers Lanuevo declaring to him that where a candidate
Lanuevo went to deliver to respondent Guillermo Pablo, Jr. in the latter's house a had almost made the passing average but had failed in one subject, as a matter of
new batch of examination papers in Political Law and Public International Law to policy of the Court, leniency is applied in reviewing the examinee's notebook in the
be corrected, respondent Lanuevo brought out a notebook in Political Law failing subject. He recalls, however, that he was provided a copy of the Confidential
bearingExaminer's Code Number 1752 (Exh. 5-Pardo, Adm. Case No. 1164, p. 66, Memorandum but this was long before the re-evaluation requested by respondent
rec.), informing respondent Pablo that particular examinee who owns the said Lanuevo as the same was received by him before the examination period (Vol. V,
notebook seems to have passed in all other subjects except in Political Law and p. 61, rec.).
Public International Law; and that if the said notebook would be re-evaluated and
the mark be increased to at least 75%, said examinee will pass the bar However, such revision by Atty. Tomacruz could not raise Galang's general
examinations. After satisfying himself from respondent that this is possible the average to a passing grade because of his failing mark in three more subjects,
respondent Bar Confidant informing him that this is the practice of the Court to help including Mercantile Law. For the revision of examinee Galang's notebook in
out examinees who are failing in just one subject respondent Pablo acceded to Mercantile Law, respondent Lanuevo neatly set the last phase of his quite
the request and thereby told the Bar Confidant to just leave the said notebook. ingenious scheme by securing authorization from the Bar Examination
Respondent Pablo thereafter re-evaluated the answers, this time with leniency. Committee for the examiner in Mercantile Law tore-evaluate said notebook.
After the re-evaluation, the grade was increased to 78% from 68%, or an increase
of 10%. Respondent Pablo then made the corresponding corrections in the grading
sheet and accordingly initialed the charges made. This notebook with Office Code At the first meeting of the Bar Examination Committee on February 8, 1972,
Number 954 also belonged to Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang (Vol. V, respondent Lanuevo suggested that where an examinee failed in only one subject
pp. 43-46, rec.). and passed the rest, the examiner concerned would review the notebook. Nobody
objected to it as irregular and the Committee adopted the suggestion (Exhs. A & B-
Montecillo, Exh. 2-Pardo, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 41, 72, 63; Vol. Vi, p. 16, rec.).
After the re-evaluation by Atty. Pablo, Jr., examinee Galang's general average was
still below the passing grade, because of his failing marks in four subjects.
At a subsequent meeting of the Bar Examination Committee, respondent
Montecillo was informed by respondent Lanuevo that a candidate passed all other
Towards the end of the correction of examination notebooks, respondent Lanuevo subjects except Mercantile Law. This information was made during the meeting
brought back to respondent Tomacruz one examination booklet in Criminal Law, within hearing of the order members, who were all closely seated together.
with the former informing the latter, who was then helping in the correction of Respondent Montecillo made known his willingness tore-evaluate the particular
papers in Political Law and Public International Law, as he had already finished paper. The next day, respondent Lanuevo handed to respondent Montecillo a bar
correcting the examination notebooks in his assigned subject Criminal Law candidate's notebook with Examiner's Code Number 1613 with a grade of 61%.
that the examinee who owns that particular notebook had missed the passing Respondent Montecillo then reviewed the whole paper and after re-evaluating the
grade by only a fraction of a percent and that if his grade in Criminal Law would be answers, decided to increase the final grade to 71%. The matter was not however
raised a few points to 75%, then the examinee would make the passing grade. thereafter officially brought to the Committee for consideration or decision (Exhs.
Accepting the words of respondent Lanuevo, and seeing the justification and A& B-Montecillo, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 40-41, 70-71; Vol. V, pp. 33-34, rec.).
because he did not want to be the one causing the failure of the
examinee, respondent Tomacruz raised the grade from 64% to 75% and thereafter,
he initialed the revised mark and also revised the mark in the general list and Respondent Montecillo declared that without being given the information that the
likewise initialed the same. The examinee's Examiner Code Number is 746 while particular examinee failed only in his subject and passed all the others, he would
his Office Code Number is 954. This examinee is Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman not have consented to make the re-evaluation of the said paper(Vol. V, p. 33,
E. Galang (Exhs. 1, 2 & 3-Tomacruz, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 65, 66 and 71; Vol. rec.).Respondent Montecillo likewise added that there was only one instance he
V, pp. 24-25, 60-61, rec.). remembers, which is substantiated by his personal records, that he had to change
the grade of an examinee after he had submitted his report, referring to the
notebook of examinee Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, with Examiner's
Respondent Tomacruz does not recall having been shown any memo by Code Number 1613 and with Office Code Number 954 (Vol. V, pp. 34-35, rec.).
respondent Lanuevo when the latter approached him for this particular re-
A day or two after February 5, 1972, when respondent Lanuevo went to the the aforequoted paragraph 4 of the Confidential Memorandum(Exhs. 1 and 1-A-
residence of respondent-examiner Pardo to obtain the last bag of 200 notebooks, Lanuevo, Adm. Cases Nos. 1162 & 1164, p. 51, Adm. Case No. 1162; Vol. VII, p. 4,
respondent Lanuevo returned to the residence of respondent Pardo riding in a rec.) distributed to the members of the Bar Examination Committee. He maintains
Volkswagen panel of the Supreme Court of the Philippines with two companions. that he acted in good faith and "in his honest belief that the same merited re-
According to respondent Lanuevo, this was around the second week of February, evaluation; that in doing so, it was not his intention to forsake or betray the trust
1972, after the first meeting of the Bar Examination Committee. respondent reposed in him as BarConfidant but on the contrary to do justice to the examinee
Lanuevo had with him on that occasion an examinee's notebook bearing concerned; and that neither did he act in a presumptuous manner because the
Examiner's Code No. 661. Respondent Lanuevo, after the usual matter of whether or not re-evaluation was in order was left alone to the examiners'
amenities, requested respondent Pardo to review and re-examine, if possible, the decision ..." (Exh. 2-Lanuevo, Adm. Case No. 1162, pp. 35-37, rec.).
said notebook because, according to respondent Lanuevo, the examine who owns
that particular notebook obtained higher grades in other subjects, the highest of But as openly admitted by him in the course of the investigation, the said
which is 84% in Remedial Law. After clearing with respondent Lanuevo his confidential memorandum was intended solely for the examiners to guide them in
authority to reconsider the grades, respondent Pardo re-evaluated the answers of the initial correction of the examination papers and never as a basis for him to even
the examine concerned, resulting in an increase of grade from 57% of 66%. Said suggest to the examiners the re-evaluation of the examination papers of the
notebook has number 1622 as office code number. It belonged to examinee examinees (Vol. VII, p. 23, rec.). Any such suggestion or request is not only
Ernesto Quitaleg (Exhs. 1 & 2-Pardo, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 58-63; Vol. V, pp. presumptuous but also offensive to the norms of delicacy.
12-24, 29-30, rec.).

We believe the Examiners Pablo, Manalo, Montecillo, Tomacruz, Pardo and


II Pamatian whose declarations on the matter of the misrepresentations and
deceptions committed by respondent Lanuevo, are clear and consistent as well as
Re: Administrative Case No. 1162, Victorio D. Lanuevo, respondent. corroborate each other.

A For indeed the facts unfolded by the declarations of the respondents-examiners


(Adm. Case No. 1164) and clarified by extensive cross-examination conducted
UNAUTHORIZED RE-EVALUATION OF THE ANSWERS OF EXAMINE RAMON during the investigation and hearing of the cases show how respondent Lanuevo
E. GALANG, alias ROMAN E. GALANG, IN ALL FIVE (5) MAJOR SUBJECTS. adroitly maneuvered the passing of examinee Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E.
Galang in the 1971 Bar Examinations. It is patent likewise from the records that
respondent Lanuevo too undue advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in
Respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo admitted having requested on his own initiative him by the Court and the Examiners implicit in his position as BarConfidant as well
the five examiners concerned to re-evaluate the five notebooks of Ramon E. as the trust and confidence that prevailed in and characterized his relationship with
Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, that eventually resulted in the increase of the five members of the 1971 Bar Examination Committee, who were thus
Galang's average from 66.25% to the passing grade 74.15%, or a total increase of deceived and induced into re-evaluating the answers ofonly respondent Galang
eight (8) weighted points, more or less, that enabled Galang to hurdle the 1971 Bar in five subjects that resulted in the increase of his grades therein, ultimately
examinations via a resolution of the Court making 74% the passing average for enabling him to be admitted a member of the Philippine Bar.
that year's examination without any grade below fifty percent (50%) in any subject.
Galang thereafter took his lawyer's oath. It is likewise beyond dispute that he had
no authority from the Court or the Committee to initiate such steps towards the said It was plain, simple and unmitigated deception that characterized respondent
re-evaluation of the answers of Galang or of other examinees. Lanuevo's well-studied and well-calculated moves in successively representing
separately to each of the five examiners concerned to the effect that the examinee
failed only in his particular subject and/or was on the borderline of passing. To
Denying that he made representations to the examiners concerned that respondent repeat, the before the unauthorized re-evaluations were made, Galang failed in the
Galang failed only in their respective subjects and/or was on the borderline of five (5) major subjects and in two (2) minor subjects while his general average was
passing, Respondent Lanuevo sought to justify his actuations on the authority of only 66.25% which under no circumstances or standard could it be honestly
claimed that the examinee failed only in one, or he was on the borderline of General Weighted Averages 66.25% 74.15%
passing. In fact, before the first notebook of Galang was referred back to the
examiner concerned for re-evaluation, Galang had only one passing mark and this Hence, by the simple expedient of initiating the re-evaluation of the answers of
was in Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, a minor subject, with grade of 81%. Galang in the five (5) subjects under the circumstances already narrated, Galang's
The averages and individual grades of Galang before and after the unauthorized original average of 66.25% was increased to 74.15% or an increase of 7.9
re-evaluation are as follows: weighted points, to the great damage and prejudice of the integrity of the Bar
examinations and to the disadvantage of the other examinees. He did this in favor
BAI only of examinee Galang, with the possible addition of examinees Ernesto Quitaleg
and Alfredo Ty dela Cruz. But only one notebook was re-evaluated for each of the
1. Political Law Public latter who Political Law and Public International Law for Quitaleg and Mercantile
International Law 68% 78% = 10 pts. Law for Ty dela Cruz.
or 30 weighted points
The Office of the Bar Confidant, it must be stressed, has absolutely nothing to do in
BAI the re-evaluation or reconsideration of the grades of examinees who fail to make
the passing mark before or after their notebooks are submitted to it by the
Examiners. After the corrected notebooks are submitted to him by the Examiners,
Labor Laws and Social his only function is to tally the individual grades of every examinee in all subjects
Legislations 67% 67% = no re- taken and thereafter compute the general average. That done, he will then prepare
evaluation made. a comparative data showing the percentage of passing and failing in relation to a
certain average to be submitted to the Committee and to the Court and on the
2. Civil Law 64% 75% = 1 points basis of which the Court will determine the passing average, whether 75 or 74 or
or 33 weighted points. 73, etc. The Bar Confidant has no business evaluating the answers of the
examinees and cannot assume the functions of passing upon the appraisal made
by the Examiners concerned. He is not the over-all Examiner. He cannot presume
Taxation 74% 74% = no re- to know better than the examiner. Any request for re-evaluation should be done by
evaluation made. the examinee and the same should be addressed to the Court, which alone can
validly act thereon. A Bar Confidant who takes such initiative, exposes himself to
3. Mercantile Law 61% 71% = 10 pts. suspicion and thereby compromises his position as well as the image of the Court.
or 30 weighted points.
Respondent Lanuevo's claim that he was merely doing justice to Galang without
4. Criminal Law 64% 75% = 11 pts. or any intention of betraying the trust and confidence reposed in him by the Court as
22 weighted points. Bar Confidant, can hardly invite belief in the fact of the incontrovertible fact that he
singled out Galang's papers for re-evaluation, leaving out the papers of more than
ninety (90) examinees with far better averages ranging from 70% to 73.9% of
5. Remedial Law 63.75% (64) 75.5% (75%) = which he was fully aware (Vol. VI, pp. 46-47, 101, rec.), which could be more
11 pts. or 44 weighted points. properly claimed as borderline cases. This fact further betrays respondent
Lanuevo's claim of absolute good faith in referring back the papers of Galang to the
Legal Ethics and Practical Examiners for re-evaluation. For certainly, as against the original weighted average
Exercises 81% 81% = no re- of 66.25% of Galang, there can hardly be any dispute that the cases of the
evaluation made. aforesaid more than ninety (90) examinees were more deserving of
reconsideration. Hence, in trying to do justice to Galang, as claimed by respondent
Lanuevo, grave injustice was inflicted on the other examinees of the 1971 Bar
examinations, especially the said more than ninety candidates. And the The records are not clear, however, under what circumstances the notebooks of Ty
unexplained failure of respondent Lanuevo to apprise the Court or the Committee dela Cruz and Quitaleg were referred back to the Examiners concerned.
or even the Bar Chairman of the fact of re-evaluation before or after the said re- Respondent Lanuevo claimed that these two cases were officially brought to the
evaluation and increase of grades, precludes, as the same is inconsistent with, any Bar Examination Committee during its first meeting (Vol. VI, pp. 50-51, rec.) and
pretension of good faith. the latter decided to refer them back to the Examiners concerned for re-evaluation
with respect to the case of Quitaleg and to remove the disqualification in the case
His request for the re-evaluation of the notebook in Political Law and International of Ty dela Cruz(Vol. VI, pp. 33-39, 84-86, rec.). Respondent Lanuevo further
Law of Ernesto Quitaleg and the notebook in Mercantile Law of Alfredo Ty dela claimed that the date of these two cases were contained in a sheet of paper which
Cruz to give his actuations in the case of Galang a semblance of impartiality, was presented at the said first meeting of the Committee (Vol. VI, pp. 39-43, 49-51,
hoping that the over ninety examinees who were far better situated than Galang rec.). Likewise a record of the dates of every meeting of the Committee was made
would not give him away. Even the re-evaluation of one notebook of Quitaleg and by respondent Lanuevo (Vol. VI, p. 28, rec.). The alleged sheet containing the date
one notebook of Ty dela Cruz violated the agreement of the members of the 1971 of the two examinees and record of the dates of the meeting of the Committee
Bar Examination Committee to re-evaluate when the examinee concerned fails were not presented by respondent Lanuevo as, according to him, he left them
only in one subject. Quitaleg and Ty dela Cruz failed in four (4) and three (3) inadvertently in his desk in the Confidential Room when he went on leave after the
subjects respectively as hereinafter shown. release of the Bar results (Vol. VI, pp. 28, 41-45, rec.). It appears, however, that the
inventory conducted by officials of the Court in the Confidential Room of
respondent Lanuevo did not yield any such sheet of record (Exh. X, Adm. Case No.
The strange story concerning the figures 954, the office code number given to 1162, p. 74, rec.; Vol. VIII, pp. 11-13, 20-22, 29-31, rec.).
Galang's notebook, unveiled for the first time by respondent Lanuevo in his
suplemental sworn statement(Exh. 3- Lanuevo, Adm. Case No. 1162, pp. 45-47.
rec.) filed during the investigation with this Court as to why he pried into the papers Respondent Examiner Montecillo, Mercantile Law, maintained that there was only
of Galang deserves scant consideration. It only serves to picture a man one notebook in Mercantile Law which was officially brought to him and this is
desperately clutching at straws in the wind for support. Furthermore, it was substantiated by his personal file and record (Vol. VI, pp. 34-35, rec.). According to
revealed by respondent Lanuevo for the first time only on August 27, 1973 or a him, this notebook's examiner code number is 1613 (Vol. V, p.35, rec.) and is
period of more than five 95) months after he filed his answer on March 19, owned by Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang. It appears, however, that the
1973(Exh. 2-Lanuevo, Adm. Case No. 1162, pp. 35-36, rec.), showing that it was original grade of 47% in Mercantile Law of Ty dela Cruz was changed to 50% as
just an after-thought. appearing in the cover of the notebook of said examinee and the change is
authenticated with the initial of Examiner Montecillo. He was present when
respondent Lanuevo presented in evidence the notebook of Ty dela Cruz bearing
B Examiner code number 951 and Office Code Number 110 as Exhibit 9-Lanuevo in
Administrative Case No. 1162, and the figures 47 crossed out, replaced by the
REFERRAL OF EXAMINEE ALFREDO TY DELA CRUZ NOTEBOOK IN figures 50 bearing the initial of Examiner Montecillo as Exhibit 9-a-Lanuevo (Adm.
MERCHANTILE LAW TO RAISE HIS GRADE OF 47% TO 50% TO EXAMINER Case No. 1162, p. 48, rec.; Vol. VI, pp. 23-24, Vol. VIII, p. 4, rec.); but Atty.
MANUEL MONTECILLO AND OF EXAMINEE ERNESTO QUITALEG'S Montecillo did not interpose any objection to their admission in evidence.
NOTEBOOK IN POLITICAL LAW TO EXAMINER BERNARDO PARDO FOR RE-
EVALUATION, RESULTING IN THE INCREASE OF HIS GRADE IN THAT In this connection, respondent Examiner Pardo testified that he remembers a case
SUBJECT FROM 57% TO 66%. of an examinee presented to the Committee, who obtained passing marks in all
subjects except in one and the Committee agreed to refer back to the Examiner
Likewise, respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo admitted having referred back the concerned the notebook in the subject in which the examinee failed (Vol. V, pp. 15-
aforesaid notebooks on Mercantile Law and Political Law respectively of Alfredo Ty 16, rec.). He cannot recall the subject, but he is certain that it was not Political Law
dela Cruz and Ernesto Quitaleg to the Examiners concerned. (Vol. V, p. 16, rec.).Further, Pardo declared that he is not aware of any case of an
examinee who was on the borderline of passing but who got a grade below 50% in
one subject that was taken up by the Committee (Vol. V, pp. 16-17, rec.).
Examiner Montecillo testified that it was the notebook with Examiner Code Number Civil Law 75% 75% = "
1613 (belonging to Galang) which was referred to the Committee and the Taxation 69% 69% = "
Committee agreed to return it to the Examiner concerned. The day following the Mercantile Law 68% 68% = "
meeting in which the case of an examinee with Code Number 1613 was taken up, Criminal Law 78% 78% = "
respondent Lanuevo handed him said notebook and he accordingly re-evaluated it. Remedial Law 85% 85% = "
This particular notebook with Office Code Number 954 belongs to Galang. Legal Ethics 83% 83% = "

Examiner Tomacruz recalled a case of an examinee whose problem was
Mercantile Law that was taken up by the Committee. He is not certain of any other Average (weighted) 73.15% 74.5%
case brought to the Committee (Vol. V, pp. 59-61, rec.). Pardo declared that there
was no case of an examinee that was referred to the Committee that involved (Vol. VI, pp. 26-27; Exhs. 10 and 10-A-Lanuevo, Adm. Case No. 1162, rec.)
Political Law. He re-evaluated the answers of Ernesto Quitaleg in Political Law
upon the representation made by respondent Lanuevo to him.
Alfredo Ty dela Cruz, at the time his notebook in Mercantile Law was referred to
Examiner Montecillo to remove the disqualification grade of 47% in said subject,
As heretofore stated, it was this consensus at the meeting on February 8, 1972 of had two (2) other failing grades. These are:
the members of the Committee that where an examinee failed in only one subject
and passed all the others, the Examiner in whose subject the examinee failed
should re-evaluate or recheck the notebook (Vol. V, p. 16, rec.: Exh. 2-Pardo, Political Law 70%
allegation No. 9, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 60-63, Exh. A-Montecillo, Allegation No. Taxation 72%
2, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 40-41, and Exh. B-Montecillo, Adm. Case No. 1164, p.
72, rec.). His grades and averages before and after the disqualifying grade was removed are
as follows:
At the time the notebook of Ernesto Quitaleg in Political Law with a grade of 57%
was referred back to Examiner Pardo, said examinee had other failing grades in BA
three (3) subjects, as follows:
Political Law 70% 70% = No reevaluation
Labor Laws 3% Labor Laws 75% 75% = "
Civil Law 89% 89% = "
Taxation 69% Taxation 72% 72% = "
Mercantile Law 47% 50% = 3 pts. or 9
weighted points
Mercantile Law 68% Criminal Law 78% 78% = no reevaluation
Remedial Law 88% 88% = "
Ernesto Quitaleg's grades and averages before and after the re-evaluation of his Legal Ethics 79% 79% = "
grade in Political Law are as follows:

BA Weighted Averages 74.95% 75.4%

Political Law 57% 66% = 9 pts. or 27 (Vol. VI, pp. 26-27, rec.).
weighted points
Labor Laws 73% 73% = No reevaluation
The re-evaluation of the answers of Quitaleg in Political Law and the answers of Ty facts are governed by the rules and principles (In re: Cunanan Flunkers' Petition
dela Cruz in Mercantile Law, violated the consensus of the Bar Examination for Admission to the Bar -- 94 Phil. 534, 544-545). The determination of whether a
Committee in February, 1971, which violation was due to the misrepresentation of bar candidate has obtained the required passing grade certainly involves discretion
respondent Lanuevo. (Legal and Judicial Ethics, Justice Martin, 1969 ed., p. 13).

It must be stated that the referral of the notebook of Galang in Mercantile Law to In the exercise of this function, the Court acts through a Bar Examination
Examiner Montecillo can hardly be said to be covered by the consensus of the Bar Committee, composed of a member of the Court who acts as Chairman and eight
Examination Committee because even at the time of said referral, which was after (8) members of the Bar who act as examiners in the eight (8) bar subjects with one
the unauthorized re-evaluation of his answers of four (4) subjects, Galang had still subject assigned to each. Acting as a sort of liaison officer between the Court and
failing grades in Taxation and Labor Laws. His re-evaluated grade of 74.5% in the Bar Chairman, on one hand, and the individual members of the Committee, on
Remedial Law was considered 75% under the Confidential Memorandum and was the other, is the Bar Confidant who is at the same time a deputy clerk of the Court.
so entered in the record. His grade in Mercantile Law as subsequently re-evaluated Necessarily, every act of the Committee in connection with the exercise of
by Examiner Montecillo was 71%. discretion in the admission of examinees to membership of the Bar must be in
accordance with the established rules of the Court and must always be subject to
Respondent Lanuevo is therefore guilty of serious misconduct of having the final approval of the Court. With respect to the Bar Confidant, whose position is
betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him as Bar Confidant, thereby primarily confidential as the designation indicates, his functions in connection with
impairing the integrity of the Bar examinations and undermining public faith in the the conduct of the Bar examinations are defined and circumscribed by the Court
Supreme Court. He should be disbarred. and must be strictly adhered to.

As to whether Ernesto Quitaleg and Alfredo Ty dela Cruz should be disbarred or The re-evaluation by the Examiners concerned of the examination answers of
their names stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, it is believed that they should be respondent Galang in five (5) subjects, as already clearly established, was initiated
required to show cause and the corresponding investigation conducted. by Respondent Lanuevo without any authority from the Court, a serious breach of
the trust and confidence reposed by the Court in him as Bar Confidant.
Consequently, the re-evaluation that enabled respondent Galang to pass the 1971
III Bar examinations and to be admitted to the Bar is a complete nullity. The Bar
Confidant does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission
Re: Administrative Case No. 1163, Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, of examinees to the Bar. He is not clothed with authority to determine whether or
respondent. not an examinee's answers merit re-evaluation or re-evaluation or whether the
Examiner's appraisal of such answers is correct. And whether or not the examinee
benefited was in connivance or a privy thereto is immaterial. What is decisive is
A whether the proceedings or incidents that led to the candidate's admission to the
Bar were in accordance with the rules.
The name of respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, should
likewise be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. This is a necessary consequence of B
the un-authorized re-evaluation of his answers in five(5) major subjects Civil
Law, Political and International Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law, and Mercantile
Law. Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964, in connection, among
others, with the character requirement of candidates for admission to the Bar,
provides that "every applicant for admission as a member of the Bar must be ... of
The judicial function of the Supreme Court in admitting candidates to the legal good moral
profession, which necessarily involves the exercise of discretion, requires: (1) character ... and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
previous established rules and principles; (2) concrete facts, whether past or good moral character, and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude,
present, affecting determinate individuals; and (3) a decision as to whether these have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines." Prior to 1964, or
under the old Rules of Court, a bar applicant was required to produce before the 1967,1969 and 1971, he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he
Supreme Court satisfactory testimonials of good moral character (Sec. 2, Rule had no pending criminal case in court. By falsely representing to the Court that he
127). Under both rules, every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his had no criminal case pending in court, respondent Galang was allowed
involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the unconditionally to take the Bar examinations seven (7) times and in 1972 was
Court to fully ascertain or determine applicant's moral character. Furthermore, as to allowed to take his oath.
what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the supreme Court to determine. Hence,
the necessity of laying before or informing the Court of one's personal record That the concealment of an attorney in his application to take the Bar examinations
whether he was criminally indicted, acquitted, convicted or the case dismissed or is of the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a
still pending becomes more compelling. The forms for application to take the ground for revocation of his license to practice law is well settled (see 165 ALR
Bar examinations provided by the Supreme Court beginning the year 1965 require 1151, 7 CJS 741). Thus:
the disclosure not only of criminal cases involving moral turpitude filed or pending
against the applicant but also of all other criminal cases of which he has been
accused. It is of course true that the application form used by respondent Galang [1] It requires no argument to reach the conclusion that the respondent, in
when he took the Bar for the first time in 1962 did not expressly require the withholding from the board of law examiners and from the justice of this court, to
disclosure of the applicant's criminal records, if any. But as already intimated, whom he applied for admission, information respecting so serious a matter as an
implicit in his task to show satisfactory evidence or proof of good moral character is indictment for a felony, was guilty of fraud upon the court (cases cited).
his obligation to reveal to the Court all his involvement in any criminal case so that
the Court can consider them in the ascertainment and determination of his moral [2] It is equally clear that, had the board of law examiners, or the judge to whom he
character. And undeniably, with the applicant's criminal records before it, the Court applied for admission, been apprised of the true situation, neither the certificate of
will be in a better position to consider the applicant's moral character; for it could the board nor of the judge would have been forthcoming (State ex rel. Board of
not be gainsaid that an applicant's involvement in any criminal case, whether Law Examiners v. Podell, 207 N W 709 710).
pending or terminated by its dismissal or applicant's acquittal or conviction, has a
bearing upon his character or fitness for admission to the Bar. In 1963 and 1964,
when respondent Galang took the Bar for the second and third time, respectively, The license of respondent Podell was revoke and annulled, and he was required to
the application form provided by the Court for use of applicants already required surrender to the clerk of court the license issued to him, and his name was stricken
the applicant to declare under oath that "he has not been accused of, indicted for from the roll of attorneys (p. 710).
or convicted by any court or tribunal of any offense involving moral turpitude; and
that there is no pending case of that nature against him." By 1966, when Galang Likewise in Re Carpel, it was declared that:
took the Bar examinations for the fourth time, the application form prepared by the
Court for use of applicants required the applicant to reveal all his criminal cases
whether involving moral turpitude or not. In paragraph 4 of that form, the applicant [1] The power to admit to the bar on motion is conferred in the discretion of the
is required under oath to declare that "he has not been charged with any offense Appellate Division.' In the exercise of the discretion, the court should be informed
before a Fiscal, Municipal Judge, or other officer; or accused of, indicted for or truthfully and frankly of matters tending to show the character of the applicant and
convicted by any court or tribunal of any crime involving moral turpitude; nor is his standing at the bar of the state from which he comes. The finding of indictments
there a pending case against him" (Adm. Case No. 1163, p. 56, rec.). Yet, against him, one of which was still outstanding at the time of his motion, were facts
respondent Galang continued to intentionally withhold or conceal from the Court which should have been submitted to the court, with such explanations as were
his criminal case of slight physical injuries which was then and until now is pending available. Silence respecting them was reprehensible, as tending to deceive the
in the City Court of Manila; and thereafter repeatedly omitted to make mention of court (165 NYS, 102, 104; emphasis supplied).
the same in his applications to take the Bar examinations in 1967, 1969 and 1971.
Carpel's admission to the bar was revoked (p. 105).
All told, respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, is guilty of
fraudulently concealing and withholding from the Court his pending criminal case Furthermore, respondent's persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case
for physical injuries in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969 and 1971; and in 1966, 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(he finally grades of Mabunay and Castro were falsified and they were convicted of the crime
admitted it when he was confronted by the victim himself, who was called to testify of falsification of public documents.
thereon), 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 IV
honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is therefore unworthy of becoming a
member of the noble profession of law.
RE: Administrative Case No. 1164, Assistant Solicitor General Bernardo Pardo
(now CFI Judge), Judge Ramon Pamatian(Later Associate Justice of the Court of
While this aspect of the investigation was not part of the formal resolution of the Appeals, now deceased)Atty. Manuel G. Montecillo, Atty. Fidel Manalo, Atty.
Court requiring him to explain why his name should not be stricken from the Roll of Manuel Tomacruz and Atty. Guillermo Pablo, Jr., respondents.
Attorneys, respondent Galang was, as early as August, 1973, apprised of his
omission to reveal to the Court his pending criminal case. Yet he did not offer any
explanation for such omission. All respondents Bar examiners candidly admitted having made the re-evaluation
and/or re-correction of the papers in question upon the misrepresentation of
respondent BarConfidant Lanuevo. All, however, professed good faith; and that
Under the circumstances in which respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. they re-evaluated or increased the grades of the notebooks without knowing the
Galang, was allowed to take the Bar examinations and the highly irregular manner identity of the examinee who owned the said notebooks; and that they did the
in which he passed the Bar, WE have no other alternative but to order the same without any consideration or expectation of any. These the records clearly
surrender of his attorney's certificate and the striking out of his name from the Roll demonstrate and WE are of the opinion and WE so declare that indeed the
of Attorneys. For as WE said in Re Felipe del Rosario: respondents-examiners made the re-evaluation or re-correcion in good faith and
without any consideration whatsoever.
The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted every one who
demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of sound Considering however the vital public interest involved in the matter of admission of
discretion. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which members to the Bar, the respondents bar examiners, under the circumstances,
merely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law. It would be a should have exercised greater care and caution and should have been more
disgrace to the Judiciary to receive one whose integrity is questionable as an inquisitive before acceding to the request of respondent Bar Confidant Lanuevo.
officer of the court, to clothe him with all the prestige of its confidence, and then to They could have asked the Chairman of the Bar Examination Committee, who
permit him to hold himself as a duly authorized member of the bar (citing American would have referred the matter to the Supreme Court. At least the respondents-
cases) [52 Phil. 399-401]. examiners should have required respondent Lanuevo to produce or show them the
complete grades and/or the average of the examinee represented by respondent
What WE now do with respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, in Lanuevo to have failed only in their respective and particular subject and/or was on
this present case is not without any precedent in this jurisdiction. WE had on the borderline of passing to fully satisfy themselves that the examinee concerned
several occasions in the past nullified the admission of successful bar candidates was really so circumstances. This they could have easily done and the stain on the
to the membership of the Bar on the grounds, among others, of Bar examinations could have been avoided.
(a)misrepresentations of, or false pretenses relative to, the requirement on
applicant's educational attainment [Tapel vs. Publico, resolution of the Supreme Respondent Bar examiners Montecillo, Pamatian, and Manalo claimed and so
Court striking off the name of Juan T. Publico from the Roll of Attorneys on the declared under oath that the answers of respondent Galang really deserved or
basis of the findings of the Court Investigators contained in their report and merited the increased grades; and so with respondent Pardo in connection with the
recommendation, Feb. 23, 1962; In re: Telesforo A. Diao, 7 SCRA 475-478; (b) lack re-evaluation of Ernesto Quitaleg's answers in Political Law. With respect to
of good moral character [In re: Peralta, 101 Phil. 313-314]; and (c) fraudulent respondents Tomacruz and Pablo, it would appear that they increased the grades
passing of the Bar examinations [People vs. Romualdez -- re: Luis Mabunay, 57 of Galang in their respective subject solely because of the misrepresentations of
Phil. 151; In re: Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 and People vs. Castro and Doe, 54 Phil. Respondent Lanuevo. Hence, in the words of respondent Tomacruz: "You brought
42]. In the cases of Romualdez (Mabunay) and Castro, the Court found that the to me one paper and you said that this particular examinee had almost passed,
however, in my subject he received 60 something, I cannot remember the exact 3. That sometime in the later part of January of this year, he brought back to me an
average and if he would get a few points higher, he would get a passing average. I examination booklet in Civil Law for re-evaluation because according to him the
agreed to do that because I did not wish to be the one causing his failure . ..." (Vol. owner of the paper is on the borderline and if I could reconsider his grade to 75%
V, pp. 60-61, rec.; see also allegations 3 and 4, Exh. 1-Tomacruz, Adm. Case No. the candidate concerned will get passing mark;
1164, p. 69, rec.; emphasis ours). And respondent Pablo: "... he told me that this
particular examinee seems to have passed in allot her subject except this subject 4. That taking his word for it and under the belief that it was really the practice and
and that if I can re-evaluate this examination notebook and increase the mark to at policy of the Supreme Court to do so and in the further belief that I was just
least 75, this particular examinee will pass the bar examinations so I believe I manifesting cooperation in doing so, I re-evaluated the paper and reconsidered the
asked him 'Is this being done?' and he said 'Yes, that is the practice used to be grade to 75%; ..." (Exh. 2-Pamatian, Adm. Case No. 1164, p. 55, rec.); and
done before to help out examinees who are failing in just one subject' so I readily
acceded to his request and said 'Just leave it with me and I will try to re-evaluate'
and he left it with me and what i did was to go over the book and tried to be as 5. That the above re-evaluation was made in good faith and under the belief that I
lenient as I could. While I did not mark correct the answers which were wrong, am authorized to do so in view of them is representation of said Atty. Victorio
what I did was to be more lenient and if the answers was correct although it was Lanuevo, ..." (Exh. 1-Pamatian, Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 33-34, rec.).
not complete I raise the grade so I had a total of 78 instead of 68 and what I did
was to correct the grading sheet accordingly and initial the changes" (Vol. V, pp. Manalo
44-45, rec.; emphasis supplied).
(c) In revising the grade of the particular examinee concerned, herein respondent
It could not be seriously denied, however, that the favorable re-evaluations made carefully evaluated each and every answer written in the notebook. Testing the
by respondents Pamatian, Montecillo, Manalo and Pardo notwithstanding their answer by the criteria laid down by the Court, and giving the said examinee the
declarations that the increases in grades they gave were deserved by the benefit of the doubt in view of Mr. Lanuevo's representation that it was only in that
examinee concerned, were to a certain extent influenced by the misrepresentation particular subject that said examinee failed, herein respondent became convinced
and deception committed by respondent Lanuevo. Thus in their own words: that the said examinee deserved a higher grade than that previously given him, but
he did not deserve, in herein respondent's honest appraisal, to be given the
Montecillo passing grade of
75%. ..."(allegation 5-c, p. 38, Exh. 1-Manalo, rec.; emphasis supplied).
Q And by reason of that information you made the re-evaluation of the paper?
Pardo
A Yeas, your Honor.
... I considered it entirely humanly possible to have erred, because I corrected that
particular notebook on December 31,1971, considering especially the
Q Would you have re-evaluated the paper of your own accord in the absence of representation of the Bar Confidant that the said examinee had obtained higher
such information? grades in other subjects, the highest of which was 84% in Remedial Law, if I recall
correctly. ... (allegation 7, Exh. 2-Pardo, Adm. Case No. 1164, p. 62, rec.; emphasis
A No, your Honor, because I have submitted my report at that time" (Vol. V, p. 33, supplied).
rec.; see also allegations in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 & 5, Affidavit of April 17, 1972, Exh.
B-Montecillo; allegation No. 2, Answer dated march 19, 1973, Exh. A-Montecillo, With the misrepresentations and the circumstances utilized by respondent Lanuevo
Adm. Case No. 1164, pp. 40-41, and 72, rec.). to induce the herein examiners to make the re-evaluation adverted to, no one
among them can truly claim that the re-evaluation effected by them was impartial
Pamatian or free from any improper influence, their conceded integrity, honesty and
competence notwithstanding.
Consequently, Galang cannot justifiably claim that he deserved the increased connection with the 1971 Bar Examinations. Examiner Pamatian advised Landicho
grades given after the said re-evaluations(Galang's memo attached to the records, to see the Chairman of the 1971 Bar Examination Committee. Examiner Pamatian
Adm. Case No. 1163). mentioned in passing to Landicho that an examination booklet was re-evaluated by
him (Pamatian) before the release of the said bar results (Vol. V, pp. 6-7, rec).
At any rate, WE are convinced, in the light of the explanations of the respondents- Even though such information was divulged by respondent Pamatian after the
examiners, which were earlier quoted in full, that their actuations in connection with official release of the bar results, it remains an indecorous act, hardly expected of a
the re-evaluation of the answers of Galang in five (5) subjects do not warrant or member of the Judiciary who should exhibit restraint in his actuations demanded
deserve the imposition of any disciplinary action. WE find their explanations by resolute adherence to the rules of delicacy. His unseemly act tended to
satisfactory. Nevertheless, WE are constrained to remind herein respondents- undermine the integrity of the bar examinations and to impair public faith in the
examiners that their participation in the admission of members to the Bar is one Supreme Court.
impressed with the highest consideration of public interest absolute purity of the
proceedings and so are required to exercise the greatest or utmost case and VI
vigilance in the performance of their duties relative thereto.
The investigation failed to unearth direct evidence that the illegal machination of
V respondent Lanuevo to enable Galang to pass the 1971 Bar examinations was
committed for valuable consideration.
Respondent Atty. Victorio D. Lanuevo, in his memorandum filed on November 14,
1973, claimed that respondent-examiner Pamatian "in bringing up this unfounded A
cause, or lending undue assistance or support thereto ... was motivated with
vindictiveness due to respondent's refusal to be pressured into helping his There are, however, acquisitions made by Respondent Lanuevo immediately after
(examiner's) alleged friend a participant in the 1971 Bar Examinations whom the official release of the 1971 Bar examinations in February, 1972, which may be
said examiner named as Oscar Landicho and who, the records will show, did not out of proportion to his salary as Bar Confidant and Deputy Clerk of Court of the
pass said examinations (p. 9, Lanuevo's memo, Adm. Case No. 1162). Supreme Court.

It must be stated that this is a very serious charge against the honor and integrity 1. On April 5, 1972, respondent Lanuevo and his wife acquired from the BF
of the late Justice Ramon Pamatian, who passed away on October 18, 1973 and Homes, Inc. a house and lot with an area of 374 square meters, more or less, for
therefore cannot refute Lanuevo's insinuations. Respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo the amount of P84,114.00. The deed of sale was dated March 5, 1972 but was
did not bring this out during the investigation which in his words is "essential to his notarized only on April 5, 1972. On the same date, however, respondent Lanuevo
defense. "His pretension that he did not make this charge during the investigation and his wife executed two (2)mortgages covering the said house and lot in favor of
when Justice Pamatian was still alive, and deferred the filing of such charge BF Homes, Inc. in the total amount of P67,291.20 (First mortgage P58,879.80,
against Justice Pamatian and possibly also against Oscar Landicho before the Entry No. 90913: date of instrument April 5, 1972, date of inscription April 20,
latter departed for Australia "until this case shall have been terminated lest it be 1972: Second mortgage P8,411.40, Entry No. 90914: date of instrument April
misread or misinterpreted as being intended as a leverage for a favorable outcome 5, 1972, date of inscription April 20, 1972). [D-2 to D-4, Vol. III, rec.].
of this case on the part of respondent or an act of reprisal", does not invite belief; Respondent Lanuevo paid as down payment the amount of only P17,000.00, which
because he does not impugn the motives of the five other members of the 1971 according to him is equivalent to 20%, more or less, of the purchase price of
Bar Examination Committee, who also affirmed that he deceived them into re- P84,114.00. Respondent Lanuevo claimed that P5,000.00 of the P17,000.00 was
evaluating or revising the grades of respondent Galang in their respective subjects. his savings while the remaining the P12,000.00 came from his sister in Okinawa in
the form of a loan and received by him through a niece before Christmas of 1971 in
It appears, however, that after the release of the results of the 1971 Bar dollars ($2000) [Vol. VII, pp. 41-48; Vol. VIII, pp. 2-3, rec.]
examinations, Oscar Landicho, who failed in that examinations, went to see and
did see Civil Law examiner Pamatian for the purpose of seeking his help in
It appears, however, that his alleged P5,000.00 savings and P12,000.00 loan from as an item in his liabilities in the same statement was the GSIS real estate loan in
his sister; are not fully reflected and accounted for in respondent's 1971 Statement the amount of P64,200.00 (1972 Statement of Assets and Liabilities).
of Assets and Liabilities which hefiled on January 17, 1972.
2. Listed as an asset in his 1972 Statement of Assets and Liabilities is a 1956
In said 1971 statement, respondent Lanuevo listed under Assets a bank deposit in VW car valued atP5,200.00. That he acquired this car sometime between January,
the amount of only P2,000.00. In his 1972 statement, his bank deposit listed under 1972 and November, 1972 could be inferred from the fact that no such car or any
Assets was in the amount of P1,011.00, which shows therefore that of the car was listed in his statement of assets and liabilities of 1971 or in the years
P2,000.00 bank deposit listed in his 1971 statement under Assets, only the amount previous to 1965. It appears, however, that his listed total assets, excluding
of P989.00 was used or withdrawn. The amount of P18,000.00 receivable listed receivables in his 1971 Statement was P19,000.00, while in his 1972 (as of
under Assets in his 1971 statement was not realized because the transaction November, 1972) Statement, his listed total assets, excluding the house and lot
therein involved did not push through (Statement of Assets and Liabilities of was P18,211.00, including the said 1956 VW car worth P5,200.00.
respondent Lanuevo from 1965 to 1972; Vol. VIII, pp. 47-48, rec.).
The proximity in point of time between the official release of the 1971 Bar
Likewise, the alleged December, 1971 $2000 loan of respondent from his married examinations and the acquisition of the above-mentioned properties, tends to link
sister in Okinawa is extremely doubtful. In the first place, said amount of $2000 or tie up the said acquisitions with the illegal machination committed by respondent
(P12,000.00) is not reflected in his1971 Statement of Assets and Liabilities filed on Lanuevo with respect to respondent Galang's examination papers or to show that
January 17, 1972. Secondly, the alleged note which he allegedly received from his the money used by respondent Lanuevo in the acquisition of the above properties
sister at the time he received the $200 was not even presented by respondent came from respondent Galang in consideration of his passing the Bar.
during the investigation. And according to Respondent Lanuevo himself, while he
considered this a loan, his sister did not seriously consider it as one. In fact, no During the early stage of this investigation but after the Court had informed
mode or time of payment was agreed upon by them. And furthermore, during the respondent Lanuevo of the serious irregularities in the 1971 Bar examinations
investigation, respondent Lanuevo promised to furnish the Investigator the address alleged in Oscar Landicho's Confidential Letter and in fact, after Respondent
of his sister in Okinawa. Said promise was not fulfilled as borne out by the records. Lanuevo had filed on April 12, 1972 his sworn statement on the matter, as ordered
Considering that there is no showing that his sister, who has a family of her own, is by the Court, respondent Lanuevo surprisingly filed his letter or resignation on
among the top earners in Okinawa or has saved a lot of money to give to him, the October 13, 1972 with the end in view of retiring from the Court. His resignation
conclusion, therefore, that the P17,000.00 of respondent Lanuevo was either an ill- before he was required to show cause on March 5, 1973 but after he was informed
gotten or undeclared income is inevitable under the foregoing circumstances. of the said irregularities, is indicative of a consciousness of guilt.

On August 14, 1972, respondent Lanuevo and his wife mortgaged their BF Homes It must be noted that immediately after the official release of the results of the 1971
house and lot to the GSIS for the amount of P65,000.00 (Entry No. 4992: August Bar examinations, respondent Lanuevo went on vacation and sick leave from
14, 1972 date of instrument;August 23, 1972 date of inscription). March 16, 1972 to January 15, 1973, obtaining the case value thereof in lump sum
On February 28, 1973, the second mortgage in favor of BF Homes, Entry No. in the amount of P11,000.00. He initially claimed at the investigation that h e used
90914, was redeemed by respondent and was subsequently cancelled on March a part thereof as a down payment for his BF Homes house and lot (Vol. VII, pp. 40-
20,1973, Entry No. 30143. Subsequently, or on March 2, 1973 the first mortgage in 48, rec.), which he bought on April 5, 1972.
favor of BF Homes, Entry No. 90913 was also redeemed by respondent Lanuevo
and thereafter cancelled onMarch 20, 1973, (See D-2 to D-4, Vol. III, rec.). Hence,
only the mortgage in favor of GSIS remains as the encumbrance of respondent's Criminal proceedings may be instituted against respondent Lanuevo under Section
house and lot. According to respondent Lanuevo, the monthly amortization of the 3 (a & e) in relation to Section 9 of Republic Act No. 1379 (Anti-Graft Law) for:
GSIS mortgage is P778.00 a month, but that since May of 1973, he was unable to
pay the same. In his 1972 Statement of Assets and Liabilities, which he filed in (a) Persuading inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act
connection with his resignation and retirement (filed October 13, 1972), the house constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
and lot declared as part of his assets, were valued at P75,756.90. Listed, however,
authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing 1954, retroactive as of the date of waiver July 31, 1951, which is also the date of
himself to be presented, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense. filing (A, Vol. IV, rec.).

xxx xxx xxx It is alleged by respondent Ramon E. Galang that it was his father who all the time
attended to the availment of the said educational benefits and even when he was
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any already in Manila taking up his pre-law at MLQ Educational Institution from 1955 to
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge 1958. In 1955, respondent Galang was already 19 years old, and from 1957 to
of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, 1958, he was employed as a technical assistant in the office of Senator Roy (Vol.
evidence bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to V, pp. 79-80, 86-87, rec.).[Subsequently, during the investigation, he claimed that
officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the he was the private secretary of Senator Puyat in 1957 (Vol. VI, pp. 12-13, rec.)]. It
grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. appears, however, that a copy of the notice-letter dated June 28, 1955 of the
Philippine Veterans Board to the MLQ Educational Institution on the approval of the
transfer of respondent Galang from Sta. Rita Institute to the MLQ Educational
Section 8 of said Republic Act No. 3019 authorizes the dismissal or removal of a Institution effective the first semester of the school year 1955-56 was directly
public officer once it is determined that his property or money "is manifestly out of addressed and furnished to respondent Ramon E. Galang at 2292 Int. 8 Banal St.,
proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful Tondo, Manila (A-12, Vol. IV, rec.).
income and the income from legitimately acquired property ... " (Sec. 2, Rep. Act
1379; Sec. 8, Rep. Act 3019).
Respondent Ramon E. Galang further declared that he never went to the Office of
the Philippine Veterans to follow up his educational benefits and claimed that he
It should be stressed, however, that respondent Lanuevo's aforementioned does not even know the location of the said office. He does not also know whether
Statements of Assets and Liabilities were not presented or taken up during the beneficiaries of the G.I. Bill of Rights educational benefits are required to go to the
investigation; but they were examined as they are part of the records of this Court. Philippine Veterans Board every semester to submit their ratings (Vol. V, p. 86,
rec.). But respondent Galang admits that he had gone to the GSIS and City Court
B of Manila, although he insists that he never bothered to take a look at the
neighboring buildings (Vol. V, pp. 93-94, rec.). The huge and imposing Philippine
Veterans Building is beside the GSIS building and is obliquely across the City
There are likewise circumstances indicating possible contacts between respondent Court building.
Ramon E. Galang and/or his father and respondent Victorio D. Lanuevo before the
latter become the bar Confidant.
2. Respondent Lanuevo stated that as an investigator in the Philippine Veterans
Board, he investigated claims for the several benefits given to veterans like
1. Respondent Ramon E. Galang was a beneficiary of the G.I Bill of Rights educational benefits and disability benefits; that he does not remember, however,
educational program of the Philippine Veterans Board from his high school days whether in the course of his duties as veterans investigator, he came across the
1951 to 1955 up to his pre-law studies at the MLQ Educational Institution application of Ramon E. Galang for educational benefits; and that he does not
(now MLQ University) 1955 to 1958. From 1948 to 1958, respondent Victorio D. know the father of Mr. Ramon E. Galang and has never met him (Vol. VII, pp. 28,
Lanuevo was connected with the Philippine Veterans Board which is the 49, rec.).
governmental agency entrusted with the affairs of our veterans including the
implementation of the Veterans Bill of Rights. From 1955 to 1958, Respondent
Lanuevo successively held the position of Junior Investigator, Veterans Claims 3. Respondent Lanuevo, as a member of the USAFEE, belonged to the 91st
Investigator, Supervising Veterans Investigator and Veterans Claims Investigator Infantry operating at Zambales and then Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, shortly before
(Service Record, p. 9, Adm. Case No. 1162). During that period of time, therefore, the war (Vol. VII, pp. 48-49, rec.). Later he joined the guerrilla movement in Samar.
respondent Lanuevo had direct contacts with applicants and beneficiaries of the
Veterans Bill of Rights. Galang's educational benefits was approved on March 16,
He used to be a member of the Philippine Veterans Legion especially while LIKEWISE DISBARRED AND HIS NAME ALSO ORDERED STRICKEN FROM
working with the Philippine Veterans Board(Vol. VII, p. 49, rec.). THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.

He does not know the Banal Regiment of the guerrillas, to which Galang's father
belonged. During the Japanese occupation, his guerrilla outfit was operating in
Samar only and he had no communications with other guerrilla organization in
other parts of the country. Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
He attended meetings of the Philippine Veterans Legion in his chapter in Samar Manila
only and does not remember having attended its meeting here in Manila, even
while he was employed with the Philippine Veterans Board. He is not a member of EN BANC
the Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor (Vol. VII, p.51, rec.).

On November 27, 1941, while respondent Lanuevo was with the Philippine Army
stationed at Camp Manacnac, Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, he was stricken with
pneumonia and was hospitalized at the Nueva Ecija Provincial Hospital as a result G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970
and was still confined there when their camp was bombed and strafed by
Japanese planes on December 13, 1941 (Sworn statement of respondent Lanuevo IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST
dated August 27, 1973, Adm. Case No. 1162, p. 46, rec.). ATTY. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN In L-27654, ANTONIO H. CALERO,

German Galang, father of respondent Galang, was a member of the Banal Guerilla vs.
Forces, otherwise known as the Banal Regiment. He was commissioned and
inducted as a member thereof on January 16, 1942 and was given the rank of first
lieutenant. His unit "was attached and served into the XI-Corps, US Army; XIII-C VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY.
US Army, 43rd Div., US Army, stationed headquarters at Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija
and with the 38th Division, US army stationed at Corregidor in the mopping-up RESOLUTION
operations against the enemies, from 9 May 1945 date of recognition to 31
December 1945, date of demobilization"(Affidavit of Jose Banal dated December
22, 1947, Vol. IV, A-3, rec.).

CASTRO, J.:
It should be stressed that once the bar examiner has submitted the corrected
notebooks to the Bar Confidant, the same cannot be withdrawn for any purpose
whatsoever without prior authority from the Court. Consequently, this Court Before us is Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's
expresses herein its strong disapproval of the actuations of the bar examiners in Certificate of Title," filed on September 25, 1967, in protest against what he therein
Administrative Case No. 1164 as above delineated. asserts is "a great injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court."
He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal "peopled by men who are
calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable
WHEREFORE, IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 1162, RESPONDENT VICTORIO
decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity." His
D. LANUEVO IS HEREBY DISBARRED AND HIS NAME ORDERED STRICKEN
client's he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment,"
FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS; AND IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 1163,
has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." In the
RESPONDENT RAMON E. GALANG, alias Roman E. GALANG, IS HEREBY
same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the
members of this Court, saying "that justice as administered by the present ... our own Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our pleas of
members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb." He then [sic] justice, who ignore their own applicable decisions and commit culpable
vows to argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum," so that "the people violations of the Constitution with impunity
may know of the silent injustice's committed by this Court," and that "whatever
mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated." He was quoted by columnist Vicente Albano Pacis in the issue of the Manila
ends his petition with a prayer that Chronicle of September 28, 1967. In connection therewith, Pacis commented that
Atty. Almacen had "accused the high tribunal of offenses so serious that the Court
... a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the must clear itself," and that "his charge is one of the constitutional bases for
undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any impeachment."
time in the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may
retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession. The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Virginia Y.
Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero, 1 in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the
He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the aforementioned defendant. The trial court, after due hearing, rendered judgment against his client.
petition. Thus, on September 26, 1967, the Manila Times published statements On June 15, 1966 Atty. Almacen received a copy of the decision. Twenty days later,
attributed to him, as follows: or on July 5, 1966, he moved for its reconsideration. He served on the adverse
counsel a copy of the motion, but did not notify the latter of the time and place of
Vicente Raul Almacen, in an unprecedented petition, said he did it to expose the hearing on said motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for
tribunal's"unconstitutional and obnoxious" practice of arbitrarily denying petitions or execution of the judgment. For "lack of proof of service," the trial court denied both
appeals without any reason. motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion
for reconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a second motion for
reconsideration to which he attached the required registry return card. This second
Because of the tribunal's "short-cut justice," Almacen deplored, his client was motion for reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on
condemned to pay P120,000, without knowing why he lost the case. August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who, earlier, that is,
on August 22, 1966, had already perfected the appeal. Because the plaintiff
xxx xxx xxx interposed no objection to the record on appeal and appeal bond, the trial court
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
There is no use continuing his law practice, Almacen said in this petition, "where
our Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, But the Court of Appeals, on the authority of this Court's decision in Manila Surety
who ignore without reason their own applicable decisions and commit culpable & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., L-16636, June 24, 1965, dismissed
violations of the Constitution with impunity. the appeal, in the following words:

xxx xxx xxx Upon consideration of the motion dated March 27, 1967, filed by plaintiff-appellee
praying that the appeal be dismissed, and of the opposition thereto filed by
defendant-appellant; the Court RESOLVED TO DISMISS, as it hereby dismisses,
He expressed the hope that by divesting himself of his title by which he earns his the appeal, for the reason that the motion for reconsideration dated July 5, 1966
living, the present members of the Supreme Court "will become responsive to all (pp. 90-113, printed record on appeal) does not contain a notice of time and place
cases brought to its attention without discrimination, and will purge itself of those of hearing thereof and is, therefore, a useless piece of paper (Manila Surety &
unconstitutional and obnoxious "lack of merit" or "denied resolutions. (Emphasis Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., G.R. No. L-16636, June 24, 1965),
supplied) which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, consequently, the
appeal was perfected out of time.
Atty. Almacen's statement that
Atty. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution, urging that Manila Surety & It was at this juncture that Atty. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment by filing
Fidelity Co. is not decisive. At the same time he filed a pleading entitled "Latest his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," already adverted to a
decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion for Reconsideration," pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with the insolent contemptuous,
citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Gregorio A. Venturanza, L-20417, decided by grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks hereinbefore reproduced, against this
this Court on May 30, 1966, as the applicable case. Again, the Court of Appeals Court as well as its individual members, a behavior that is as unprecedented as it
denied the motion for reconsideration, thus: is unprofessional.

Before this Court for resolution are the motion dated May 9, 1967 and the Nonetheless we decided by resolution dated September 28, 1967 to withhold
supplement thereto of the same date filed by defendant- appellant, praying for action on his petition until he shall have actually surrendered his certificate.
reconsideration of the resolution of May 8, 1967, dismissing the appeal. Patiently, we waited for him to make good his proffer. No word came from him. So
he was reminded to turn over his certificate, which he had earlier vociferously
Appellant contends that there are some important distinctions between this case offered to surrender, so that this Court could act on his petition. To said reminder
and that of Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., G.R. he manifested "that he has no pending petition in connection with Case G.R. No. L-
No. L- 16636, June 24, 1965, relied upon by this Court in its resolution of May 8, 27654, Calero vs. Yaptinchay, said case is now final and executory;" that this
1967. Appellant further states that in the latest case,Republic vs. Venturanza, L- Court's September 28, 1967 resolution did not require him to do either a positive or
20417, May 30, 1966, decided by the Supreme Court concerning the question negative act; and that since his offer was not accepted, he "chose to pursue the
raised by appellant's motion, the ruling is contrary to the doctrine laid down in the negative act."
Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. case.
In the exercise of its inherent power to discipline a member of the bar for
There is no substantial distinction between this case and that of Manila Surety & contumely and gross misconduct, this Court on November 17, 1967 resolved to
Fidelity Co. require Atty. Almacen to show cause "why no disciplinary action should be taken
against him." Denying the charges contained in the November 17 resolution, he
asked for permission "to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should
In the case of Republic vs. Venturanza, the resolution denying the motion to be taken against him ... in an open and public hearing." This Court resolved (on
dismiss the appeal, based on grounds similar to those raised herein was issued on December 7) "to require Atty. Almacen to state, within five days from notice hereof,
November 26, 1962, which was much earlier than the date of promulgation of the his reasons for such request, otherwise, oral argument shall be deemed waived
decision in the Manila Surety Case, which was June 24, 1965. Further, the and incident submitted for decision." To this resolution he manifested that since this
resolution in the Venturanza case was interlocutory and the Supreme Court issued Court is "the complainant, prosecutor and Judge," he preferred to be heard and to
it "without prejudice to appellee's restoring the point in the brief." In the main answer questions "in person and in an open and public hearing" so that this Court
decision in said case (Rep. vs. Venturanza the Supreme Court passed upon the could observe his sincerity and candor. He also asked for leave to file a written
issue sub silencio presumably because of its prior decisions contrary to the explanation "in the event this Court has no time to hear him in person." To give him
resolution of November 26, 1962, one of which is that in the Manila Surety and the ampliest latitude for his defense, he was allowed to file a written explanation
Fidelity case. Therefore Republic vs. Venturanza is no authority on the matter in and thereafter was heard in oral argument.
issue.
His written answer, as undignified and cynical as it is unchastened, offers -no
Atty. Almacen then appealed to this Court by certiorari. We refused to take the apology. Far from being contrite Atty. Almacen unremittingly repeats his jeremiad of
case, and by minute resolution denied the appeal. Denied shortly thereafter was lamentations, this time embellishing it with abundant sarcasm and innuendo. Thus:
his motion for reconsideration as well as his petition for leave to file a second
motion for reconsideration and for extension of time. Entry of judgment was made
on September 8, 1967. Hence, the second motion for reconsideration filed by him At the start, let me quote passages from the Holy Bible, Chapter 7, St. Matthew:
after the Said date was ordered expunged from the records.
"Do not judge, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court that
shall be judged, and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you. notwithstanding the violation of the Constitution, you remained unpunished, this
But why dost thou see the speck in thy brother's eye, and yet dost not consider the Court in the reverse order of natural things, is now in the attempt to inflict
beam in thy own eye? Or how can thou say to thy brother, "Let me cast out the punishment on your respondent for acts he said in good faith.
speck from thy eye"; and behold, there is a beam in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam from thy own eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for JUSTICE,
the speck from thy brother's eyes." CHARITY, GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His Honors attempt to justify their
stubborn denial with any semblance of reason, NEVER. Now that your respondent
"Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, even to do you also to them: for this is given the opportunity to face you, he reiterates the same statement with
is the Law and the Prophets." emphasis, DID YOU? Sir. Is this. the way of life in the Philippines today, that even
our own President, said: "the story is current, though nebulous ,is to its truth, it is
xxx xxx xxx still being circulated that justice in the Philippines today is not what it is used to be
before the war. There are those who have told me frankly and brutally that justice is
a commodity, a marketable commodity in the Philippines."
Your respondent has no intention of disavowing the statements mentioned in his
petition. On the contrary, he refirms the truth of what he stated, compatible with his
lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court. xxx xxx xxx
But he vigorously DENY under oath that the underscored statements contained in
the CHARGE are insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory to We condemn the SIN, not the SINNER. We detest the ACTS, not the ACTOR. We
the individual members of the Court; that they tend to bring the entire Court, attack the decision of this Court, not the members. ... We were provoked. We were
without justification, into disrepute; and constitute conduct unbecoming of a compelled by force of necessity. We were angry but we waited for the finality of the
member of the noble profession of law. decision. We waited until this Court has performed its duties. We never interfered
nor obstruct in the performance of their duties. But in the end, after seeing that the
xxx xxx xxx Constitution has placed finality on your judgment against our client and sensing
that you have not performed your duties with "circumspection, carefulness,
confidence and wisdom", your Respondent rise to claim his God given right to
Respondent stands four-square that his statement is borne by TRUTH and has speak the truth and his Constitutional right of free speech.
been asserted with NO MALICE BEFORE AND AFTER THOUGHT but mainly
motivated with the highest interest of justice that in the particular case of our client,
the members have shown callousness to our various pleas for JUSTICE, our xxx xxx xxx
pleadings will bear us on this matter, ...
The INJUSTICES which we have attributed to this Court and the further violations
xxx xxx xxx we sought to be prevented is impliedly shared by our President. ... .

To all these beggings, supplications, words of humility, appeals for charity, xxx xxx xxx
generosity, fairness, understanding, sympathy and above all in the highest interest
of JUSTICE, what did we get from this COURT? One word, DENIED, with all its What has been abhored and condemned, are the very things that were applied to
hardiness and insensibility. That was the unfeeling of the Court towards our pleas us. Recalling Madam Roland's famous apostrophe during the French revolution, "O
and prayers, in simple word, it is plain callousness towards our particular case. Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name", we may dare say, "O JUSTICE,
what technicalities are committed in thy name' or more appropriately, 'O JUSTICE,
xxx xxx xxx what injustices are committed in thy name."
xxx xxx xxx to, withstand critical scrutiny. By and large, this Court has been generous in giving
due course to petitions forcertiorari.
We must admit that this Court is not free from commission of any abuses, but who
would correct such abuses considering that yours is a court of last resort. A strong Be this as it may, were we to accept every case or write a full opinion for every
public opinion must be generated so as to curtail these abuses. petition we reject, we would be unable to carry out effectively the burden placed
upon us by the Constitution. The proper role of the Supreme Court, as Mr. Chief
xxx xxx xxx Justice Vinson of the U.S. Supreme Court has defined it, is to decide "only those
cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance
beyond the particular facts and parties involved." Pertinent here is the observation
The phrase, Justice is blind is symbolize in paintings that can be found in all courts of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Maryland vs. Baltimore Radio Show, 94 L. ed 562,
and government offices. We have added only two more symbols, that it is also deaf 566:
and dumb. Deaf in the sense that no members of this Court has ever heard our
cries for charity, generosity, fairness, understanding sympathy and for justice;
dumb in the sense, that inspite of our beggings, supplications, and pleadings to A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the same petition
give us reasons why our appeal has been DENIED, not one word was spoken or different reasons may read different justices to the same result ... .
given ... We refer to no human defect or ailment in the above statement. We only
describe the. impersonal state of things and nothing more. Since there are these conflicting, and, to the uninformed, even confusing reasons
for denying petitions for certiorari, it has been suggested from time to time that the
xxx xxx xxx Court indicate its reasons for denial. Practical considerations preclude. In order
that the Court may be enabled to discharge its indispensable duties, Congress has
placed the control of the Court's business, in effect, within the Court's discretion.
As we have stated, we have lost our faith and confidence in the members of this During the last three terms the Court disposed of 260, 217, 224 cases,
Court and for which reason we offered to surrender our lawyer's certificate, IN respectively, on their merits. For the same three terms the Court denied,
TRUST ONLY. Because what has been lost today may be regained tomorrow. As respectively, 1,260, 1,105,1,189 petitions calling for discretionary review. If the
the offer was intended as our self-imposed sacrifice, then we alone may decide as Court is to do its work it would not be feasible to give reasons, however brief, for
to when we must end our self-sacrifice. If we have to choose between forcing refusing to take these cases. The tune that would be required is prohibitive. Apart
ourselves to have faith and confidence in the members of the Court but disregard from the fact that as already indicated different reasons not infrequently move
our Constitution and to uphold the Constitution and be condemned by the different members of the Court in concluding that a particular case at a particular
members of this Court, there is no choice, we must uphold the latter. time makes review undesirable.

But overlooking, for the nonce, the vituperative chaff which he claims is not Six years ago, in Novino, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 1,21098, May 31, 1963
intended as a studied disrespect to this Court, let us examine the grain of his (60 O.G. 8099), this Court, through the then Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon,
grievances. articulated its considered view on this matter. There, the petitioners counsel urged
that a "lack of merit" resolution violates Section 12 of Article VIII of the Constitution.
He chafes at the minute resolution denial of his petition for review. We are quite Said Chief Justice Bengzon:
aware of the criticisms2 expressed against this Court's practice of rejecting petitions
by minute resolutions. We have been asked to do away with it, to state the facts In connection with identical short resolutions, the same question has been raised
and the law, and to spell out the reasons for denial. We have given this suggestion before; and we held that these "resolutions" are not "decisions" within the above
very careful thought. For we know the abject frustration of a lawyer who tediously constitutional requirement. They merely hold that the petition for review should not
collates the facts and for many weary hours meticulously marshalls his arguments, be entertained in view of the provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; and even
only to have his efforts rebuffed with a terse unadorned denial. Truth to tell, ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it. It should be remembered that
however, most petitions rejected by this Court are utterly frivolous and ought never a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but
to have been lodged at all.3 The rest do exhibit a first-impression cogency, but fail
of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the court's of the motion upon the adverse party (which he did), but also notify the adverse
denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of party of the time and place of hearing (which admittedly he did not). This rule was
Appeals' opinion. unequivocally articulated in Manila Surety & Fidelity vs. Batu Construction & Co.,
supra:
By the way, this mode of disposal has as intended helped the Court in
alleviating its heavy docket; it was patterned after the practice of the U.S. Supreme The written notice referred to evidently is prescribed for motions in general by Rule
Court, wherein petitions for review are often merely ordered "dismissed". 15, Sections 4 and 5 (formerly Rule 26), which provides that such notice shall state
the time, and place of hearing and shall be served upon all the Parties concerned
We underscore the fact that cases taken to this Court on petitions at least three days in advance. And according to Section 6 of the same Rule no
for certiorari from the Court of Appeals have had the benefit of appellate review. motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of such notice. Indeed it has
Hence, the need for compelling reasons to buttress such petitions if this Court is to been held that in such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper
be moved into accepting them. For it is axiomatic that the supervisory jurisdiction (Philippine National Bank v. Damasco, I,18638, Feb. 28, 1963; citing Manakil v.
vested upon this Court over the Court of Appeals is not intended to give every Revilla, 42 Phil. 81; Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa v. Municipality of Unisan, 41
losing party another hearing. This axiom is implied in sec. 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules Phil. 866; and Director of Lands vs. Sanz, 45 Phil. 117). The reason is obvious:
of Court which recites: Unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing the Court would have no way
to determine whether that party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he
objects, to hear him on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any
Review of Court of Appeals' decision discretionary.A review is not a matter of period within which he may file his reply or opposition.
right but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are
special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor
fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of reasons which will If Atty. Almacen failed to move the appellate court to review the lower court's
be considered: judgment, he has only himself to blame. His own negligence caused the forfeiture
of the remedy of appeal, which, incidentally, is not a matter of right. To shift away
from himself the consequences of his carelessness, he looked for a "whipping boy."
(a) When the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance, not But he made sure that he assumed the posture of a martyr, and, in offering to
theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, nor has decided it in a way probably surrender his professional certificate, he took the liberty of vilifying this Court and
not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; inflicting his exacerbating rancor on the members thereof. It would thus appear that
there is no justification for his scurrilous and scandalous outbursts.
(b) When the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by the lower Nonetheless we gave this unprecedented act of Atty. Almacen the most
court, as to call for the exercise of the power of supervision. circumspect consideration. We know that it is natural for a lawyer to express his
dissatisfaction each time he loses what he sanguinely believes to be a meritorious
Recalling Atty. Almacen's petition for review, we found, upon a thoroughgoing case. That is why lawyers are given 'wide latitude to differ with, and voice their
examination of the pleadings. and records, that the Court of Appeals had fully and disapproval of, not only the courts' rulings but, also the manner in which they are
correctly considered the dismissal of his appeal in the light of the law and handed down.
applicable decisions of this Court. Far from straying away from the "accepted and
usual course of judicial proceedings," it traced the procedural lines etched by this Moreover, every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations
Court in a number of decisions. There was, therefore, no need for this Court to of public officers. This right is not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed
exercise its supervisory power. at a judicial authority,4 or that it is articulated by a lawyer. 5 Such right is especially
recognized where the criticism concerns a concluded litigation, 6 because then the
As a law practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far back as 1941, Atty. court's actuations are thrown open to public consumption. 7 "Our decisions and all
Almacen knew or ought to have known that for a motion for reconsideration our official actions," said the Supreme Court of Nebraska, 8 "are public property, and
to stay the running of the period of appeal, the movant must not only serve a copy the press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them, criticize
and censure them as they see fit. Judicial officers, like other public servants, must correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. ... To say that an
answer for their official actions before the chancery of public opinion." attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account
and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood, by the judge or judges whom
The likely danger of confusing the fury of human reaction to an attack on one's he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be
integrity, competence and honesty, with "imminent danger to the administration of entertained. ... .
justice," is the reason why courts have been loath to inflict punishment on those
who assail their actuations.9 This danger lurks especially in such a case as this Hence, as a citizen and as Officer of the court a lawyer is expected not only to
where those who Sit as members of an entire Court are themselves collectively the exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No law may
aggrieved parties. abridge this right. Nor is he "professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the official
conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal animadversion as a
Courts thus treat with forbearance and restraint a lawyer who vigorously assails citizen." (Case of Austin, 28 Am. Dee. 657, 665).
their actuations. 10 For courageous and fearless advocates are the strands that
weave durability into the tapestry of justice. Hence, as citizen and officer of the Above all others, the members of the bar have the beat Opportunity to become
court, every lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but also to consider it conversant with the character and efficiency of our judges. No class is less likely to
his duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. 11 abuse the privilege, as no other class has as great an interest in the preservation
of an able and upright bench. (State Board of Examiners in Law v. Hart, 116 N.W.
Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. 12 They should and expect critical evaluation 212, 216)
of their performance. 13 For like the executive and the legislative branches, the
judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic society, nourished by the periodic To curtail the right of a lawyer to be critical of the foibles of courts and judges is to
appraisal of the citizens whom it is expected to serve. seal the lips of those in the best position to give advice and who might consider it
their duty to speak disparagingly. "Under such a rule," so far as the bar is
Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and concerned, "the merits of a sitting judge may be rehearsed, but as to his demerits
as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels there must be profound silence." (State v. Circuit Court, 72 N.W. 196)
the acts of courts and judges. The reason is that
But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and
An attorney does not surrender, in assuming the important place accorded to him shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists
in the administration of justice, his right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the between fair criticism, on the One hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the
courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of
of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. (In re Ades, 6 F Supp. the duty of respect to courts. It is Such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to
487) . disciplinary action.

Criticism of the courts has, indeed, been an important part of the traditional work of For, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which
the bar. In the prosecution of appeals, he points out the errors of lower courts. In are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal profession places upon
written for law journals he dissects with detachment the doctrinal pronouncements his shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting and more imperative than that
of courts and fearlessly lays bare for -all to see that flaws and inconsistence" of the of respectful behavior toward the courts. He vows solemnly to conduct himself
doctrines (Hill v. Lyman, 126 NYS 2d 286). As aptly stated by Chief Justice "with all good fidelity ... to the courts; 14 and the Rules of Court constantly remind
Sharswood in Ex Parte Steinman, 40 Am. Rep. 641: him "to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial
officers." 15 The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain towards the
courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the
No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expansion or judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance."
publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than
members of the bar. They have the best opportunities for observing and forming a
As Mr. Justice Field puts it: 1. Admitting that a "judge as a public official is neither sacrosanct nor immune to
public criticism of his conduct in office," the Supreme Court of Florida in State v.
... the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by express Calhoon, 102 So. 2d 604, 608, nevertheless declared that "any conduct of a lawyer
declaration take upon themselves, when they are admitted to the Bar, is not merely which brings into scorn and disrepute the administration of justice demands
to be obedient to the Constitution and laws, but to maintain at all times the respect condemnation and the application of appropriate penalties," adding that:
due to courts of justice and judicial officers. This obligation is not discharged by
merely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but includes It would be contrary to, every democratic theory to hold that a judge or a court is
abstaining out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward beyond bona fide comments and criticisms which do not exceed the bounds of
judges personally for their judicial acts. (Bradley, v. Fisher, 20 Law. 4d. 647, 652) decency and truth or which are not aimed at. the destruction of public confidence in
the judicial system as such. However, when the likely impairment of the
The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the administration of justice the direct product of false and scandalous accusations
orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion of their clients' rights, then the rule is otherwise.
lawyers even those gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their
tempers. 2. In In Re Glenn, 130 N.W. 2d 672, an attorney was suspended for putting out and
circulating a leaflet entitled "JUSTICE??? IN OTUMWA," which accused a
The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned lawyer than municipal judge of having committed judicial error, of being so prejudiced as to
the judge, and it may tax his patience and temper to submit to rulings which he deny his clients a fair trial on appeal and of being subject to the control of a group
regards as incorrect, but discipline and self-respect are as necessary to the orderly of city officials. As a prefatory statement he wrote: "They say that Justice is BLIND,
administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of an army. The decisions but it took Municipal Judge Willard to prove that it is also DEAF and DUMB!" The
of the judge must be obeyed, because he is the tribunal appointed to decide, and court did not hesitate to find that the leaflet went much further than the accused, as
the bar should at all times be the foremost in rendering respectful submission. (In a lawyer, had a right to do.
Re Scouten, 40 Atl. 481)
The entire publication evidences a desire on the part Of the accused to belittle and
We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment That is besmirch the court and to bring it into disrepute with the general public.
his privilege. And he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others' lack of it. That
is his misfortune. Some such frame of mind, however, should not be allowed to 3. In In Re Humphrey, 163 Pac. 60, the Supreme Court of California affirmed the
harden into a belief that he may attack a court's decision in words calculated to two-year suspension of an attorney who published a circular assailing a judge who
jettison the time-honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right. (Per Justice at that time was a candidate for re-election to a judicial office. The circular which
Sanchez in Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, L-22979. June 26, 1967) referred to two decisions of the judge concluded with a statement that the judge
"used his judicial office to enable -said bank to keep that money." Said the court:
In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be
an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, statements made by We are aware that there is a line of authorities which place no limit to the criticism
an attorney in private conversations or communications 16 or in the course of a members of the bar may make regarding the capacity, impartiality, or integrity of
political, campaign, 17 if couched in insulting language as to bring into scorn and the courts, even though it extends to the deliberate publication by the attorney
disrepute the administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary capable of correct reasoning of baseless insinuations against the intelligence and
action. integrity of the highest courts. See State Board, etc. v. Hart. 116 N.W. 212, 17 LRA
(N.S.) 585, 15 Ann Cas 197 and note: Ex parte Steinman 95 Pac. 220, 40 Am.
Of fundamental pertinence at this juncture is an examination of relevant parallel Rep. 637. In the first case mentioned it was observed, for instance:
precedents.
"It may be (although we do not so decide) that a libelous publication by an attorney, 5. In a public speech, a Rhode Island lawyer accused the courts of the state of
directed against a judicial officer, could be so vile and of such a nature as to justify being influenced by corruption and greed, saying that the seats of the Supreme
the disbarment of its author." Court were bartered. It does not appear that the attorney had criticized any of the
opinions or decisions of the Court. The lawyer was charged with unprofessional
Yet the false charges made by an attorney in that case were of graver character conduct, and was ordered suspended for a period of two years. The Court said:
than those made by the respondent here. But, in our view, the better rule is that
which requires of those who are permitted to enjoy the privilege of practicing law A calumny of that character, if believed, would tend to weaken the authority of the
the strictest observance at all times of the principles of truth, honesty and fairness, court against whose members it was made, bring its judgments into contempt,
especially in their criticism of the courts, to the end that the public confidence in the undermine its influence as an unbiased arbiter of the people's right, and interfere
due administration of justice be upheld, and the dignity and usefulness of the with the administration of justice. ...
courts be maintained. In re Collins, 81 Pac. 220.
Because a man is a member of the bar the court will not, under the guise of
4. In People ex rel Chicago Bar Asso. v. Metzen, 123 N.E. 734, an attorney, disciplinary proceedings, deprive him of any part of that freedom of speech which
representing a woman who had been granted a divorce, attacked the judge who he possesses as a citizen. The acts and decisions of the courts of this state, in
set aside the decree on bill of review. He wrote the judge a threatening letter and cases that have reached final determination, are not exempt from fair and honest
gave the press the story of a proposed libel suit against the judge and others. The comment and criticism. It is only when an attorney transcends the limits of
letter began: legitimate criticism that he will be held responsible for an abuse of his liberty of
speech. We well understand that an independent bar, as well as independent
Unless the record in In re Petersen v. Petersen is cleared up so that my name is court, is always a vigilant defender of civil rights. In Re Troy, 111 Atl. 723. 725.
protected from the libel, lies, and perjury committed in the cases involved, I shall be
compelled to resort to such drastic action as the law allows and the case warrants. 6. In In Re Rockmore, 111 NYS 879, an attorney was suspended for six months for
submitting to an appellate court an affidavit reflecting upon the judicial integrity of
Further, he said: "However let me assure you I do not intend to allow such the court from which the appeal was taken. Such action, the Court said, constitutes
dastardly work to go unchallenged," and said that he was engaged in dealing with unprofessional conduct justifying suspension from practice, notwithstanding that he
men and not irresponsible political manikins or appearances of men. Ordering the fully retracted and withdrew the statements, and asserted that the affidavit was the
attorney's disbarment, the Supreme Court of Illinois declared: result of an impulse caused by what he considered grave injustice. The Court said:

... Judges are not exempt from just criticism, and whenever there is proper ground We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is a growing habit in the profession
for serious complaint against a judge, it is the right and duty of a lawyer to submit of criticising the motives and integrity of judicial officers in the discharge of their
his grievances to the proper authorities, but the public interest and the duties, and thereby reflecting on the administration of justice and creating the
administration of the law demand that the courts should have the confidence and impression that judicial action is influenced by corrupt or improper motives. Every
respect of the people. Unjust criticism, insulting language, and offensive conduct attorney of this court, as well as every other citizen, has the right and it is his duty,
toward the judges personally by attorneys, who are officers of the court, which tend to submit charges to the authorities in whom is vested the power to remove judicial
to bring the courts and the law into disrepute and to destroy public confidence in officers for any conduct or act of a judicial officer that tends to show a violation of
their integrity, cannot be permitted. The letter written to the judge was plainly an his duties, or would justify an inference that he is false to his trust, or has
attempt to intimidate and influence him in the discharge of judicial functions, and improperly administered the duties devolved upon him; and such charges to the
the bringing of the unauthorized suit, together with the write-up in the Sunday tribunal, if based upon reasonable inferences, will be encouraged, and the person
papers, was intended and calculated to bring the court into disrepute with the making them
public. protected. ... While we recognize the inherent right of an attorney in a case decided
against him, or the right of the Public generally, to criticise the decisions of the
courts, or the reasons announced for them, the habit of criticising the motives of
judicial officers in the performance of their official duties, when the proceeding is
not against the officers whose acts or motives are criticised, tends to subvert the and honorably both with their client and with the courts where justice is
confidence of the community in the courts of justice and in the administration of administered, if administered at all, could ever properly serve their client or the
justice; and when such charges are made by officers of the courts, who are bound public good by designedly misstating facts or carelessly asserting the law. Truth
by their duty to protect the administration of justice, the attorney making such and honesty of purpose by members of the bar in such discussion is necessary.
charges is guilty of professional misconduct. The health of a municipality is none the less impaired by a polluted water supply
than is the health of the thought of a community toward the judiciary by the filthy
7. In In Re Mitchell, 71 So. 467, a lawyer published this statement: wanton, and malignant misuse of members of the bar of the confidence the public,
through its duly established courts, has reposed in them to deal with the affairs of
the private individual, the protection of whose rights he lends his strength and
I accepted the decision in this case, however, with patience, barring possible money to maintain the judiciary. For such conduct on the part of the members of
temporary observations more or less vituperative and finally concluded, that, as my the bar the law itself demands retribution not the court.
clients were foreigners, it might have been expecting too much to look for a
decision in their favor against a widow residing here.
9. In Bar Ass'n of San Francisco v. Philbrook, 170 Pac. 440, the filing of an affidavit
by an attorney in a pending action using in respect to the several judges the terms
The Supreme Court of Alabama declared that: criminal corrupt, and wicked conspiracies,," "criminal confederates," "colossal and
confident insolence," "criminal prosecution," "calculated brutality," "a corrupt
... the expressions above set out, not only transcend the bounds of propriety and deadfall," and similar phrases, was considered conduct unbecoming of a member
privileged criticism, but are an unwarranted attack, direct, or by insinuation and of the bar, and the name of the erring lawyer was ordered stricken from the roll of
innuendo, upon the motives and integrity of this court, and make out a prima attorneys.
facie case of improper conduct upon the part of a lawyer who holds a license from
this court and who is under oath to demean himself with all good fidelity to the 10. In State Board of Examiners v. Hart, 116 N.W. 215, the erring attorney claimed
court as well as to his client. that greater latitude should be allowed in case of criticism of cases finally
adjudicated than in those pending. This lawyer wrote a personal letter to the Chief
The charges, however, were dismissed after the attorney apologized to the Court. Justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota impugning both the intelligence and the
integrity of the said Chief Justice and his associates in the decisions of certain
appeals in which he had been attorney for the defeated litigants. The letters were
8. In State ex rel. Dabney v. Breckenridge, 258 Pac. 747, an attorney published in published in a newspaper. One of the letters contained this paragraph:
a newspaper an article in which he impugned the motives of the court and its
members to try a case, charging the court of having arbitrarily and for a sinister
purpose undertaken to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The Court suspended You assigned it (the property involved) to one who has no better right to it than the
the respondent for 30 days, saying that: burglar to his plunder. It seems like robbing a widow to reward a fraud, with the
court acting as a fence, or umpire, watchful and vigilant that the widow got no
undue
The privileges which the law gives to members of the bar is one most subversive of advantage. ... The point is this: Is a proper motive for the decisions discoverable,
the public good, if the conduct of such members does not measure up to the short of assigning to the court emasculated intelligence, or a constipation of morals
requirements of the law itself, as well as to the ethics of the profession. ... and faithlessness to duty? If the state bar association, or a committee chosen from
its rank, or the faculty of the University Law School, aided by the researches of its
The right of free speech and free discussion as to judicial determination is of prime hundreds of bright, active students, or if any member of the court, or any other
importance under our system and ideals of government. No right thinking man person, can formulate a statement of a correct motive for the decision, which shall
would concede for a moment that the best interest to private citizens, as well as to not require fumigation before it is stated, and quarantine after it is made, it will
public officials, whether he labors in a judicial capacity or otherwise, would be gratify every right-minded citizen of the state to read it.
served by denying this right of free speech to any individual. But such right does
not have as its corollary that members of the bar who are sworn to act honestly
The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in ordering the suspension of the attorney for six shown, fully sustained the right of a citizen to criticise rulings of the court in actions
months, delivered its opinion as follows: which are ended, it held that one might be summarily punished for assaulting a
judicial officer, in that case a commissioner of the court, for his rulings in a cause
The question remains whether the accused was guilty of professional misconduct wholly concluded. "Is it in the power of any person," said the court, "by insulting or
in sending to the Chief Justice the letter addressed to him. This was done, as we assaulting the judge because of official acts, if only the assailant restrains his
have found, for the very purpose of insulting him and the other justices of this passion until the judge leaves the building, to compel the judge to forfeit either his
court; and the insult was so directed to the Chief Justice personally because of own self-respect to the regard of the people by tame submission to the indignity, or
acts done by him and his associates in their official capacity. Such a else set in his own person the evil example of punishing the insult by taking the law
communication, so made, could never subserve any good purpose. Its only effect in his own hands? ... No high-minded, manly man would hold judicial office under
in any case would be to gratify the spite of an angry attorney and humiliate the such conditions."
officers so assailed. It would not and could not ever enlighten the public in regard
to their judicial capacity or integrity. Nor was it an exercise by the accused of any That a communication such as this, addressed to the Judge personally, constitutes
constitutional right, or of any privilege which any reputable attorney, uninfluenced professional delinquency for which a professional punishment may be imposed,
by passion, could ever have any occasion or desire to assert. No judicial officer, has been directly decided. "An attorney who, after being defeated in a case, wrote
with due regard to his position, can resent such an insult otherwise than by a personal letter to the trial justice, complaining of his conduct and reflecting upon
methods sanctioned by law; and for any words, oral or written, however abusive, his integrity as a justice, is guilty of misconduct and will be disciplined by the court."
vile, or indecent, addressed secretly to the judge alone, he can have no redress in Matter of Manheim 133 App. Div. 136, 99 N.Y. Supp. 87 The same is held in Re
any action triable by a jury. "The sending of a libelous communication or libelous Griffin (City Ct.) 1 N.Y. 7 and in Re Wilkes (City Ct.) 3 N.Y. In the latter case it
matter to the person defamed does not constitute an actionable publication." 18 appeared that the accused attorney had addressed a sealed letter to a justice of
Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 1017. In these respects the sending by the the City Court of New York, in which it was stated, in reference to his decision: "It is
accused of this letter to the Chief Justice was wholly different from his other acts not law; neither is it common sense. The result is I have been robbed of 80." And it
charged in the accusation, and, as we have said, wholly different principles are was decided that, while such conduct was not a contempt under the state, the
applicable thereto. matter should be "called to the attention of the Supreme Court, which has power to
discipline the attorney." "If," says the court, "counsel learned in the law are
The conduct of the accused was in every way discreditable; but so far as he permitted by writings leveled at the heads of judges, to charge them with
exercised the rights of a citizen, guaranteed by the Constitution and sanctioned by ignorance, with unjust rulings, and with robbery, either as principals or accessories,
considerations of public policy, to which reference has been made, he was it will not be long before the general public may feel that they may redress their
immune, as we hold, from the penalty here sought to be enforced. To that extent fancied grievances in like manner, and thus the lot of a judge will be anything but a
his rights as a citizen were paramount to the obligation which he had assumed as happy one, and the administration of justice will fall into bad repute."
an officer of this court. When, however he proceeded and thus assailed the Chief
Justice personally, he exercised no right which the court can recognize, but, on the The recent case of Johnson v. State (Ala.) 44 South. 671, was in this respect much
contrary, willfully violated his obligation to maintain the respect due to courts and the same as the case at bar. The accused, an attorney at law, wrote and mailed a
judicial officers. "This obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules of letter to the circuit judge, which the latter received by due course of mail, at his
courteous demeanor in open court, but it includes abstaining out of court from all home, while not holding court, and which referred in insulting terms to the conduct
insulting language and offensive conduct toward the judges personally for their of the judge in a cause wherein the accused had been one of the attorneys. For
official acts."Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. (U.S.) 355, 20 L. Ed. 646. And there this it was held that the attorney was rightly disbarred in having "willfully failed to
appears to be no distinction, as regards the principle involved, between the maintain respect due to him [the judge] as a judicial officer, and thereby breached
indignity of an assault by an attorney upon a judge, induced by his official act, and his oath as an attorney." As recognizing the same principle, and in support of its
a personal insult for like cause by written or spoken words addressed to the judge application to the facts of this case, we cite the following: Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall
in his chambers or at his home or elsewhere. Either act constitutes misconduct (U.S.) 364, 19 L. Ed. 214; Beene v. State, 22 Ark. 149;Commonwealth v.
wholly different from criticism of judicial acts addressed or spoken to others. The Dandridge, 2 Va. Cas. 408; People v. Green, 7 Colo 237, 244, 3 Pac. 65, 374, 49
distinction made is, we think entirely logical and well sustained by authority. It was Am. Rep. 351; Smith's Appeal, 179 Pa. 14, 36 Atl. 134; Scouten's Appeal, 186 Pa.
recognized in Ex parte McLeod supra. While the court in that case, as has been 270, Atl. 481.
Our conclusion is that the charges against the accused have been so far sustained bases and calculated to attain a different end, nevertheless illustrates that
as to make it our duty to impose such a penalty as may be sufficient lesson to him universal abhorrence of such condemnable practices.
and a suitable warning to others. ...
A perusal of the more representative of these instances may afford enlightenment.
11. In Cobb v. United States, 172 F. 641, the court affirmed a lawyer's suspension
for 18 months for publishing a letter in a newspaper in which he accused a judge of 1. In Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724, where counsel branded the denial of his
being under the sinister influence of a gang that had paralyzed him for two years. motion for reconsideration as "absolutely erroneous and constituting an outrage to
the rigths of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will
12. In In Re Graves, 221 Pac. 411, the court held that an attorney's unjustifiable expressed at the polls," this Court, although conceding that
attack against the official acts and decisions of a judge constitutes "moral
turpitude." There, the attorney was disbarred for criticising not only the judge, but It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his
his decisions in general claiming that the judge was dishonest in reaching his client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is
decisions and unfair in his general conduct of a case. not, and never will be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to intimidation or
proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts
13. In In Re Doss, 12 N.E. 2d 659, an attorney published newspaper articles after requires. The reason for this is that respect for the courts guarantees the stability of
the trial of cases, criticising the court in intemperate language. The invariable effect their institution. Without such guaranty, said institution would be resting on a very
of this sort of propaganda, said the court, is to breed disrespect for courts and shaky foundation,
bring the legal profession into disrepute with the public, for which reason the lawyer
was disbarred. found counsel guilty of contempt inasmuch as, in its opinion, the statements made
disclosed
14. In State v. Grimes, 354 Pac. 2d 108, an attorney, dissatisfied with the loss of a
case, prepared over a period of years vicious attacks on jurists. The Oklahoma ... an inexcusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an intentional
Supreme Court declared that his acts involved such gross moral turpitude as to contempt of its dignity, because the court is thereby charged with no less than
make him unfit as a member of the bar. His disbarment was ordered, even though having proceeded in utter disregard of the laws, the rights to the parties, and 'of the
he expressed an intention to resign from the bar. untoward consequences, or with having abused its power and mocked and flouted
the rights of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's client ... .
The teaching derived from the above disquisition and impressive affluence of
judicial pronouncements is indubitable: Post-litigation utterances or publications, 2. In In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, counsel, a senator and the author of the Press
made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their judicial actuations, whether Freedom Law, reaching to, the imprisonment for contempt of one Angel Parazo,
amounting to a crime or not, which transcend the permissible bounds of fair who, invoking said law, refused to divulge the source of a news item carried in his
comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or paper, caused to be published in i local newspaper a statement expressing his
to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of regret "that our High Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but it is
justice, constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with once more putting in evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the
disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court majority of its members," and his belief that "In the wake of so many blunders and
in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent in it as the duly constituted guardian of injustices deliberately committed during these last years, ... the only remedy to put
the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity. an end to go much evil, is to change the members of the Supreme Court," which
tribunal he denounced as "a constant peril to liberty and democracy" and "a far cry
Of course, rarely have we wielded our disciplinary powers in the face of from the impregnable bulwark of justice of those memorable times of Cayetano
unwarranted outbursts of counsel such as those catalogued in the above-cited Arellano, Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were the
jurisprudence. Cases of comparable nature have generally been disposed of under honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary." He there also announced that one of
the power of courts to punish for contempt which, although resting on different the first measures he would introduce in then forthcoming session of Congress
would have for its object the complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct (17 L.R.A.
Finding him in contempt, despite his avowals of good faith and his invocation of the [N.S.], 586, 594.)
guarantee of free speech, this Court declared:
3. In Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer: In re Proceedings against Alfonso Ponce
But in the above-quoted written statement which he caused to be published in the Enrile, et al., supra, where counsel charged this Court with having "repeatedly
press, the respondent does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the fallen" into ,the pitfall of blindly adhering to its previous "erroneous"
Parazo case, which was then and still is pending consideration by this Court upon pronouncements, "in disregard of the law on jurisdiction" of the Court of Industrial
petition of Angel Parazo. He not only intends to intimidate the members of this Relations, our condemnation of counsel's misconduct was unequivocal. Articulating
Court with the presentation of a bill in the next Congress, of which he is one of the the sentiments of the Court, Mr. Justice Sanchez stressed:
members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the number of Justices
from eleven, so as to change the members of this Court which decided the Parazo As we look back at the language (heretofore quoted) employed in the motion for
case, who according to his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in reconsideration, implications there are which inescapably arrest attention. It speaks
order to influence the final decision of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass of one pitfall into which this Court has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of
or obstruct the administration of justice. But the respondent also attacks the the Court of Industrial Relations comes into question. That pitfall is the tendency of
honesty and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the Justices this Court to rely on its own pronouncements in disregard of the law on jurisdiction.
of this Court into disrepute and degrading the administration. of justice ... . It makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of this Court, blindly adhere to
earlier rulings without as much as making any reference to and analysis of the
To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing pertinent statute governing the jurisdiction of the industrial court. The plain import
deliberately so many blunders and injustices, that is to say, that it has been of all these is that this Court is so patently inept that in determining the jurisdiction
deciding in favor of Que party knowing that the law and justice is on the part of the of the industrial court, it has committed error and continuously repeated that error
adverse party and not on the one in whose favor the decision was rendered, in to the point of perpetuation. It pictures this Court as one which refuses to hew to
many cases decided during the last years, would tend necessarily to undermine the line drawn by the law on jurisdictional boundaries. Implicit in the quoted
the confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the members of this statements is that the pronouncements of this Court on the jurisdiction of the
Court, and consequently to lower ,or degrade the administration of justice by this industrial court are not entitled to respect. Those statements detract much from the
Court. The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last dignity of and respect due this Court. They bring into question the capability of the
bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for their grievances members and some former members of this Court to render justice. The second
or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people lose paragraph quoted yields a tone of sarcasm which counsel labelled as "so called"
their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court and the "rule against splitting of jurisdiction."
believe that they cannot expect justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the
law into their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a Similar thoughts and sentiments have been expressed in other cases 18
which, in
member of the bar and an officer of the courts, Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is the interest of brevity, need not now be reviewed in detail.
in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes
fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote
distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the Of course, a common denominator underlies the aforecited cases all of them
stability of other institutions, which without such guaranty would be resting on a involved contumacious statements made in pleadings filed pending litigation. So
very shaky foundation. that, in line with the doctrinal rule that the protective mantle of contempt may
ordinarily be invoked only against scurrilous remarks or malicious innuendoes
while a court mulls over a pending case and not after the conclusion
Significantly, too, the Court therein hastened to emphasize that thereof, 19 Atty. Almacen would now seek to sidestep the thrust of a contempt
charge by his studied emphasis that the remarks for which he is now called upon to
... an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be respectful account were made only after this Court had written finis to his appeal. This is of
in his conduct and communication to the courts; he may be removed from office or no moment.
The rule that bars contempt after a judicial proceeding has terminated, has lost exercise of the disciplinary power the morals inherent in our authority and duty to
much of its vitality. For sometime, this was the prevailing view in this jurisdiction. safeguard and ethics of the legal profession and to preserve its ranks from the
The first stir for a modification thereof, however, came when, inPeople vs. intrusions of unprincipled and unworthy disciples of the noblest of callings. In this
Alarcon, 20 the then Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran dissented with the holding of inquiry, the pendency or non-pendency of a case in court is altogether of no
the majority, speaking thru Justice Jose P. Laurel, which upheld the rule above- consequence. The sole objective of this proceeding is to preserve the purity of the
adverted to. A complete disengagement from the settled rule was later to be made legal profession, by removing or suspending a member whose misconduct has
in In re Brillantes, 21 a contempt proceeding, where the editor of the proved himself unfit to continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
Manila Guardian was adjudged in contempt for publishing an editorial which belonging to the office of an attorney.
asserted that the 1944 Bar Examinations were conducted in a farcical manner after
the question of the validity of the said examinations had been resolved and the Undoubtedly, this is well within our authority to do. By constitutional mandate, 22 our
case closed. Virtually, this was an adoption of the view expressed by Chief Justice is the solemn duty, amongst others, to determine the rules for admission to the
Moran in his dissent in Alarcon to the effect that them may still be contempt by practice of law. Inherent in this prerogative is the corresponding authority to
publication even after a case has been terminated. Said Chief Justice Moran discipline and exclude from the practice of law those who have proved themselves
in Alarcon: unworthy of continued membership in the Bar. Thus

A publication which tends to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in The power to discipline attorneys, who are officers of the court, is an inherent and
administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding, constitutes criminal contempt incidental power in courts of record, and one which is essential to an orderly
which is 'summarily punishable by courts. A publication which tends to degrade the discharge of judicial functions. To deny its existence is equivalent to a declaration
courts and to destroy public confidence in them or that which tends to bring them in that the conduct of attorneys towards courts and clients is not subject to restraint.
any way into disrepute, constitutes likewise criminal contempt, and is equally Such a view is without support in any respectable authority, and cannot be
punishable by courts. What is sought, in the first kind of contempt, to be shielded tolerated. Any court having the right to admit attorneys to practice and in this state
against the influence of newspaper comments, is the all-important duty of the that power is vested in this court-has the inherent right, in the exercise of a sound
courts to administer justice in the decision of a pending case. In the second kind of judicial discretion to exclude them from practice. 23
contempt, the punitive hand of justice is extended to vindicate the courts from any
act or conduct calculated to bring them into disfavor or to destroy public confidence
in them. In the first there is no contempt where there is no action pending, as there This, because the admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is a representation
is no decision which might in any way be influenced by the newspaper publication. to all that he is worthy of their confidence and respect. So much so that
In the second, the contempt exists, with or without a pending case, as what is
sought to be protected is the court itself and its dignity. Courts would lose their ... whenever it is made to appear to the court that an attorney is no longer worthy of
utility if public confidence in them is destroyed. the trust and confidence of the public and of the courts, it becomes, not only the
right, but the duty, of the court which made him one of its officers, and gave him the
Accordingly, no comfort is afforded Atty. Almacen by the circumstance that his privilege of ministering within its bar, to withdraw the privilege. Therefore it is
statements and actuations now under consideration were made only after the almost universally held that both the admission and disbarment of attorneys are
judgment in his client's appeal had attained finality. He could as much be liable for judicial acts, and that one is admitted to the bar and exercises his functions as an
contempt therefor as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said attorney, not as a matter of right, but as a privilege conditioned on his own behavior
appeal. and the exercise of a just and sound judicial discretion. 24

More than this, however, consideration of whether or not he could be held liable for Indeed, in this jurisdiction, that power to remove or suspend has risen above being
contempt for such post litigation utterances and actuations, is here immaterial. By a mere inherent or incidental power. It has been elevated to an express mandate
the tenor of our Resolution of November 17, 1967, we have confronted the by the Rules of Court. 25
situation here presented solely in so far as it concerns Atty. Almacen's professional
identity, his sworn duty as a lawyer and his fitness as an officer of this Court, in the
Our authority and duty in the premises being unmistakable, we now proceed to discriminating, fitting to its high function as the court of last resort. And more than
make an assessment of whether or not the utterances and actuations of Atty. this, valid and healthy criticism is by no means synonymous to obloquy, and
Almacen here in question are properly the object of disciplinary sanctions. requires detachment and disinterestedness, real qualities approached only through
constant striving to attain them. Any criticism of the Court must, possess the quality
The proffered surrender of his lawyer's certificate is, of course, purely potestative of judiciousness and must be informed -by perspective and infused by
on Atty. Almacen's part. Unorthodox though it may seem, no statute, no law stands philosophy. 26
in its way. Beyond making the mere offer, however, he went farther. In haughty and
coarse language, he actually availed of the said move as a vehicle for his vicious It is not accurate to say, nor is it an obstacle to the exercise of our authority in ;the
tirade against this Court. The integrated entirety of his petition bristles with vile premises, that, as Atty. Almacen would have appear, the members of the Court are
insults all calculated to drive home his contempt for and disrespect to the Court the "complainants, prosecutors and judges" all rolled up into one in this instance.
and its members. Picturing his client as "a sacrificial victim at the altar of This is an utter misapprehension, if not a total distortion, not only of the nature of
hypocrisy," he categorically denounces the justice administered by this Court to be the proceeding at hand but also of our role therein.
not only blind "but also deaf and dumb." With unmitigated acerbity, he virtually
makes this Court and its members with verbal talons, imputing to the Court the Accent should be laid on the fact that disciplinary proceedings like the present
perpetration of "silent injustices" and "short-cut justice" while at the same time are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not
branding its members as "calloused to pleas of justice." And, true to his announced and does not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation
threat to argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum," he caused the by the Court into the conduct of its officers. 27 Not being intended to. inflict
publication in the papers of an account of his actuations, in a calculated effort ;to punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a
startle the public, stir up public indignation and disrespect toward the Court. Called plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein It may be initiated by the Court motu
upon to make an explanation, he expressed no regret, offered no apology. Instead, proprio. 28 Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
with characteristic arrogance, he rehashed and reiterated his vituperative attacks determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
and, alluding to the Scriptures, virtually tarred and feathered the Court and its privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court
members as inveterate hypocrites incapable of administering justice and unworthy merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of
to impose disciplinary sanctions upon him. the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and
the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of
The virulence so blatantly evident in Atty. Almacen's petition, answer and oral members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be
argumentation speaks for itself. The vicious language used and the scurrilous entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an
innuendoes they carried far transcend the permissible bounds of legitimate attorney. 29 In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a
criticism. They could never serve any purpose but to gratify the spite of an irate complainant or a prosecutor.
attorney, attract public attention to himself and, more important of all, bring ;this
Court and its members into disrepute and destroy public confidence in them to the Undeniably, the members of the Court are, to a certain degree, aggrieved parties.
detriment of the orderly administration of justice. Odium of this character and Any tirade against the Court as a body is necessarily and inextricably as much so
texture presents no redeeming feature, and completely negates any pretense of against the individual members thereof. But in the exercise of its disciplinary
passionate commitment to the truth. It is not a whit less than a classic example of powers, the Court acts as an entity separate and distinct from the individual
gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross transgression of personalities of its members. Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate
the Canons of Legal Ethics. As such, it cannot be allowed to go unrebuked. The court, the individual members act not as such individuals but. only as a duly
way for the exertion of our disciplinary powers is thus laid clear, and the need constituted court. Their distinct individualities are lost in the majesty of their
therefor is unavoidable. office.30 So that, in a very real sense, if there be any complainant in the case at bar,
it can only be the Court itself, not the individual members thereof as well as the
We must once more stress our explicit disclaimer of immunity from criticism. Like people themselves whose rights, fortunes and properties, nay, even lives, would be
any other Government entity in a viable democracy, the Court is not, and should placed at grave hazard should the administration of justice be threatened by the
not be, above criticism. But a critique of the Court must be intelligent and
retention in the Bar of men unfit to discharge the solemn responsibilities of suspension becomes effective he may prove to this Court that he is once again fit
membership in the legal fraternity. to resume the practice of law.

Finally, the power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen
incident of the power to admit persons to said practice. By constitutional precept, be, as he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law until further orders, the
this power is vested exclusively in this Court. This duty it cannot abdicate just as suspension to take effect immediately.
much as it cannot unilaterally renounce jurisdiction legally invested upon it. 31 So
that even if it be conceded that the members collectively are in a sense the Let copies of this resolution. be furnished the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor
aggrieved parties, that fact alone does not and cannot disqualify them from the General and the Court of Appeals for their information and guidance.
exercise of that power because public policy demands that they., acting as a Court,
exercise the power in all cases which call for disciplinary action. The present is
such a case. In the end, the imagined anomaly of the merger in one entity of the Concepcion,. C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
personalities of complainant, prosecutor and judge is absolutely inexistent. Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor JJ., concur.

Last to engage our attention is the nature and extent of the sanctions that may be Fernando, J., took no part.
visited upon Atty. Almacen for his transgressions. As marked out by the Rules of
Court, these may range from mere suspension to total removal or
disbarment. 32 The discretion to assess under the circumstances the imposable
sanction is, of course, primarily addressed to the sound discretion of the Court
which, being neither arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or
prejudice, should ever be controlled by the imperative need that the purity and
independence of the Bar be scrupulously guarded and the dignity of and respect Republic of the Philippines
due to the Court be zealously maintained. SUPREME COURT
Manila
That the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of considerable gravity cannot
be overemphasized. However, heeding the stern injunction that disbarment should EN BANC
never be decreed where a lesser sanction would accomplish the end desired, and
believing that it may not perhaps be futile to hope that in the sober light of some G.R. No. 31012 September 10, 1932
future day, Atty. Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do
disservice to an advocate and that in every effervescence of candor there is ample
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
room for the added glow of respect, it is our view that suspension will suffice under
vs.
the circumstances. His demonstrated persistence in his misconduct by neither
ESTELA ROMUALDEZ and LUIS MABUNAY, defendants-appellants.
manifesting repentance nor offering apology therefor leave us no way of
determining how long that suspension should last and, accordingly, we are
impelled to decree that the same should be indefinite. This, we are empowered to Courtney Whitney, Vicente Nepomuceno and Julio Llorente for appellant
do not alone because jurisprudence grants us discretion on the matter 33 but also Romualdez.
because, even without the comforting support of precedent, it is obvious that if we Vicente J. Francisco and Claro M. Recto for appellant Mabunay.
have authority to completely exclude a person from the practice of law, there is no Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
reason why indefinite suspension, which is lesser in degree and effect, can be
regarded as falling outside of the compass of that authority. The merit of this choice VICKERS, J.:
is best shown by the fact that it will then be left to Atty. Almacen to determine for
himself how long or how short that suspension shall last. For, at any time after the
This is an appeal from the following decision of the Honorable E. P. Revilla, Judge UNDISPUTED FACTS
of the Court of First Instance of Manila:
There is no question whatsoever as to the following facts which are not disputed
Estela Romualdez and Luis Mabunay are charged with the crime of falsification of either by the prosecution or by the defense:
public and official documents, committed, according to the information, as follows:
The accused Estela Romualdez was appointed upon the recommendation of
That in or about the month of February, 1927, in the City of Manila, Philippine Justice Norberto Romualdez of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands as his
Islands, the accused Estela Romualdez, who, by appointment of the Supreme secretary on November 1, 1921, and continued as such until September 15, 1928.
Court of the Philippine Islands, was then taking part in the discharge of public
functions as secretary to the Honorable Norberto Romualdez, one of the Justices The accused Luis Mabunay was one of the candidates duly admitted to the bar
of the Supreme Court, and by reason of said duty had under her care the examinations held in 1926.
compositions and other papers and documents having reference to the
examinations for the admission of candidates to the bar held in the months of
August and September, 1926, which were then kept in the archives of the said The clerk of the Supreme Court, Mr. Vicente Albert, who was appointed to that
court, confabulating with her coaccused, Luis Mabunay, and acting in common office on July 11, 1912, acts every year as the secretary ex oficio of the
accord with him, who was then one of the candidates who took the said Bar examination committee for admission to the bar.
Examinations, willfully, illegally, and criminally extracted from the said archives of
the Supreme Court certain public and official documents, to wit: the compositions, The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands designated Justice Norberto
which were written, prepared and submitted by the accused, Luis Mabunay in that Romualdez as chairman of the examination committee for admission to the bar in
examination. Once in possession of the same, the said accused Estela Romualdez the year 1926, and upon recommendation of Clerk Vicente Albert, he appointed the
and Luis Mabunay, conspiring together and acting in common accord, willfully, following as members of the examination committee, with their respective subjects:
illegally, and criminally erased the grade of fifty-eight (58%) given by the correctors Attorney Francisco Ortigas, Civil Law; Judge Vicente Nepomuceno, Mercantile
Alfonso Felix and M. Guevara to the composition in Remedial Law, which was Law; Attorney Godofredo Reyes, Criminal Law; Judge Jose Abreu, Remedial Law;
written and prepared by the accused Luis Mabunay, and in its place wrote sixty- Attorney C. A. DeWitt, International Law; Attorney-General Delfin Jaranilla, Political
four (64%); and also erased the grade of sixty-three (63%) given by correctors Law; and Attorney Carlos Ledesma, Legal Ethics.
Jeronimo Samson and Amado del Rosario to the composition in Civil Law written
and prepared by the said Luis Mabunay, and in its place wrote seventy-three
(73%), and by means of these alterations the said accused Estela Romualdez and Upon recommendation also of clerk of court Mr. Vicente Albert, a committee of
Luis Mabunay were able to change the relative merits of those compositions, correctors was appointed, composed of the following attorneys: Amado del
thereby attributing to the said correctors, statements and declarations contrary to Rosario, Assistant Director of Civil Service, and Jeronimo Samson, deputy clerk of
what they really made, and the accused Estela Romualdez and Luis Mabunay thus the Supreme Court, as correctors in Civil Law; Rafael Amparo, Secretary of Justice
succeeded by means of falsifications made by them in the aforesaid public and Johnson, and Fulgencio Vega, Secretary of Justice Malcolm, as correctors in
official documents in making it appear that Luis Mabunay obtained the general Mercantile Law; Cecilio Apostol, Assistant City Fiscal, and Remo, of the Bureau of
average required by the rules of the Supreme Court, and in securing the latter's Audits, as correctors in Penal Law; Marciano Guevara, of the Bureau of Audits and
admission to the practice of law, as in fact he was admitted, to the great prejudice Alfonso Felix, Assistant City Fiscal, as correctors in Remedial law; Juan Lantin, of
of the public. the Executive Bureau, and the accused Estela Romualdez, as correctors in
Political Law; Rufino Luna, of the Executive Bureau, and Zoilo Castrillo, of the
Bureau of Lands, as correctors in International Law; and Anatalio Maalac, of the
Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. Bureau of Lands, and Jeronimo Samson as correctors in Legal Ethics. On account
of illness, Mr. Remo was substituted by Jeronimo Samson as corrector in Penal
Both the prosecution and the defense produced an abundance of evidence, oral Law. All said correctors were designated by clerk of court Albert with the approval
and documentary, the presentation of which consumed considerable of the court's of the chairman of the examination committee.
time.
The work of the members of the examination committee was limited to the and the figures 64% inclosed in parenthesis appearing in said composition are also
preparation of the questions in their respective subjects and of a memorandum or in my regular handwriting."
note of the articles, legal provisions and jurisprudence showing the sources from
which the questions were taken. The work of reviewing and grading the Authority of the accused Estela Romualdez to alter or change the grades
compositions was entrusted to the correctors designated for each subject. Each
corrector was furnished with this note or memorandum, and a set of rules,
patterned after those of the Civil Service, was prepared by corrector Amado del In view of the admission made by the accused Estela Romualdez that she was the
Rosario to guide the correctors in grading the examination papers. person who wrote on the compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2 the words and figures
alleged to have been falsified, it now appears that the burden of establishing the
authority under which said changes and alterations were made is on the accused.
The correctors worked separately in reviewing and grading the papers on the On this point the evidence for the defense tended to show that the accused Estela
subject assigned to them, noting the grades given to each answer, not on the Romualdez, both in her capacity as private secretary of the chairman of the
composition, but in a separate note book, which were later checked with the examination committee and as corrector and at the same time supervisor of the
grades given by the other corrector in the same subject, for the purpose of correctors, was authorized by said chairman to revise the compositions already
determining the general average to be given to the composition. reviewed by the other correctors and to change the grades given by them.

The report of the examination committee on the final result of the bar examination Justice Romualdez, testifying as a witness for the defense, said that he considered
for the year 1926 was submitted, under date of March 2, 1927, to the Supreme the accused Estela Romualdez and Deputy Clerk Samson as supervisors of the
Court and was published on the fifth of said month. In the list of successful correctors; and explaining the powers of the former he said (page 721, s. n.):
candidates (Exhibit C-5) there appeared the name of candidate Luis Mabunay with
a general average of 75%. The grades of Mabunay in each subject, according to
the list Exhibit C-2, which was prepared after the publication of the result of the "As such supervisor I think there was on occasion when I gave her to understand
examination, are: 73 in Civil Law, 77 in Mercantile Law, 69 in Penal Law, 76 in that in order to do justice to the compositions, she could review the compositions
Political Law, 86 in International Law, 64 in Remedial Law, 80 in Legal Ethics and already graded by the other correctors; provided, I want to add, that the new
Practical Exercises. However, a later revision of the composition of Luis Mabunay revision was done in order to do justice to the compositions and before the names
showed that the grades of seventy-three (73 in Civil Law (Exhibit B-1), and sixty- of the candidates were known."
four (64) in Remedial Law (Exhibit B-2) had been written on the first page of said
compositions after striking out the grades of sixty-three (63) therefore given to the Referring to the alterations made by the accused Estela Romualdez to the grades
composition in Civil Law, Exhibit B-1, and fifty-eight (58) theretofore given to the given by the corresponding correctors to compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2, this
composition in Remedial Law, Exhibit B-2. The investigation of this irregularity by same witness testified that said alterations were made within the limits of the
the City Fiscal of Manila led to the filing of the information in this case. powers he had given to said accused (pages 723, 726, s. n.).

Admission of the accused Estela Romualdez For her part the accused Estela Romualdez, testifying as a witness in her own
behalf, said that the chairman of the examining committee, gave her to understand
Before the prosecuting attorney had finished presenting his evidence tending to that she "was authorized to correct any composition in any subject" in the bar
show the identity of the person who altered the grades appearing on the first pages examinations of the year 1926 and that she had never corrected any composition
of the compositions Exhibits-B-1 and B-2, the accused Estela Romualdez after the name of the corresponding candidate was identified (pages 782, 783, s.
spontaneously and with the conformity of her attorneys made of record an n.). She denied having known Luis Mabunay, and said that the first time she saw
admission as follows (p. 395, s. n.): him was on the first day of the trial of this case (page 783, s. n.).

"In Exhibit B-1 the words seventy-three and the figures 73% inclosed in Contention of the Prosecuting Attorney
parenthesis are in my regular handwriting, and in Exhibit B-2 the words sixty-four
The contention of the prosecuting attorney with respect to the accused Estela attorneys in accordance with section 2 of the rules had not been followed by the
Romualdez may be summarized in two following propositions: 1st that Justice Supreme Court for a number of years prior to 1926, and that when said court
Romualdez, as chairman of the examination committee, did not have authority to designated Justice Romualdez as chairman of the examination committee without
delegate to his secretary, the accused Estela Romualdez, the power to revise designating the examiners, it left that function to said chairman, and conferred
compositions in subjects in which she was not a corrector and which had already upon him ample powers to do what in his judgment was most in line with justice
been graded by the other correctors, and much less the power to alter or change and the law, and that no Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to determine the
the grades given to and written on said compositions; 2nd that granting that the propriety or illegality of the procedure employed by the chairman of the
chairman of the examination committee had such authority, the accused Estela examination committee, or of the powers conferred by him upon his secretary,
Romualdez did not exercise the same in the manner prescribed by said chairman, inasmuch as said chairman was responsible only to the Supreme Court for his
namely, in order to do justice to the compositions and on the condition that the acts.
revision and the changes of grades should be made before the names of the
candidates, to whom the compositions belonged, were known. The defense also claims that the accused Estela Romualdez could not have known
to whom compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2 belonged at the time of making the
In support of the first proposition, the prosecuting attorneys maintains that Justice alteration of the grades appearing on the first pages thereof, because, according to
Romualdez was appointed by the Supreme Court as chairman of the bar the testimony of said accused, corroborated by that of Catalina Pons, who was one
examination committee of the year 1926, so that he would supervise the of those who helped in the preparation of the list of candidates Exhibit C-1, the
examinations in accordance with law and the rules, and that precisely, in envelopes containing the names and the identification numbers of the candidates
accordance with the rules the chairman can not by himself exercise the individual were opened just one day before the publication of the result of the examination,
powers of the committee, among which were the powers to review, and to change and that in order to finish this work and to place the names of the candidates on
or alter the grades given to the compositions. said list, they had to work continuously from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock
in the evening on the day prior to the publication of the result of the examinations.
As to the second proposition, the prosecuting attorney maintains that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, specially the testimony of the Deputy Clerk Samson, Considerations on the evidence and contentions of both parties
shows that the accused Estela Romualdez made the changes in the grades given
by the correctors to compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2, in order to favor the Upon an examination of the testimony of Justice Romualdez, as a witness for the
accused Luis Mabunay, to whom she knew said compositions belonged, thus defense, the court finds that the accused Estela Romualdez, as secretary of the
violating the conditions imposed upon her by the chairman of the examination chairman of the examination committee, and Jeronimo Samson, as deputy clerk of
committee when she was given said authority. the Supreme Court were considered by said chairman not only as correctors in the
subjects assigned to them but also as supervisors of the correctors (page 721, s.
As to the accused Luis Mabunay, the prosecuting attorney also maintains that the n.), both of them with equal powers and authority so that neither could consider
evidence for the prosecution shows that he was in connivance with the accused himself superior to the other (page 727, s. n.). It appears, however, that while the
Estela Romualdez in the alteration by the latter of his grades in Civil Law and chairman of the committee gave his secretary, the accused Estela Romualdez, to
Remedial Law for the purpose of raising to 75% the general average of 72.8 which understand that she "was authorized to revise the compositions already graded by
he had obtained. the other correctors provided the new revisions were made for the purpose of
doing justice to the compositions and that the same were mad before the names of
Theory of the Defense the candidates were known" (pages 721, 722, s. n.), he did not do the same with
respect to Deputy Clerk Jeronimo Samson, to whom he said nothing about this
matter (page 768, s. n.). It also appears that the accused Estela Romualdez had
In reply to the contention of the prosecuting attorney, the defense argues that the never informed the chairman of the committee about the corrections or alterations
power of supervision given by Justice Romualdez to his secretary, the accused made by her in compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2; neither did the latter examine
Estela Romualdez, is not contrary to law, rules or precedents. This assertion is said compositions to determine whether or not their merits justified the changes so
based on the testimony of said Justice that the appointment of a committee of made, and he only knew of said changes upon the filing of the information against
his said secretary (page 728, s. n.). For her part, she made no report to the and that the chairman of the examination committee "has not gone into such minor
chairman of the examination committee of any error or injustice committed by any details" (page 831, s. n.). Upon being questioned by the fiscal as to why she wrote
corrector, and she only told him during the progress of the work of grading the the altered grade on composition Exhibit B-2 on the same line and immediately
papers that they were being graded very strictly and that "she feared that some before the initials of the correctors she said: "Because on that occasion it pleased
injustice might be committed" (page 729, s. n.), and for that reason Justice me to do so" (page 836, s. n.). Neither does the accused remember whether or not
Romualdez told his secretary, Estela Romualdez, that "should a case of the kind she exercised her supervisory authority with respect to the other five compositions
come to her knowledge, she should take special notice of the same in order to do forming part of those marked as Exhibits B-1 and B-2 (page 840, s. n.); and when
justice," that is to say, if any person should bring to her attention any such case in asked by the fiscal for an explanation as to why the increase given by her to the
which, in her opinion, some injustice had been committed, she was authorized to grades originally given to said compositions had the effect of raising the general
put things in order (page 781, s. n.), and the revision in such cases was left to the average of the compositions of the same candidate to 75%, the accused answered
judgment of his secretary (page 780, s. n.). that "the fiscal ought to know that in this life there are happy coincidences" (page
848, s. n.). With these answers and others appearing in her testimony, the accused
The powers conferred in the manner above stated, by Justice Romualdez as instead of giving a satisfactory explanation of her conduct, has demonstrated that
chairman of the examination committee upon his secretary, Estela Romualdez, with the encouragement given by Justice Romualdez to the effect that the new
gave her so ample a discretionary power of supervision that in its exercise she revision of the compositions was left to her discretion (page 780, s. n.) she
should act independently, not only of the correctors and of her cosupervisor assumed that the powers exercised by her in the bar examinations of 1926 were
Jeronimo Samson, but also of the examination committee. Now, granting that such that she could revise any composition in any subject already graded and
Justice Romualdez, as a chairman of the committee appointed by the Supreme increase or decrease the grades given by the correctors; in other words, that she
Court to conduct the bar examinations of 1926, was authorized to confer such could, at her pleasure, do or undo the work done by the correctors without the
power of supervision upon his secretary Estela Romualdez, in what manner did necessity of accounting to anybody for it (page 834, s. n.), or of keeping a note or
she exercise that power when she made the changes in the compositions in memorandum of the compositions so revised and the alteration of the grades.
question?
The evidence, however, shows that Justice Romualdez himself in reviewing, in his
The accused Estela Romualdez who, according to her own admission, made the capacity as chairman of the examination committee, the compositions of the
alterations of the grades originally given by the correctors to compositions of candidates who filed motions for reconsideration of the grades given them, after
Exhibits B-1 and B-2, is the only person who could give an account of and explain the publication of the result of the examinations, performed his work with such
the circumstances under which said alterations were made. But said accused, diligence and zeal that he noted in a memorandum book (Exhibit F) not only the
testifying as a witness in her own behalf, was not able to explain how and under grades given to each answer of the candidate, but also the total grade obtained by
what circumstances she made those alterations. When pressed by the fiscal during the candidate in the revision, together with such other data which would explain the
the cross-examination to state the circumstances under which she came across increase of the grades of this or that candidate.
those compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2 the accused Estela Romualdez said: "If I
were to make any statement with reference to the circumstances under which I The court is loath to believe that Justice Romualdez had given his secretary to
came across these compositions, you would compel me to tell a lie, because I do understand that she had such unlimited powers, or that the Supreme Court in
not really remember" (page 823, s. n.). Neither does the accused remember why designating said Justice as chairman of the bar examination committee of the year
she did not put her initials under or at the side of those alterations she made on 1926, authorizing him to confer such powers upon his secretary, because it is an
compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2, limiting herself to say, when she saw the other undisputed fact that his designation was made so that he should conduct the
compositions (Exhibits 3-1, X, X-1 and X-2) bearing her initials which were examinations in accordance with law and the rules.
exhibited to her by the fiscal, that she placed her initials on said compositions
because she graded them as corrector, and she did not put her initials on But, even granting that when the accused Estela Romualdez altered the grades
compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2 because she revised them in her capacity as given by the correctors to compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2 she acted in the
supervisor (pages 824- 832, s. n.). She also said, that, as corrector, she had exercise of the powers conferred upon her by the chairman of the examination
instructions to put her initials when writing the original grade on any composition, committee, is there any ground in support of her claim that she made those
but as supervisor "she was under no obligation" to put her initials (page 830, s. n.)
alterations only to do justice to the compositions, and without knowing the name of of court, Mr. Albert, instructed his deputy, Mr. Samson, to prepare another list
the candidate to whom they belonged? containing only the names of the candidates who had originally obtained a general
average of 75% without having obtained less than 60% in any subject, and in
Without giving any weight to the testimony of the witness for the prosecution, Juan pursuance thereof the typewritten list Exhibit C-5 was prepared (page 77, s. n.),
Villaflor, which, according to the defense is not worthy of credit because of the which was approved by the Supreme Court and published on March 5, 1927. In
contradictions and inconsistencies therein noted, the record contains other this list Luis Mabunay is included with an average of 75%.
evidence establishing certain facts from which such knowledge can be inferred.
Eight or ten days after the publication of the result of the examinations the list
It has been proved that after the revision and grading of all the compositions Exhibit C-2 was prepared in the same form as Exhibit C-1 taking the grades
numbering over 8,000, a list, Exhibit C-1, was prepared in pencil. This list was directly from the compositions; while one of the helpers read them, Deputy Clerk
prepared with the intervention of the said Jeronimo Samson and Josephine Samson listed them on the adding machine and computed the general average of
Stevens, assisted by Catalina Pons, Juan Villaflor and the accused Estela each candidate. The roll of paper used by Deputy Samson on this occasion was
Romualdez. However, before the preparation of this list, sometime during the first also presented and marked as Exhibit C-7.
day of February, 1927, the sealed envelopes containing the identification numbers
attached to each composition were opened. Said numbers were written either on Both rolls, Exhibits C-6 and C-7, as well as the lists Exhibits C-1 and C-2, were
the upper part of each envelope or on the first page of the composition, and that kept in the office of Justice Romualdez and were only taken out when the
work lasted several days (pages 162, 163, s. n.). In the list Exhibit C-1 the numbers investigation of the irregularities in the examinations of 1926 was commenced
of the candidates contained in the envelopes attached to the compositions were (page 81, s. n.). And only in the course of that investigation it was discovered that
first written (page 166, s. n.), and then the grades in each subject, followed by the the grades of candidate Luis Mabunay, identified with number 898 in roll Exhibit C-
general average (pages 71, 184, s. n.), leaving in the blank the space intended for 6 and in the list Exhibit C-1, which had been prepared simultaneously, did not
the names (page 166, s. n.). Deputy Clerk Samson wrote on an adding machine agree, because, while roll Exhibit C-6 shows that the grade in Civil Law of
the grades in each composition as they were read out by one of the helpers, and candidate No. 898 is 63, the list Exhibit C-1 shows that the grade of the same
then the corresponding general average as computed by him (page 71, s. n.), and, candidate is 73; and while roll Exhibit C-6 shows that the grade of candidate No.
at the same time, Josephine Stevens wrote said grades in the space 898 was 58 (in Remedial Law), his grade in the list Exhibit C-1 is 64 (in the same
corresponding to each subject (page 188, s. n.). The roll of paper used by Deputy subject), a difference also being noted between the general average of candidate
Clerk Samson on the adding machine was presented as Exhibit C-6. No. 898 in Exhibit C-6, which is 72.8%, and his general average on Exhibit C-1,
which is 75% (pages 73, 74, s. n.). This discovery led to the revision of the
After the list Exhibit C-1 containing the grades in each subject and the general compositions of Luis Mabunay in the examinations of 1926, which were united to
average of each candidate, who was theretofore known by his identification his personal record (Exhibit B), which showed that the grades given to, and written
number only, was prepared, the envelopes containing the names corresponding to by the respective correctors on the compositions of said candidate in Civil Law
the identification numbers written on said list were taken from the safe of the office Exhibit B-1 and Remedial Law Exhibit B-2 had been altered, and further, that the
of the clerk, and the names of the candidates were inserted in said list by those grades that appeared on said compositions before the alterations were identical
who assisted in the preparation thereof (pages 166, 167, s. n.) among whom was with those that appeared on the roll, Exhibit C-6. An ocular inspection of page 29 of
the accused Estela Romualdez, who admitted, upon cross-examination, having said Exhibit C-1 shows at first glance that the numbers 73, 64, and 75 in the
written many of the names appearing on several pages of said list (pages 859-861, columns corresponding to Civil Law, Remedial Law and General Average,
s. n.). After said list Exhibit C-1 was prepared the examination committee submitted respectively, were written after erasing with rubber what was there originally
to the Supreme Court a report recommending the admission to the bar and not written. It may also be noted, upon an examination of the alterations appearing on
only for those candidates with a general average of 75% or more, but also of those the first pages of compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2, that the grades originally
who had obtained a general average of 70 or more but below 75%, and said written by the correctors, authenticated by their initials, had been stricken out in
automatic increase was ordered noted on said list Exhibit C-1. However, this such a way that it is difficult to make out said original grades, leaving, however,
recommendation was not approved by the Supreme Court on the ground that said intact, the initials of the correctors.
automatic increase was arbitrary (pages 73, 74, s. n.), and for that reason the clerk
From these facts it is inferred: First, that the person who erased and altered the appeared in the list of successful candidates which was published on March 5,
grades written by the correctors on the first pages of compositions Exhibits B-1 and 1927 (Exhibit C-5), and that said inclusion was due to the increase of these grades
B-2 wished to make it appear that said alterations had been made by the in Civil Law (Exhibit B-1) and Remedial Law (Exhibit B-2), which was made by his
correctors themselves; second, that said alterations were made after the grades coaccused by erasing and altering the grades theretofore given by the correctors.
written by the correctors had been noted on the adding machine in roll Exhibit C-6
and on the list Exhibit C-1 which were prepared simultaneously; third, that after It is true that the accused Estela Romualdez, in her desire to show that she had no
said alterations had been made, and in order that the grades so altered should motive whatsoever for favoring his coaccused Luis Mabunay, testified that she did
agree with the grades already written on the list Exhibit C-1, the grades in Civil Law not know him and that the first time she saw him was on the first day of the trial of
and Remedial Law were erased with rubber, and in place thereof were written the this case. However, in view of her inability to explain why precisely the
grades now appearing in said compositions. The accused Estela Romualdez compositions of said Luis Mabunay had been benefited by the revision, and in view
having admitted that she was the author of such alterations, the only logical of the admission of Justice Romualdez that the power to revise conferred upon
inference from her admission and the facts above set out, is that she was also the Estela Romualdez could be exercised by her in the compositions already graded
person who erased not only the grades originally written by the correctors on the by the correctors in all cases of injustice which came to her knowledge, or which
compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2 but also those appearing in the columns might be brought to her attention (page 781, s. n.), her testimony lacks foundation,
corresponding to Civil Law and Remedial Law on the list Exhibit C-1, and the same because it is absurd to believe that her revision of the compositions of her
person who wrote the grades now appearing in said columns, and which agree coaccused Luis Mabunay was due only and solely to a happy coincidence.
with those written by her on compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2. Now, if the
accused Estela Romualdez erased in the manner stated the grades originally
written, and substituted for them the grades now appearing in said compositions Furthermore, the accused Mabunay made no effort to contradict the evidence for
Exhibits B-1 and B-2 as well as in the columns corresponding to Civil Law and the prosecution with reference to his withdrawal of the amount of P600 from his
Remedial Law in the list Exhibit C-1, it cannot be doubted that in making such savings account in the Philippine Trust Company on the second day of March,
erasures and alterations she not only acted with the intent of concealing her 1927, or three days before the publication of the result of the examinations (Exhibit
identity, but she also knew the number and the name of the candidate to whom I) which, when correlated with the deposit of the sum of P400 made by the accused
said composition belonged, because at that time the numbers and the names of Estela Romualdez in her current account (Exhibit H) with the Bank of the Philippine
the candidates were already written on the list Exhibit C-1, and that list was kept in Islands on the seventh day of said March, 1927, may, perhaps, give an explanation
the office of Justice Romualdez (page 83, s. n.), were she had complete and of the motive of said accused for increasing the grades of Mabunay with just the
absolute control as private secretary and supervisor of the examinations. necessary points to reach the lowest passing general average. It is also true that
Estela Romualdez testified that said amount had been sent to her by her cousin
named Prisca Magpayo Redona from the province for the purchase of
Participation of the accused Luis Mabunay merchandise for sale at the latter's store (page 791, s. n.), but the testimony in that
respect was not corroborated either by her said cousin, or by any other persons
Discarding the testimony of witness Juan Villaflor in which he says that one Luis mentioned by her as the bearers of said amount, or by the corresponding check or
Mabunay called up the accused Estela Romualdez on the telephone a few days postal money order, as she had done when referring other deposits in the bank.
before the publication of the results of the examinations, there is, indeed, no direct
proof in the record showing the participation of the accused Luis Mabunay. Conclusion
However, there is other evidence for the prosecution establishing certain facts
which show strong indications that he operated in the act before or at the time of its
execution by his coaccused. It has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that In view of the foregoing considerations, the court finds that the allegations of the
the accused Luis Mabunay was one of the candidates who took the bar information are sufficiently supported by the evidence and that the accused, Estela
examinations in 1926; that the general average obtained by him, according to the Romualdez and Luis Mabunay are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; the former as
computation appearing on the roll Exhibit C-6 of the adding machine and that principal and the latter as accomplice, of the crime of falsification of official
originally written in the list Exhibit C-1 was 72.8%; that after the Supreme Court documents with which they are charged and, therefore, a judgment is rendered
denied the recommendation of the examination committee that all grades from and sentencing Estela Romualdez, who was a Government employee at the time of the
between 70% and 75% be automatically raised to 75%, his name, nevertheless, commission of the crime, to suffer, in accordance with article 300 of the Penal
Code, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 2712, six years and one day of prision and truly conferred upon the accused Estela Romualdez the powers which she
mayor with the accessory penalties of the law, to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, exercised in that examination.
without subsidiary imprisonment in view of the nature of the penalty, and also to
suffer the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office; and her III. It also erred in concluding that the accused Estela Romualdez did not exercise
coaccused Luis Mabunay, who was a private individual with respect to said the powers conferred upon her by the chairman of the bar examination committee
examination, to suffer, under the provisions of article 301 as amended by section 2 of 1926, within the limits fixed by said chairman, to wit: that the new revision and
of Act No. 2712 and article 67 of the Penal Code, the penalty of four months and grading of the compositions be made in order to do justice thereto, and before the
one day of arresto mayor, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay a fine names of the corresponding candidates were known.
of 250 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and each to
pay one-half part of the costs.
IV. It likewise erred in concluding that the accused Estela Romualdez changed the
general average and the grades of candidate Luis Mabunay in Civil Law and
The appellant Estela Romualdez through her attorneys makes the following Remedial law on the list Exhibit C-1.
assignments of error:

V. The lower court erred in not admitting the expert testimony of Wm. J. Rhode,
I. The trial court erred in finding the accused, Estela Romualdez, guilty of the crime Felicisimo Feria, and Claro M. Recto, as well as Exhibits 26 and 27, containing the
of "falsification of public and official documents" and in sentencing her to suffer opinion of said lawyers as to the grades to which said compositions Exhibits B-1
imprisonment without due process of law, contrary to section 3, Act of Congress of and B-2 were justly entitled.
August 29, 1916, entitled "An Act to Declare the Purpose of the People of the
United States as to the future Political Status of the People of the Philippine
Islands, and to Provide a More Autonomous Government for those Islands". VI. It also erred in not concluding that Jeronimo Samson used the same powers
exercised by the accused in the bar examination of 1926.
II. The trial court erred in not finding, that the accused, Estela Romualdez, was fully
authorized to make the alterations she in fact made on the composition papers of VII. Granting that the accused Estela Romualdez knew that compositions Exhibits
Luis Mabunay, Exhibits B-1 and B-2 of the Government, and in denying full credit B-1 and B-2 belonged to her coaccused Luis Mabunay when she reviewed and
to the uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Justice Norberto Romualdez, chairman of regraded them, the court erred in concluding that said act constitutes the offense
the bar examining committee for the year 1926, concerning the authority granted charged in the information.
her.
VIII. Granting that Justice Romualdez, as chairman of the bar examination
III. The trial court erred in failing to extend to the accused Estela Romualdez a fair committee of 1926, was not authorized by the Supreme Court to confer upon
and impartial trial. Estela Romualdez the powers which she exercised in that examination, the court
erred in concluding that she altered the grades of said compositions willfully and
feloniously.
The attorneys for the appellant Luis Mabunay allege that the trial court committed
the following errors:
IX. The lower court also erred in concluding that Estela Romualdez intended to
conceal her identity when she revised and regraded compositions Exhibits B-1 and
I. The trial court erred in not crediting the uncontradicted testimony of Justice B-2.
Romualdez with reference to his authority as chairman of the bar examination
committee of the year 1926, to confer upon the accused Estela Romualdez, the
powers he in fact conferred upon her, in connection with said examination. X. It also erred in concluding that the accused Estela Romualdez, in exercising her
powers as supervisor of the correctors in said bar examinations, revised
compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2 only, in order to regrade them.
II. It also erred in not crediting the uncontradicted testimony of Justice Romualdez
as to the fact that he, as chairman of the bar examination committee of 1926, really
XI. It also erred in suggesting that her motive, in revising and regrading said court, and for the further reason that there was a prospect that the membership of
compositions Exhibits B-1 and B-2, was the fact that she had received from her the court would soon be increased.
coaccused Luis Mabunay the sum of P400.
The membership of the court was finally increased to eleven, and due to the death
XII. Granting that the accused Estela Romualdez committed the offense of or retirement of three justices only six of the former members remained. On June
falsification with which she is charged, the lower court erred in concluding that Luis 23, 1932 Courtney Whitney as attorney for Estela Romualdez filed a petition
Mabunay participated in its commission. praying that this case be set for a rehearing before the court as newly constituted.
This motion was granted. On July 2, 1932 he filed a motion for the dismissal of the
In addition to the usual brief for each of the accused, the attorneys for the information, alleging that because of the inability of the court to reach a
appellants filed a joint memorandum on July 10, 1929. The Attorney-General filed a determination from the facts as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant-appellant
brief on behalf of the People of the Philippine Islands and a reply to the Estela Romualdez, she had been denied her right to a speedy trial. This motion
memorandum for the defense. was denied.

The court at that time consisted of nine members, one of whom, Justice After a reargument of the case, the attorney for Estela Romualdez filed an
Romualdez, was disqualified to sit in this case. Upon a consideration of the case additional memorandum, to which the Attorney-General filed a reply.
on its merits, four justices were in favor of affirming the decision of the trial court
and the same number were in favor of acquitting the defendants. The court being Under the first assignment of error, the attorneys for Estela Romualdez maintain
unable to reach a decision in the usual course, an attempt was made on February that even if the lower court's findings of fact be justified by the evidence of record,
11, 1930 to break the deadlock, as is evidenced by the following resolution: "they fail to sustain that any criminal offense, recognized under the laws of the
Philippine Islands, has been committed." They contend that the appointment of the
The court having under consideration again the case of People vs. Romualdez, et committee of attorneys by Justice Romualdez to read and grade the examination
al., No. 31012, those participating being all the members of the court, except Mr. papers was not warranted by law, and that therefore the alteration by the defendant
Justice Romualdez, who was disqualified, it was moved that following precedents Estela Romualdez, under the circumstances alleged in the information, of the
elsewhere, particularly in the United States Supreme Court, to the effect that when grades in question did not constitute a crime.
there is an equal division in the court and there is no prospect of a change in the
vote the judgment appealed from stand affirmed, and in accordance with the action The testimony of Justice Romualdez, who was a witness for the defense,
taken in the case of Nacionalista Party vs. Municipal Board of Manila, No. 21265 completely refutes this contention. He testified that the bar examining committee
the judgment in the case at bar be affirmed. Mr. Chief Justice Avancea and was composed of two groups of attorneys: Those that were appointed to prepare
Messrs. Justices Malcolm, Ostrand, and Johns voted in favor of the motion. the questions, and those that were appointed to grade the papers. He further
Messrs. Justices Johnson, Street, Villamor, and Villa-Real voted against the testified that the court was informed of the way in which the examination was
motion. Mr. Justice Johnson based his dissent on the peculiar statutory provisions conducted and that it approved thereof. There were more than a thousand
in force in the Philippine Islands. For want of a majority, the motion was lost. candidates and some eight thousand papers. According to the contention of
appellant's attorneys only the seven attorneys appointed to prepare the questions
The court thereupon directed that the clerk retain the record in the case until the or the court itself could lawfully grade these papers. Such a contention is clearly
further order of the court. untenable. The attorneys that prepared the questions did not intervene in the
grading of the papers, but they prepared a key to the questions, which served the
other group of attorneys, the readers or "correctors", as a guide in grading the
On January 12, 1931 Luis Mabunay filed a motion praying that the case against papers. The intervention of the "correctors" was just as legal as that of the
him be considered separately and he be absolved from the complaint. This motion attorneys that prepared the questions, and the intervention of the two groups of
was denied by the court. He renewed his motion on August 1, 1931. This motion attorneys was perfectly regular and valid.
was also denied on the ground that no severance had been asked for in the lower
It is also contended that the examination papers which the defendant Estela 7. By issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an
Romualdez altered were not public or official documents. That contention is original document when no such original exists, or by including in such a copy a
likewise without merit. As stated by her attorneys, the examination of candidates statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original.
for admission to the bar is a judicial function. It cannot therefore be maintained with
any show of reason that the papers submitted by the candidates in the course of 8. By intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
the examination were not public and official documents, or that the alteration, protocol, registry or official book.
under the circumstances alleged in the information, of the grades given to such
papers by the "correctors" was not a crime. (In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil., 399, where
this court refers to the falsification of his examination papers as "falsification of The acts of the accused are covered by paragraphs 2, 3, and 6. She made the
public documents"; People vs. Castro and Doe, 54 Phil., 41, where the conviction alterations in the grades in such a way as to make it appear that the "correctors"
of Castro for the falsification of his examination papers was affirmed.) had participated therein, because she blotted out the grades of the "correctors" and
wrote new and increased grades opposite their initials, without indicating by her
own initials that she had made the alterations. She in that way attributed to the
In accordance with the established practice of the court to have one of its members "correctors" statements other than those in fact made by them. Her only
each year make all the necessary arrangements for the bar examination, the Chief explanation of why she altered the grades in that way was that it pleased her to do
Justice in 1926 designated Justice Romualdez for that purpose, and in pursuance so.
thereof he appointed one group of attorneys to prepare the questions and another
group to grade the papers. If any of these attorneys were designated by the clerk
of the court, it was with the advice and consent and on the authority of Justice A decision in point has just come to hand. It is reported in 180 N. E., 725, and is
Romualdez. referred to in the American Bar Association Journal for August, 1932, p. 497. A bill
was presented in the Massachusetts Senate prohibiting the marking of the
examination papers of applicants for admission to the bar by any person not a
The phrase "falsification of a document" is not used in articles 300 and 301 of the member of the board of bar examiners. The Senate wished to know whether such
Penal code in the ordinary acceptation of the words. It has a technical meaning, a bill, if enacted, would be an unconstitutional interference with the functions of the
and according to article 300 may be committed in the following eight ways: Judicial Department, and asked the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court for an
advisory opinion. They replied that such a law would be unconstitutional. In the
1. By counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric. course of the opinion they said: "If the judicial department decides that the marking
of the written examinations may be performed by competent persons not members
2. By causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding of the board but acting under the direction of such members, that pertains directly
when they did not in fact so participate. to the ascertainment of the qualifications of applicants. It is a definite attribute of
the judicial department and not an immaterial incident." It was also stated that the
plan of employing assistants to aid the bar examiners in marking the papers had
3. By attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding been approved by the Supreme Judicial Court.
statements other than those in fact made by them.
In the second assignment of error, the attorney for Estela Romualdez maintains
4. By making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. that the trial court erred in not finding that she was fully authorized to make the
alterations she in fact made on the examination papers of Luis Mabunay, Exhibits
5. By altering true dates. B-1 and B-2, and in denying full credit to the uncontradicted testimony of Justice
Norberto Romualdez, chairman of the bar examining committee for the year 1926,
concerning the authority granted her.
6. By making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes
its meaning.
In the first place, we find it difficult to believe that Justice Romualdez ever gave the
accused the authority which she claims to have received; and in the second place,
even if it be assumed that he gave her the alleged authority, she did not exercise it If it be admitted for the sake of argument that the accused Estela Romualdez was
in accordance with the terms thereof. given the authority which she claims to have received, nevertheless she was not
authorized to change the grades now in question, because when she made the
The defense would have us believe that Justice Romualdez regarded his secretary, changes she already knew that the papers belonged to her coaccused Luis
Estela Romualdez, and the deputy clerk, Jeronimo Samson, who were themselves Mabunay. The evidence fully sustaining that conclusion is carefully set forth by the
"correctors" as supervisors of the other "correctors", and that he authorized Estela trial court, and it is unnecessary for us to review it. The testimony of Justice
Romualdez to revise any grade to correct an injustice, without consulting or Romualdez to the effect that the accused acted within the authority granted her in
notifying the other supervisor, Samson, or the "correctors' who had graded the changing the grades in question was a mere expression of opinion. It was clearly
paper, without requiring her to initial the alteration, or to make any record thereof or inadmissible and not binding on the court. The accused Estela Romualdez did not
any report to him or to anybody else. even attempt to explain under what circumstances she raised the grades of her
coaccused so as to enable him to obtain the necessary general average of 75 per
cent. She did not confer with the "correctors" who had graded the papers in
Justice Romualdez was designated by the Chief Justice to conduct the question. She di not attempt to explain how she arrived at the increased grades, or
examination in accordance with the law and the Rules of Court. He himself had no how she came to revise the grades in question, how she happened to pick these
such authority as he is alleged to have given his secretary. He is presumed to have two papers out of eight thousand. She could not point to any other grades that had
discharged his duties in accordance with the law, and it is inconceivable that he been altered by her.
would without any warrant of law give or attempt to give his secretary the unlimited
authority which she claims to have received, thereby enabling her to alter at will
any grade or any paper, without making any record thereof or any report to Under the second assignment of error the attorney for Estela Romualdez also
anybody. The mere statement of such a claim shows that it is preposterous. alleges that she freely and voluntarily admitted from the start of the trial of her case
that the alterations had been made by her, and concludes therefrom that she acted
in good faith. We cannot agree either with the statement of fact or the conclusion.
No such authority was given to Samson, who according to Justice Romualdez was The accused Estela Romualdez did not admit that the alterations were made by
regarded by him as a supervisor of equal rank with Estela Romualdez. Samson her until after the prosecuting attorney had presented three hundred and fifty pages
was never notified that he was regarded as a supervisor, and he never acted in of testimony and announced his readiness to prove by three handwriting experts
that capacity. that the alterations were in the handwriting of the accused. The evidence shows
that before the trial defendant's attorney from the fiscal's office a photograph that
Let us notice how this unlimited authority is alleged to have been granted to the had been made for the purpose of comparing a specimen of defendant's
accused Estela Romualdez. handwriting and that of the altered grades. The fact that the defendant Estela
Romualdez made the alterations under the circumstances which we have
mentioned, when she already knew that the papers belonged to Mabunay,
It was not in writing or evidenced by any memorandum. It was not even a positive disproves any contention that she acted in good faith.
statement. Justice Romualdez testified that he believed that on a certain occasion
he gave his secretary to understand that if a case should be brought to her
attention she might revise any grade to prevent an injustice, so long as she did not In the case of the United States vs. Ballesteros (25 Phil., 634), this court said:
know the name of the candidate to whom the paper belonged. When asked where
she was when the pretended authority was given to her, the accused could not When the unlawful acts charged against an accused are established by competent
remember. evidence, criminal intent may be and will be presumed, unless such intent is
rebutted by the introduction of evidence sufficient to overcome this presumption,
There was according to the theory of the defense nothing to prevent Samson from and satisfactorily disclosing the absence of such criminal intent.
revising the revision of Estela Romualdez, because she did not initial the changes
made by her, and he was supposed to be a supervisor of equal rank. The third assignment of error made by the appellant Estela Romualdez is that the
trial court erred in failing to extend to her a fair and impartial trial. We shall not
waste much time on this assignment of error, which is utterly without merit. The
record itself completely refutes any such contention. If the learned trial judge erred, In the first place we should like to say that there is no evidence to show that Estela
it was in permitting the attorneys for the defendants too great latitude in arguing Romualdez ever reviewed the examination papers of her coaccused. So far as the
their objections. Arguments four and five pages long were incorporated into the evidence shows, she merely raised his grades in two subjects, thus giving him by
stenographic record of the evidence. The record shows a most unjustifiable attack "a happy coincidence", to use her own words, a passing mark. She could not or
on the good faith of the fiscal and a persistent effort to embarrass him in presenting would not enlighten the court as to why she raised the grades of Luis Mabunay so
his evidence against the accused. as to enable him to be admitted to the bar. As already stated, the record does not
show that she raised the grades of any other candidate.
The appellant Luis Mabunay makes twelve assignments of error. They are for the
most part embraced in the assignments of error of his coaccused which we have The evidence shows that Luis Mabunay had failed in two previous examinations,
already considered. These remain only his fifth, eleventh, and twelfth assignments and that he failed in the examination in question, receiving a general average of
of error. In his fifth assignment of error it is alleged that the lower court erred in not only 72.8%. The bar examining committee recommended that not only those
admitting the expert testimony of attorneys Wm. J. Rhode, Felicisimo Feria, and having the required general average of 75 per cent be admitted, but also that those
Claro M. Recto, and in rejecting Exhibits 26 and 27, which contain the opinion of who had received between 70 and 75 per cent. This is referred to in the record as
said attorneys as to the correct grades which the examination papers Exhibits B-1 "an automatic increase". It was not automatic but arbitrary, and was disapproved by
and B-2 deserved. the Supreme Court, and the committee was directed to prepare a new list and to
include therein only those who had obtained a general average of 75 per cent. The
The lower court sustained the objection to the admission of the testimony of these name of Luis Mabunay was included in the new list submitted three days later,
three attorneys on the ground that it was not the best evidence, and suggested that notwithstanding the fact that he had obtained a general average of only 72.8 per
the defense might call the members of the examining committee that prepared the cent, precisely because Estela Romualdez had in the meantime raised the grades
questions in Remedial Law and Civil Law and the key thereto. The attorneys for the now in question so that he appeared to have obtained the general average
defense did not see fit to adopt the suggestion of the court. It is not true therefore required for admission to the bar.
that the lower court deprived the accused of an opportunity of showing that the
examination papers in question deserved the increased grades which the The evidence shows that on March 2, 1927 Luis Mabunay withdrew P600 from the
defendant Estela Romualdez gave them. The attorneys that prepared the Philippine Trust Co., and that on March 7, 1927 Estela Romualdez deposited P510
questions and the key to the answers were certainly the persons best qualified to in the Bank of the Philippine Islands. Luis Mabunay did not testify, and he did not
decide whether or not the questions were correctly answered. The opinion of other present any evidence to show for what purpose he withdrew P600 from the bank
attorneys, who had nothing to do with the examination, would only lead to immediately after the first list was disapproved.
confusion. We find no merit in this assignment of error.
In the case of United States vs. Tria (17 Phil., 303, 307), Justice Moreland
The eleventh assignment of error is that the trial court erred in insinuating that the speaking for the court said:
motive of the accused Estela Romualdez in reviewing and regrading the
examination papers Exhibits B-1 and B-2 was the fact that she had received four An accused person sometimes owes a duty to himself if not to the State. If he does
hundred pesos from her co-accused Luis Mabunay. not perform that duty he may not always expect the State to perform it for him. If he
fails to meet the obligation which he owes to himself, when to meet it is the easiest
The twelfth assignment of error is that if it be assumed that the accused Estela of easy things, he is hardy indeed if he demand and expect the same full and wide
Romualdez committed the crime of falsification imputed to her in the information, consideration which the State voluntarily gives to those who by reasonable effort
the court erred in concluding that the accused Luis Mabunay participated in its seek to help themselves. This is particularly so when he not only declines to help
commission. himself but actively conceals from the State the very means by which it may assist
him.
For the sake of convenience we shall consider these two assignments of error
together.
In the famous case of the Commonwealth vs. Webster (5 Cushing, 295, 316), Chief had failed, and he withdrew the money after he had time to learn from his
Justice Shaw laid down the following rule: coaccused that he had failed. It was under those circumstances incumbent upon
the accused Mabunay to present evidence to show for what purpose he withdrew
When pretty stringent proof of circumstances is produced, tending to support the the six hundred pesos from the bank. As this court said in the case of Worcester
charge, and it is apparent that the accused is so situated that he could offer vs. Ocampo (22 Phil., 42):
evidence of all the facts and circumstances as they existed, and show, if such was
the truth, that the suspicious circumstances can be accounted for consistency with When the circumstances in proof tend to fix the liability on a party who has it in his
his innocence, and he fails to offer such proof, the natural conclusion is, that the power to offer evidence of all the facts as they existed and rebut the inferences
proof, if produced, instead of rebutting, would tend to sustain the charge. But this is which the circumstances in proof tend to establish, and he fails to offer such proof,
to be cautiously applied, and only in cases where it is manifest that proofs are in the natural conclusion is that the proof, if produced, instead of rebutting would
the power of the accused, not accessible to the prosecution. support the inferences against him, and the court is justified in acting upon that
conclusion.
Estela Romualdez showed that of the sum of P510 P100 was paid to her by her
mother and only P10 by her brother, but she could not satisfactorily prove where The case of In re Del Rosario (52 Phil., 399), is directly on point. Felipe del Rosario
the remaining P400 came from. She said it was sent to her by her cousin, Prisca failed for the third time in the bar examination of 1926. He then filed a motion for
Magpayo Redona, for the purchase of goods, but she could not name the person the revision of his grades, based on an alleged mistake in computation. This
that brought the money to her, or explain why she deposited it in the bank. She did motion was granted, and he was admitted to the bar. It was subsequently found
not attempt to show that she had paid it out by means of checks for the purchase that alterations had been made in his examination papers, and he and Juan
of goods for her cousin. She did not call her cousin as a witness. Villaflor were prosecuted for the falsification of a public document. Villaflor
assumed full responsibility for the commission of the crime, and testified that Del
An accused person runs the risk of an inference against him because of failure to Rosario did not know anything about the making of the alterations. The trial court
produce evidence. The inference, unless the failure to produce evidence is acquitted Del Rosario, but upon a view of the case for the purpose of taking
explained away, is that the tenor of the specific unproduced evidence would not disciplinary actin against him Justice Malcolm, speaking for the courtin banc, said:
support the party's case. (U. S. vs. Sarikala, 37 Phil., 486.)
It is asking a great deal of the members of the court to have them believe that
In the case just cited the court quoted with approval the following rules as stated by Felipe del Rosario was totally unaware of the illegal machinations culminating in
Dean Wigmore in his work on Evidence, Vol. IV, p. 3148: the falsification of public documents, of which he was the sole beneficiary.

The failure to produce evidence, in general, other than his own testimony, is open The attorney's certificate of Felipe del Rosario was cancelled.
to inference against a party accused, with the same limitations applicable to civil
parties. Here the effect of the burden of proof has sometimes tended to confuse. It In the case of People vs. Bella Bautista (53 Phil., 158), the accused was charged
is true that the burden is on the prosecution, and that the accused is not required with the falsification of a public document. The evidence showed that in the
by any rule of law to produce evidence; but nevertheless he runs the risk of an Register of Attorneys the name of an attorney had been erased, and that the
inference from nonproduction. This seeming paradox, which has been already accused had written his own name in that space, although he had not admitted to
sufficiently noticed in treating of the general principle, has misled a few courts to the bar. The accused contended that he wrote his name in the register under the
deny that any inference may be drawn. direction of an employee of the court, and that he acted in good faith. He was
convicted, and on appeal the decision was affirmed. This court in its decision said:
The alterations in the grades made by Estela Romualdez were made for the sole "The trial court suggests in the opinion that the offense committed required the
use and benefit of her coaccused Luis Mabunay. They were made willfully and participation of some unfaithful employee of the court. But this fact, as the court
illegally, and after the Supreme Court had rejected those candidates that had found, did not lessen the criminal responsibility of the appellant."
received less than 75 per cent. The alterations were therefore made after Mabunay
It is alleged in the information that the accused conspired together and acted in of his duties as an employee of the Government, and sentenced him to suffer four
common accord in the commission of the crime. As the Attorney-General says, a months and one day of arresto mayor, and the accessory penalties provided by
conspiracy can seldom be proved except by circumstantial evidence, but once it is law, and to pay a fine of 250 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
proved, the acts of one of the conspirators are the acts of all. (U. S. vs. Ipil., 27 insolvency. The defendants were each sentenced to pay one-half of the costs.
Phil., 530.)
We find that the lower court erred in holding that Luis Mabunay was merely an
The existence of the assent of minds which is involved in a conspiracy may be, accomplice. He was a conspirator and coprincipal of Estela Romualdez. The
and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually must be, inferred by the jury from proof penalty provided by article 301 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2712,
of facts and circumstances which, taken together, apparently indicate that they are is prision correccional in the maximum degree, but that has been changed by the
merely parts of some complete whole. If it is proved that two or more persons Revised Penal Code to prision correccional in the medium and maximum degrees,
aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each and the medium degree of that penalty is from three years, six months, and twenty-
doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact one days to four years, nine months and ten days. The prison sentence of Luis
connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a Mabunay is therefore increased to three years, six months, and twenty- one days
concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting of prision correccional.
among them to concert means is proved. Evidence of actual participation, rather
than of passive acquiescence, is desirable. But proof of acquiescence in, or The decision of the trial court is modified as hereinabove stated. In all other
consent to, the actions of others is relevant to show the criminal intention of the respects it is affirmed, with the costs against the appellants.
passive party, and generally the smallest degree of consent or collusion among
parties lets in the act or words of one against the others. (Underhill on Criminal
Evidence, pp. 795, 796.) Ostrand, Abad Santos, Hull, Imperial and Butte, JJ., concur.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the conclusions of the trial court are fully
justified by the evidence.
Separate Opinions
As the accused Estela Romualdez took advantage of her official position in
committing the crime, the trial court found her guilty of a violation of article 300 of AVANCEA, C.J., concurring:
the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2712, and sentenced her to suffer six
years and one day of prision mayor, and the accessory penalties provided by law,
to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, and to suffer perpetual disqualification to hold any I agree with the majority opinion. My vote regarding the defendant, Estela
public office. Romualdez, is based on the ground that she did not act under authority alleged to
have been given her by Justice Norberto Romualdez. She made the alteration after
the candidates' names were already known. She did not act in the interests of
The penalty provided by the Penal Code is prision mayor in full extent, or from six justice, inasmuch as among the compositions of 1,056 candidates she examined
years and one day to twelve years, and the penalty under the Revised Penal Code those of her coaccused Luis Mabunay only, and she failed to show or to allege that
being the same, and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present before examining his compositions she had reasons for believing that Mabunay's
in the commission of the crime, the penalty should be imposed in the medium case was meritorious.
degree, which is from eight years and one day to ten years. The penalty imposed
on the appellant Estela Romualdez is therefore increased to eight years and one
day of prision mayor. MALCOLM, J., concurring:

The trial court found the defendant Luis Mabunay guilty as an accomplice under I concur with the comprehensive opinion of the majority in its principal features, but
article 301 of the Penal Code, the crime not being connected with the performance more especially am I in accord with the views expressed by the Chief Justice. My
position will bear a word of explanation.
The charge is that of falsification of a public document by the accused Estela bar constitute a part of judicial proceedings and are in the nature of public
Romualdez, secretary to Justice Romualdez, acting in conspiracy with Luis documents. These documents were altered and their meaning changed to permit a
Mabunay, a candidate in the 1926 bar examinations, by altering the grades of the candidate in the bar examinations illegally to be admitted at the bar.
candidate so that it was feloniously made to appear that he had passed the bar
examinations. The finding was of guilt in a decision by the trial judge, concerned A number of cases growing out of the bar scandal of 1926 have reached this court
almost entirely with questions of fact. Speaking to these questions, since this case and have resulted in convictions. Basically there is no difference in fact and in law
should be considered exactly in the same manner as any other case, these between the principles governing those cases and the principles governing the
findings are entitled to our most respectful consideration. Not desiring to enlarge case before us. If the accused in those cases merited punishment, the accused
upon the findings, it is only necessary to observe that the changes made in the Estela Romualdez and Luis Mabunay are equally guilty.
papers of the candidate Mabunay have been admitted by the accused Estela
Romualdez to have been made by her in her ordinary handwriting. Added to this
we have the testimony of Justice Romualdez as follows: "As supervisor, I believe STREET, J., dissenting:
that there were occasions when I made her understand that in order to do justice to
the candidates, she could revise papers already graded by the other correctors, It is the opinion of the undersigned that the acts imputed to Estela Romualdez do
provided that the new revision was made before the name of the candidate not constitute the crime of falsification of a public document, and with respect to
concerned was known." In this connection it has been demonstrated beyond civil Luis Mabunay there is no proof connecting him in any way whatever with the acts
by a series of damaging and fatal circumstances that during the three-day interval of Romualdez. As a preliminary to the demonstration of these conclusions it
between the making of the first report of the bar examinations and the second appears desirable to give few words of explanation to show how the situation arose
report when the names of the candidates were known, the accused Estela with which the court is here confronted.
Romualdez made changes in the grades of Luis Mabunay in express contravention
of the authority alleged to have been given her by Justice Romualdez and in bad
faith. Not alone were the erasures on the papers made in a manner difficult to be Under the American occupation, prior to the year 1921, high school graduates were
deciphered, leaving below the erasures the initials of the readers; not alone did the eligible to take the course in law in any accredited law in the Philippine Islands. In
accused fail to place her own initials over the changes; not alone was there no that year, however, the court decided to require two years of college work as a
attempt to show why the grades were increased to give exactly a general average prerequisite to matriculation in a law school, thereby materially raising the standard
of 75 per cent, but there are two other circumstances entirely inconsistent with of education of lawyers. But inorder not to affect adversely the rights of those who
innocence. The first is that two of the readers, namely, Jeronimo Samson, the were already qualifying under the prior rule, the requirement for two years of
deputy clerk of court, and Estela Romualdez were supposed to have identical college work was made effective beginning with the examinations in 1927. It
authority, yet Samson never understood that he had any right to change grades resulted that 1926 was the last year in which examinations could be taken under
without the knowledge of the readers in the particular subject; when Samson acted the old rule, and there were nearly 1,100 candidates who presented themselves for
as a substitute reader, changes were made with the knowledge and consent of the examination in that year.
other reader and Samson placed his initials under the new grades. The second
question is how Estela Romualdez could remember having made erasures in the It has been the usage of this court to place the bar examinations for each year in
grades in two papers out of eight thousand to the advantage of one candidate out the hands of a member of the court designated by the Chief Justice; and it is made
of more than one thousand, but could not recall any other similar incident and the duty of this member to appoint the examiners and to superintend the giving of
could not offer any explanation of why the grades of the one candidate merited an the examinations. In the year 1926 Justice Norberto Romualdez was named to
increase. I am, therefore, constrained to conclude that the findings of fact, along conduct the examinations, and he appointed the requisite number of members of
the line above indicated, made in the trial court and here confirmed by other judges the bar to prepare the questions in the several subjects of examination. In view of
who have minutely examined the record, must be taken as conclusively the great number of papers to be read in that year, it was quite evident that able
established. lawyers could not be expected to read so many papers, as the work, as could be
foreseen, would undoubtedly have taken up months of their time. Justice
The legal features of the case offer no particular difficulties. Articles 300 and 301 of Romualdez, therefore, upon the suggestion of our clerk, decided to adopt the plan
the old Penal Code were violated. Examination papers leading to admission to the followed in the Bureau of Civil Service, which is, to appoint readers (referred to in
the record as "correctors") to read and grade the examination papers in conformity admitted to the bar before the standards of the examination were raised, and in
with the written guides prepared by the examiners. These readers (as we shall call part also doubtless to the fact that the readers had applied the straight-edge pretty
them) were qualified lawyers chosen from the Government service, chiefly from the firmly in judging the grades. The committee of the bar examiners therefore thought
personnel of the Supreme Court and of the Bureau of Justice. it proper to suggest to the court the propriety of admitting all the candidates who
had made as much as 70 per centum, and a recommendation to this effect was
The reading of the papers occupied a period of about six months, and the report submitted to the court. With this suggestion the court did not agree, and a new list
presented by the examiners was not finally passed upon by the court until March 5, had to be made up, showing as passing the names only of those who had made
1927. The questions in the examination in Civil Law were prepared by Francisco the requisite average of 75 per centum in all subjects without falling below 60 per
Ortigas, and the questions in Remedial Law were prepared by Judge J. C. Abreu. centum in any.
The two readers primarily chosen to read and grade the papers in Civil Law were
Jeronimo Samson and Amado del Rosario, and the readers in Remedial Law were Among the candidates in these examinations was the accused Luis Mabunay, to
Alfonso Felix and Marciano Guevara. whom, at the examinations, was assigned number 898. In the list submitted by the
bar examiners recommending that all be admitted who had made a general
As Justice Romualdez had general charge of the examinations, his niece, Estela average of 70, Luis Mabunay appeared as receiving 72.8 per centum; and when
Romualdez, who was also his secretary and who had been admitted to the bar in the court decided that the passing grade could not be lowered, the result was
1925, was selected as one of the readers. In addition to her duties as mere reader, naturally fatal to him as a candidate. But in the list later submitted to the court
Justice Romualdez confided to her the custody of the examination papers and containing only the names of those who had made an average of 75 the same Luis
other apparatus of examination, which were kept under key in his office when not Mabunay appeared as having received the requisite per cent. Upon the showing
in issue. Samson was at this time a deputy clerk of this court, and because of his his name was therefore passed as a successful candidate.
official position he and Miss Romualdez were charged with the supervision of the
clerical work connected with the examinations. The explanation is that, in the interval between the submission of the first
recommendation of the bar examiners and the submission of the later list, the
In the conduct of the bar examinations it is important that the examiner or reader of grades corresponding to Luis Mabunay were raised by Miss Romualdez in an
papers should have no knowledge of the personality of the author of any amount sufficient to give him a general average of 75 per centum. In this
composition when the same is read and graded, and a device had been adopted in connection it appears that in the subject of Civil Law Jeronimo Samson and Amado
the clerk's office which was supposed to accomplish this end. This was that the del Rosario had assigned to Luis Mabunay 63 per centum as the value of his
name of the candidate was not permitted to appear on the composition. Instead, composition in that subject, and this number was written on the composition cover
there was assigned in the clerk's office a number to each candidate, and this and accredited by the initials of the two examiners. This credit was raised by Miss
number was written on the outside of small envelope affixed to the composition Romualdez to 73. Likewise in Remedial Law the readers Alfonso Felix and
when it was turned in by the candidate. Sealed within the same envelope was a Marciano Guevara had given 58 as the value of the paper. This credit was changed
small slip of paper containing the corresponding name of the candidate. A record of by Miss Romualdez to 64. In effecting these changes Miss Romualdez in each
the names and numbers was also kept in the clerk's office. Every step in the case obliterated the original grades by the use of pen and ink, and wrote
reading, grading, and collating of the examination papers was therefore thereunder in her own hand "73" and "64" in words and figures. She did not sign
supposedly taken before the names of the different candidates were known. her name to this alteration but left intact the initials of the original graders. No
attempt was made by her to imitate the script used by the graders, and the making
of these changes was admitted by her.
When the work of the various readers in this case had been collated in the latter
part of February, but before the names of the various candidates had yet been
written in the list showing the results, the committee of the bar examiners was Justice Romualdez, testifying as a witness in the case, stated that he authorized
called together. Upon assembling the committee found that the percentage of Miss Romualdez, upon finding any error made by the readers, to correct it,
candidates passing was exceedingly low, being around ten per centum of the total provided that this should be done before the names of the candidates should be
number of candidates. This result was no doubt partly due to the hasty way in known. Miss Romualdez testified that the changes effected by her in the papers of
which a great number of immature candidates had rushed in the hope of being her coaccused were made under this authority. Furthermore, at the trial of the
case, she offered to prove by three able lawyers of the Manila bar that the grades the case of the grades obliterated by Samson, the manner of correction was
actually assigned by her to the papers referred to were fully merited by the substantially the same.
answers given. The trial court refused to admit this testimony, and there is nothing
before us to show whether the changes made were in conformity with the merit of The dominating question in the case against Miss Romualdez is, in our opinion,
the papers or not. whether Justice Romualdez gave her authority to revise the grades in the two
papers marked "898". If that authority was in fact given, no case of falsification is
The case for the prosecution supposes that the changes above referred to were made out against this accused; for, although she may have abused the authority
made by Miss Romualdez in bad faith and that she was corrupted by Luis and increased the grades in question for a corrupt purpose, her delinquency would
Mabunay to make the changes in his papers for the purpose of securing his have the character of an abuse of authority only. That this authority was given we
successful completion of the examinations when in fact he had failed. In this do not entertain the slightest doubt, and the reason for crediting Justice
connection proof was submitted showing that on March 7, 1927, Luis Mabunay Romualdez' statement on this point rests not only upon his character but upon the
withdrew from his savings account in the Philippine Trust Co. the sum of P600, and circumstances under which that statement was made in court. Of course a person
that on March 7, 1927, Miss Romualdez deposited a sum of money to her credit in will sometimes testify falsely or distort the truth for the purpose of assisting
the Bank of the Philippine Islands, among the items of which deposit was the sum another; but experience shows that the most powerful motive which operates upon
of P400. people as witnesses is the motive of self-protection. When the testimony of Justice
Romualdez was delivered in court, the full extent of the irregularities attendant
It appears that there are two persons bearing the name of Luis Mabunay in the City upon the examination of 1926 were generally known; and the slightest
of Manila. The individual who was candidate in the bar examinations of 1926, and consideration of self-interest would have indicated to Justice Romualdez that he
who is one of the two accused in this case, was, at the time with which we are here would do himself a service by not testifying as a witness. However, in the face of all
concerned, assistant chief of the administrative division of the Executive Bureau. these considerations, Justice Romualdez, in the interest of truth, did not hesitate to
The other Luis Mabunay was, at the same time, a clerk in the law office of Vicente go into court and state that he in fact gave his niece authority to revise the grades.
Romualdez, who is a brother of Miguel Romualdez, father of the accused Estela and what necessity can there be for us to debate the question of the truthfulness of
Romualdez. In the early stages of this prosecution confusion existed concerning Justice Romualdez when the fiscal who prosecuted this case more than once
these two individuals. So much so that the fiscal, when this proceeding was begun, stated in open court that he had never doubted the veracity of the witness in this
was under the impression that the Luis Mabunay who was joined as codefendant in case?
this case was the Luis Mabunay who was employed in the office of Vicente
Romualdez. On the other hand Estela Romualdez says that prior to his Upon this point we quote textually from the transcript of the proceedings in the
appearance in court, she had never seen her codefendant Luis Mabunay and had lower court:
never known that there was such a person in existence. This point of the confusion
over these two individuals has a bearing on the case against Luis Mabunay, but is FISCAL GUEVARA. We have never doubted the veracity of the witness.
not otherwise important.

xxx xxx xxx


An incident connected with the examinations now under consideration is found in
certain corrections made by our then deputy clerk, Jeronimo Samson, in the
grades given by a reader named Remo who was relieved from duty as a reader. FISCAL GUEVARA. On the other hand, as we have already stated, we do not
Samson has the complete confidence of the court, and nobody has called in doubt the veracity of the witness in this case.
question the good faith of his work throughout. Well, after Remo was relieved,
Samson took the papers in hand that Remo had already graded and in a number of But it is said that the authority granted by Justice Romualdez contemplated a
cases changed his grades in precisely the same way in which Miss Romualdez revision of the grades in good faith and was coupled with the condition that the
changed the two papers of Luis Mabunay. In some of these corrections Samson revision to be effected by her should be accomplished before the names of the
did not append his own initials, and although in one of the corrections made by candidates should be known. But the fact that the authority may have been
Miss Romualdez the obliteration of the original grade was more complete than in coupled with this condition could not alter the character of the authority. She was
made judge of the conditions under which the revision should be entered upon, as rate, grade, estimate, or report upon the examination or standing of any person
well as judge of the extent of the revision, and the violation of her by Justice examined by the Bureau of Civil Service. But that provision is limited to Civil
Romualdez' directions on these points could not have the effect of obliterating the Service examinations, and cannot be applied to bar examinations. Therefore, when
authority. However gross may have been her delinquency the offense could be confronted with the irregularity, or supposed irregularity, presented in this case, the
nothing more than an abuse of authority. fiscal's office was unable to proceed with the prosecution under section 2674 of the
Administrative Code, and was compelled to fall back upon article 300 of the Penal
In the course of these proceedings the evidence has been thoroughly combed by Code which deals with the falsification of public documents.
the prosecution to discover indications that Miss Romualdez acted in bad faith.
Thus it is said that bad faith is shown in circumstances such as these: That she did The suggestion contained in the opinion of the court to the effect that Justice
not affix her initials to her corrections; that she used black ink to obliterate the Romualdez had no authority to authorize Miss Romualdez to revise grades is in
grade that had been altered, and that she confessed her inability to recall the exact our opinion wholly untenable. He had as much authority to authorize her to revise
considerations which led her to increase the grades allowed by the original reader. grades as he had to authorize her to read and grade papers in the first place, there
All these considerations, and others equally trivial, as it seems to us, come with being no difference whatever in point of principle between the two acts. Now, the
very poor grace from a court that had refused to permit the accused to prove by the alteration of a grade by one authorized to revise is on exactly the same footing in
testimony of experts that the examination papers whose grades were altered by law, under No. 6 of article 300 of the Penal Code, as the giving of a false grade,
her were in fact entitled at least to the grades which she affixed to them, if not under No. 4 of the same article, by one who is authorized to grade. Does the court
more. What circumstance could possibly show more effectually the good faith of mean to suggest by this decision that the assigning of an untrue grade in bad faith
Miss Romualdez in increasing the grades than the fact, if it be a fact, that the by any reader authorized to grade examination papers constitutes a falsification of
papers merited the higher grades given by her to the candidate. But the merit of a public document? Legal literature does not furnish the slightest hint that would
the grades must remain, by the action of the court in this case, like the location of afford a basis for such a ruling. But this would be no more untenable than the
the grave of Moses, forever unknown; and this long drawn-out litigation will shed conclusion reached by the court in this case that the alteration of a grade in bad
no light upon what seems to the undersigned to be the most vital question with faith by a person authorized to revise constitutes falsification of the document. A
which the court should have concerned itself, namely, whether the grades assigned person charged with the duty of grading or revising examination papers exercises a
by Miss Romualdez to two of the papers of Luis Mabunay were right or wrong. One power involving judgment and discretion. Such duty is evidently of a quasi-judicial
of the reasons suggested for sustaining the objection against the proffered nature; and a violation of such duty constitutes an abuse of authority rather than
testimony of experts to show the propriety of the grades given is that the court itself the falsification of a public document. And if the law in its present state, as thus
could judge of the true value of the papers without the assistance of expert interpreted, should appear to be inadequate, the Legislature might safely be relied
testimony, but no attempt had been made by the prosecution or by the court to upon to extend to bar examiners and readers the provisions already applicable to
demonstrate from the papers themselves that the grades assigned to them by Miss examiners under the Civil Service Law. This court is not called upon to legislate,
Romualdez were unmerited. Why should the court concern itself so meticulously and it should not distort the severe provisions relating to falsification for the
with the circumstances indicative of possible bad faith when the grades raised are purpose of covering delinquencies not fairly included therein.
before us, affording the best evidence of their character.
With respect to the connection of Luis Mabunay with this case, we do not hesitate
In United States vs. Michelena (4 Phil., 492), it was held by this court that a person emphatically to say that, in our opinion, there is no item of proof connecting this
who makes a false statement in a certificate of merit in an application for an accused with the irregularity imputed to Miss Romualdez. It is true that Luis
examination by the Civil Service Board cannot be convicted of the falsification of a Mabunay was the person whose interests were primarily served by Miss
public document, but of an offense punishable by arresto mayor under article 311 Romualdez in raising the grades above mentioned; and if there were independent
of the Penal Code. This decision was repeated in United States vs. Dumandan (8 proof connecting him with the offense, the fact that his interests were so served
Phil., 61). These decisions apparently attracted the attention of our lawmakers as would supply the explanation of the acts committed. But in the absence of
indicating that the penalties affixed by the Spanish Code to certain offenses against adequate proof, this circumstance supplies no basis upon which to convict him.
the Civil Service were too light; and on August 26, 1907, the Philippine The only fact supposedly pointing to him as the guilty suborner of Estela
Commission adopted a law now incorporated in section 2674 of the Administrative Romualdez is that he drew out six hundred pesos from a savings account on
Code. One of the provisions of this section punishes any person who shall falsely
March 2, 1927; but there is no proof that any of this money ever reached Miss
Romualdez or that he was ever in communication with her in any way.

The fact that Luis Mabunay did not testify as a witness in his own behalf cannot be
used as an affirmative admission, and the logical propriety of his assumed guilt is
no substitute for proof. It is true that some authority can be cited for the proposition,
always guardedly advanced, that where there is some evidence, showing an
incriminatory fact, and the accused is in a position to dissipate the inference drawn
from that evidence, his failure to do so may be used as an admission of the
injurious inference. But the application of that rule presupposes the existence of
some incriminatory evidence; and in this case, to the mind of the undersigned,
there is no proof, even weak, connecting this accused with the offense charged.

To present in a few words the legal basis of this dissent, we are unable to agree
with the court in extending the concept of falsification to cover an abuse of
authority on the part of a reviser of examination papers, a person who is clothed
with a discretion in appraising the work revised. The circumstance that the cases
against Felipe del Rosario and Jose Bautista should be cited as authority in the
opinion of the court merely shows that there is no legal warrant in past
jurisprudence for the decision now made; for the acts of falsification in those cases
were not done by an examiner, reader, or reviser, but by the individual who was
prosecuted or by some unauthorized individual acting at his instance. Moreover,
the falsifications there accomplished were effected after the examinations had
been concluded and the documents falsified had been committed to the archives of
the court.

In the infancy of jurisprudence a sentiment had its birth in the mind of some jurist-
poet which is still thought fit to be inscribed over the Temple of Justice: Fiat Justitia
Ruat Coelum. The decision of the court in this case is a reminder that junctures
sometimes occur in human affairs when even courts of last resort are constrained
to ignore the suggestion expressed in this motto. Fortunately such occasions are
rare; and we are unable to see any necessity in the present case requiring a
departure from accepted doctrines.

For the reasons stated we dissent from the decision in this case.

Villa-real and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi