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

[2]
The Oath is thus a prerequisite to the admission to the practice of law, while cralaw Annex "A" of the Petition dated April 2, 2002.
the signing in the Roll is the last act that finally signifies membership in the
bar, giving the applicant the right to call himself "attorney".Continued [3]
cralaw Court Resolution dated August 28, 2001.
membership in the IBP and regular payment of membership dues and other
lawful assessments that it may levy are conditions sine qua non to the [4]
privilege to practice law and to the retention of his name in the Roll of cralaw Dated July 31, 2002.
[34]
Attorneys. cralaw
[5]
cralaw The dispositive portion reads:
The unauthorized use of the said appellation may render a person liable for
[35]
indirect contempt of court. cralawThe Court may deny the applicant's With the foregoing discussion, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that
petition to take the Lawyer's Oath for grave misconduct, such as calling accused is not criminally liable of the crime of Usurpation of Official Function
himself and "attorney" and appearing as counsel for clients in courts even charged in the Information.
[36]
before being admitted to the bar. cralaw Although the evidence in this case
does not include that the petitioner actually engaged in the practice of law, WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Caesar Z. Distrito is
the fact is that he signed in an attendance sheet as "Atty. Caesar Distrito."He ACQUITTED.
called himself "attorney" knowing fully well that he was not yet admitted to
[37]
the bar. cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Thus, we disagree with the findings of the OBC, and find that the petitioner is [6]
unfit to become a member of the bar.The petitioner must show this Court cralaw Annex "B."
that he has satisfied the moral requirements before he can be admitted to
[7]
the practice of law. cralaw The petitioner attached a copy of a Resolution of the Office of the
City Prosecutor's Office, Bacolod City dated December 28, 1999 (Annex "A")
ACCORDINGLY, the petition of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO to be allowed to take withdrawing the said cases from the dockets in view of the receipt of the
the oath as member of the Philippine Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys in complainant's letter of desistance.
accordance with Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court is hereby DENIED.
[8]
cralaw Annex "B."
Very truly yours,
[9]
cralaw Annex "C."
(Sgd.)LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
[10]
Clerk of Court cralaw Annex "D."

[11]
cralaw Dated May 8, 2003.

[12]
cralaw Annex "E."

Endnotes: [13]
cralaw Annex "F."
[14] [32]
cralaw Dated 10 June 2002; Annex "G." cralaw Section 18, supra.

[15] [33]
cralaw Annex "H." cralaw Section 19, supra.

[16] [34]
cralaw Annex "I." cralaw In re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 554 (1978).

[17] [35]
cralaw Dated May 10, 2003; Annex "J." cralaw Section 3, Rule 71 of the revised Rules of Court:

[18]
cralaw Report, p. 5. After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the
respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the
[19]
cralaw Comment, par. 5. court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
following acts may be punished by indirect contempt:
[20]
cralaw Report, p. 4.
...
[21]
cralaw Yap Tan v. Sabandal, 170 SCRA 211 (1989).
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such
[22] without authority;
cralaw In Re: Argosino, 246 SCRA 14 (1995).
[36]
[23] cralaw People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968 (1958).
cralaw Royong v. Oblena, 6 SCRA 859 (1963).
[37]
[24] cralaw Tan v. Sabandal, 126 SCRA 60 (1983).
cralaw Rule 7:02 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppressing a material fact, in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.

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

[26]
cralaw A.M. No. 3360, January 30, 1990.

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

[28]
cralaw In re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, supra.

[29]
cralaw Comment, par. 19.

[30]
cralaw Annex "G."

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