Cases Ethics (1)

7/24/2019 Cases Ethics (1)

1/241

ADMISSION TO PRACTICE

1. In Re: Lanuevo 66 SCRA 245 (1975)

A.C. No. 1162. Auu!" 29# 1975IN RE: $ICTORIO D. LAN%E$O# &o'e' a' Con*+an" an+ De,u"- Ce'/ o& Cou'"# Respondent.

A.C. No. 1160. Auu!" 29# 1975

IN RE: RAMON E. ALAN# aa! ROMAN E. ALAN# 1971 a' E3anee# Respondent.

A.C. No. 1164. Auu!" 29# 1975IN RE: ON. ERNARDO PARDO# ON. RAMON PAMATIAN# ATT. MAN%EL TOMACR%# ATT.MAN%EL MONTECILLO# ATT. IDEL MANALO an+ ATT. %ILLERMO PALO# 8R.# Mee'!# 1971a' E3ann Co""ee# Respondents.

Disbarment proceedings were fled against the Bar Confdant, Victorio Lanuevo and a 1971 bar candidate,Ramon alang, and disciplinar! action against fve bar e"aminers #or acts and omissions committed in the1971 bar e"aminations$

Based on a confdential letter #rom a bar %un&ed, 'he (upreme Court chec&ed the records o# the 1971 bare"aminations$ )s a result thereo#, the grades in fve sub*ects o# an e"aminee +Ramon alang were #ound

to be charged, which, however, were the properl! initialed and authenticated b! each o# the e"aminerconcerned$ -pon investigation, the Bar Confdant admitted in his sworn statement having brought bac& thefve e"amination noteboo&s to the e"aminers #or re.evaluation$ /n turn, the fve e"aminers admitted, intheir individual sworn statements, having re.evaluated and re.chec&ed the noteboo&s involved +all o# whichhad #ailing mar&s upon the representation made to each o# them separatel! and individuall! b! the BarConfdant that e"aminers were authori0ed to do so and that the e"aminee concerned #ailed onl! in his+e"aminer concerned particular sub*ect andor was on the borderline o# passing$ 2n the other hand,Ramon alang denied an! &nowledge o# the actuation3s o# the Bar Confdant$

'he (upreme Court, holding that the 24ce o# the Bar Confdant has absolutel! nothing to do with the re.evaluation or reconsideration o# the grades o# e"aminees who #ail to ma&e the passing mar& be#ore or a#terthe noteboo&s are submitted b! the e"aminers and, that, there#ore, the deception made b! the BarConfdant was in violation o# the trust and confdence reposed in him, disbarred the Bar Confdant and

ordered his name stric&en #rom the roll o# attorne!s$

5ith respect to respondent Ramon alang, the (upreme Court li&ewise disbarred him because o# thehighl! irregular manner o# his passing the bar which was e6ected through an authori0ed re.evaluation o#his e"amination noteboo&s, and on the ground that he #raudulentl! concealed and withheld his pendingcriminal case #or slight ph!sical in*uries in all his seven applications to ta&e the bar e"aminations whichindicates his lac& o# the reuisite attributes o# honest!, probit! and good demeanor$

Respondent Bar 8"aminers were reminded to e"ercise the greatest or utmost care and vigilance in theper#ormance o# their duties as such$

SLLA%S1$ C2-R' 8R(2::8L ):D 8;L2/D):'= >-:C'/2:( ):D D-'/8($ ? 'he Bar Confdant is

simpl! the custodian o# bar e"amination noteboo&s #or and in behal# o# the court= hence, an! suggestion orreuest b! him #or re.evaluation or reconsideration o# the grades o# e"aminees who #ail to ma&e thepassing mar& be#ore or a#ter the noteboo&s are submitted b! the e"aminer, is not onl! presumptuous butalso o6ensive to the norms o# delicac!$ @is position is primaril! confdential as the designation indicates$@is #unctions in connection with the conduct o# the Bar 8"aminations are defned and circumscribed b! theCourt and must be strictl! adhered to$

A$ /D$= /D$= /D$= >-:C'/2: /: C2::8C'/2: 5/'@ B)R 8);/:)'/2:($ ? )#ter the connected noteboo&s aresubmitted to the Bar Confdant b! the 8"aminers, his onl! #unction is to tall! the individual grades o# ever!e"aminee in all sub*ects ta&en and therea#ter compute the general average$ 'hat done, he will thenprepare a comparative data showing the percentage o# passing and #ailing in relation to a certain averageto be submitted to the Committee and to the Court and on the basis o# which the Court will determine thepassing average, whether 7 or 7 or 7E, etc$ 'he Bar Confdant has noB-(/:8(( evaluating the answer
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1975augustdecisions.php?id=317#20210680http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1975augustdecisions.php?id=317#20210680http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1975augustdecisions.php?id=317#20210680


2/241

o# the e"aminees and cannot assume the #unctions o# passing upon the appraisal made b! the 8"aminerconcerned$ @e is not the over.all 8"aminer and cannot presume to &now better than the 8"aminer$

E$ (-R8;8 C2-R'= F-D/C/)L >-:C'/2: /: )D;/''/: B)R C):D/D)'8($ ? 'he *udicial #unction o# the(upreme Court is admitting candidates to the legal pro#ession, which necessaril! involves the e"ercise o#discretion, reuiresG +1 previous established rules and principles= +A concrete #acts whether past orpresent, a6ecting determine individuals= and +E a decision as to whether these #acts are governed b! therules and principles$

$ /D$= /D$= B)R 8);/:)'/2: C2;;/''88$ ? /n the e"ercise o# the *udicial #unction in admitting barcandidates, the Court acts through a Bar 8"amination Committee, composed o# a member o# the Courtwho acts as Chairman and eight +H members o# the Bar who act as e"aminers in the eight +H bar sub*ectwith one sub*ect assigned to each$ )cting as a sort o# liaison o4cer between the Court and Bar Chairman,on the one hand, and the individual members o# the Committee, on the other, is the Bar Confdant is at thesame time a deput! cler& o# the court$

$ /D$= /D$= /D$= )C'( 2> C2;;/''88 ;-(' B8 /: )CC2RD):C8 5/'@ 8(')BL/(@8D R-L8( 2> C2-R'$ ?8ver! act o# Committee in connection with the e"ercise o# discretion in the admission o# e"aminees tomembership o# the Bar must be in accordance with the established rules o# the Court and must alwa!s besub*ect to the fnal approval o# the Court$

I$ B)R 8);/:)'/2:(= R8J-8(' >2R R8.8V)L-)'/2:$ ? )n! reuest #or re.evaluation should be done b!the e"aminee and the same should be addressed to the Court, which alone can validl! act thereon$ 2ncethe bar e"aminer has submitted the corrected noteboo&s to the bar confdant the same cannot bewithdrawn #or an! purpose whatsoever without prior authorit! #rom the Court$

7$ /D$= )D;/((/2:= R8J-/R8;8:'= 22D ;2R)L C@)R)C'8R$ ? (ection A o# Rule 1EH o# the RevisedRules o# Court o# 19I, among others, provides that Kever! applicant #or admission as a member o# the Barmust $ $ $ o# good moral character $ $ $ and must produce be#ore the (upreme Court satis#actor! evidence o#good moral character, and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude have been fled or arepending in an! court in the hilippines$K rior to 19I, or under the old Rules o# Court, a bar applicants wasreuired to produce be#ore the (upreme Court satis#actor! testimonials o# good moral character +(ec$ A,Rule 1A7$ -nder both rules, ever! applicant is dut! bound to la! be#ore the Court all his involvement inan! criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to #ull! ascertain or determineapplicant3s moral character$ >urthermore, as to what crime involves moral turpitude is #or the (upremeCourt to determine$ @ence, the necessit! o# la!ing be#ore or in#orming the Court o# one3s personal record,whether he was criminall! indicted, acuitted, convicted or the case dismissed or is still pending becomesmore compelling$

H$ /D$= /D$= /D$= C)(8 )' B)R$ ? )n applicant3s intentional withholding or concealment #rom the (upremeCourt o# his pending case o# slight ph!sical in*uries o# his application to ta&e the bar e"amination o# 19IA,19IE, 19I, 19II, 19I7, 19I9 and 1971, b! virtue o# which he was allowed unconditionall! to ta&e thee"aminations seven times and to ta&e his oath in 197A, is a ground #or disbarment$

9$ /D$= 8);/:8R( R8J-/R8D '2 88RC/(8 -';2(' C)R8$ ? 8"aminer3s participation in the admission o#members to the Bar is one impressed with the highest consideration o# public interest ? absolute purit! o#the proceedings ? and so are reuired to e"ercise the greatest or utmost care and vigilance in theper#ormance o# their duties relative thereto$

1$ )''2R:8' L)5= D/(;/(()L 2> -BL/C 2>>/C8R -:D8R (8C'/2: H, R8-BL/C )C' :2$ E19$ (ectionH o# Republic )ct :o$ E19 authori0ed the dismissal on removal o# a public o4cer once it is determinedthat his propert! or mone! Kis mani#estl! out o# proportion to his salar! as such public o4cer or emplo!eeand to his other law#ul income and the income #rom legitimatel! acuired propert! $ $ $K

D E C I S I O N

MAASIAR#J.:


3/241

)dministrative proceedings against Victorio D$ Lanuevo ? #or disbarment= Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman8$ alang ? #or disbarment= @on$ Bernardo ardo, @on$ Ramon amatian, )tt!$ ;anuel C$ 'omacru0= )tt!$;anuel $ ;ontecillo, )tt!$ >idel ;analo and )tt!$ uillermo ablo, Fr$ ? #or disciplinar! action ? #or theiracts and omissions during the 1971 Bar 8"aminations$

/n his reuest dated ;arch A9, 197A contained in a confdential letter to the Court #or re.correction and re.evaluation o# his answers to the 1971 Bar 8"aminations uestions, 2scar Landicho ? who %un&ed in the1971, 19IH and 19I7 Bar 8"aminations with a grade o# 7$M, I$EM and I7$M, respectivel! ? invitedthe attention o# the Court to K'he starting #act that the grade in one e"amination +Civil Law o# at least onebar candidate was raised #or one reason or another, be#ore the bar results were released this !earK+Confdential Letter, p$ A$ Vol$ /, rec$$ 'his was confrmed, according to him, b! the Civil Law 8"aminerhimsel# +@on$ Ramon C$ amatian as well as b! Bar Confdant Victorio D$ Lanuevo$ @e #urther thereinstated Kthat there are strong reasons to believe that the grades in other e"amination noteboo&s in othersub*ects also underwent alterations ? to raise the grades ? prior to the release o# the results$ :ote thatthis was without an! #ormal motion or reuests #rom the proper parties, i$e$, the bar candidates concerned$/# the bar e"aminers concerned reconsidered their grades without #ormal motion, there is no reason wh!the! ma! not do so now when proper reuest and motion there#or is made$ /t would be contrar! to dueprocess postulates$ ;ight not one sa! that some candidates got un#air and un*ust treatment, #or theirgrades were not as&ed to be reconsidered Nuno4ciall!3O 5h! the discriminationO Does this not a6ordsu4cient reason #or the Court en banc to go into these matters b! its conceded power to ultimatel! decidethe matter o# admission to the barOK +p$ A, Confdential Letter, Vol$ /, rec$$

)cting on the a#oresaid confdential letter, the Court chec&ed the records o# the 1971 Bar 8"aminationsand #ound that the grades in fve sub*ects ? olitical Law and ublic /nternational Law, Civil Law,;ercantile Law, Criminal Law and Remedial Law ? o# a success#ul bar candidate with o4ce code :o$ 9underwent some changes which, however, were dul! initialed and authenticated b! the respectivee"aminer concerned$ >urther chec& o# the records revealed that the bar candidate with o4ce code :o$ 9is one Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang, a perennial bar candidate, who %un&ed in the 19I9, 19I7,19II, 19I, 19IE, and 19IA bar e"aminations with a grade o# I7$M, IH$IM, 7A$7M, IH$AM, I$Mand 7$EM, respectivel!$ @e passed in the 1971 bar e"aminations with a grade o# 7$1M, which wasconsidered as 7M b! virtue o# a Court resolution ma&ing 7M as the passing mar& #or the 1971 bare"aminations$

-pon the direction o# the Court, the 1971 Bar 8"amination Chairman reuested Bar Confdant Victorio D$Lanuevo and the fve + bar e"aminers concerned to submit their sworn statements on the matter, withwhich reuest the! complied$

/n his sworn statement dated )pril 1A, 197A, said Bar Confdant admitted having brought the fvee"amination noteboo&s o# Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang, bac& to the respective e"aminers #orre.evaluation andor re.chec&ing, stating the circumstances under which the same was done and hisreasons #or doing the same$

8ach o# the fve + e"aminers in his individual sworn statement admitted having re.evaluated andor re.chec&ed the noteboo& involved pertaining to his sub*ect upon the representation to him b! Bar ConfdantLanuevo that he has the authorit! to do the same and that the e"aminee concerned #ailed onl! in hisparticular sub*ect andor was on the borderline o# passing$

>inding a prima #acie case against the respondents warranting a #ormal investigation, the Court reuired, ina resolution dated ;arch ,197E, Bar Confdant Victorio Lanuevo Kto show cause within ten +1 da!s #rom

notice wh! his name should not be stric&en #rom the Roll o# )ttorne!sK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IA, p$ E, rec$$Considering that the re.evaluation o# the e"amination papers o# Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang,was unauthori0ed, and there#ore he did not obtain a passing average in the 1971 bar e"aminations, theCourt li&ewise resolved on ;arch , 1971 to reuire him Kto show cause within ten +1 da!s #rom noticewh! his name should not be stric&en #rom the Roll o# )ttorne!sK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IE, p$ 99, rec$$ 'he fvee"aminers concerned were also reuired b! the Court Kto show cause within ten +1 da!s #rom notice wh!no disciplinar! action should be ta&en against themK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, p$ E1, rec$$

Respondent 'omacru0 fled his answer on ;arch 1A, 197E +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, p$ 7, rec$ whilerespondents ardo, amatian, ;ontecillo, ;analo and Lanuevo fled theirs on ;arch 19,197E +)dm$ Case:o$ 11IA, pp$ I.IE, EA.E, .1, EI.E9 and E.EH, rec$$ )t the hearing on )ugust A7, 197E, respondentLanuevo fled another sworn statement in addition to, and in amplifcation o#, his answer fled on ;arch 19,


4/241

197E +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IA, pp$ .7, rec$$ Respondent alang fled his unverifed answer on ;arch 1I,197E +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IE, pp$ 1.1, rec$$ @e was reuired b! the Court to veri#! the same andcompliance came on ;a! 1H, 197E +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IE, pp$ 1I.11, rec$$

/n the course o# the investigation, it was #ound that it was not respondent Bernardo ardo who re.evaluatedandor rechec&ed e"amination boo&let with 24ce Code :o$ 9 in olitical Law and ublic /nternationalLaw o# e"aminee Ramon alang, alias Roman 8$ alang, but uillermo ablo, Fr$, e"aminer in Legal 8thicsand ractical 8"ercises, who was as&ed to help in the correction o# a number o# e"amination noteboo&s inolitical Law and ublic /nternational Law to meet the deadline #or submission +pp$ 17.A, Vol$ V, rec$$Because o# this development, )tt!$ uillermo ablo, Fr$ was li&ewise included as respondent in)dministrative Case :o$ 11I$ @on$ Bernardo ardo remained as a respondent #or it was also discoveredthat another paper in olitical Law and ublic /nternational Law also underwent re.evaluation andor re.chec&ing$ 'his noteboo& with 24ce Code :o$ 1IAA turned out to be owned b! another success#ulcandidate b! the name o# 8rnesto Juitaleg$ >urther investigation resulted in the discover! o# another re.evaluation andor re.chec&ing o# a noteboo& in the sub*ect o# ;ercantile Law resulting in the change o# thegrade #rom 7M to M$ 'his noteboo& bearing 24ce Code :o$ 11 is owned b! another success#ulcandidate b! the name o# )l#redo '! dela Cru0$ Juitaleg and '! dela Cru0 and the latter3s #ather weresummoned to testi#! in the investigation$

)n investigation conducted b! the :ational Bureau o# /nvestigation upon reuest o# the Chairman o# the1971 Bar 8"amination Committee as /nvestigating 24cer, showed that one Rom! alang ! 8sguerra, aliasRamon 8$ alang, a student in the (chool o# Law o# ;anuel L$ Jue0on -niversit!, was, on (eptember H,199, charged with the crime o# slight ph!sical in*uries in the ;unicipal Court o# ;anila committed on8u#rosino >$ de Vera, another student o# the same universit!$ Con#ronted with this in#ormation at thehearing o# )ugust 1E, 197E +Vol$ V, pp$ A.A1, EA, rec$, respondent alang declared that he does notremember having been charged with the crime o# slight ph!sical in*uries$ Because o# this denial, asummons was issued to 8u#rosino >$ de Vera, who narrated the circumstances surrounding the case andidentifed respondent alang as the ver! same person charged with the crime o# slight ph!sical in*uries inthat case +Vol$ V/, pp$ .I, rec$$

Respondent alang, in all his applications to ta&e the bar e"aminations, did not ma&e mention o# this #actwhich he is reuired under the rules to do$

'he *oint investigation o# all the cases commenced on Ful! 17, 197E and was terminated on 2ctober A,197E$ 'herea#ter, parties.respondents were reuired to submit their memoranda$ Respondents Lanuevo,alang and ardo submitted their respective memorandum on :ovember 1, 197E$

Be#ore the *oint hearing commenced, 2scar Landicho too& up8R;):8:' R8(/D8:C8 /: )-('R)L/) ,where he is believed to be gain#ull! emplo!ed$ @ence, he was not summoned to testi#!$

)t the *oint investigation, all respondents, e"cept respondent ablo, who o6ered as evidence onl! his oraltestimon!, submitted as their direct evidence the a4davits and answers earlier submitted b! them to theCourt$ 'he same became the basis #or their cross.e"amination$

/n their individual sworn statements and answers, which the! o6ered as their direct testimon! in theinvestigation conducted b! the Court, the respondents.e"aminers recounted the circumstances underwhich the! re.evaluated andor re.chec&ed the e"amination noteboo&s in uestion$

/n @is a4davit dated )pril 11, 197A, respondent Fudge +later )ssociate Fustice o# the Court o# )ppeals

Ramon C$ amatian, e"aminer in Civil Law, a4rmedG*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

KA$ 'hat one evening sometime in December last !ear, while / was correcting the e"amination noteboo&s,)tt!$ Lanuevo, Bar Confdant, e"plained to me that it is the practice and the polic! in bar e"aminations thathe +)tt!$ Lanuevo ma&e a review o# the grades obtained in all segments and i# he fnds that candidateobtained an e"traordinaril! high grade in one sub*ect and a rather low one in another, he will bring bac&the latter to the e"aminer concerned #or re.evaluation and change o# grade=

KE$ 'hat sometime in the latter part o# Fanuar! o# this !ear, he brought bac& to me an e"amination boo&letin Civil Law #or re.evaluation, because according to him the owner o# the paper is on the borderline and i# /could reconsider this grade to 7M the candidate concerned will get passing mar&=


5/241

K$ 'hat ta&ing his word #or it and under the belie# that it was reall! the practice and polic! o# the (upremeCourt to do so in the #urther belie# that / was *ust mani#esting cooperation indoing so, / re.evaluated thepaper and reconsidered the grade to 7M=

K$ 'hat onl! one noteboo& in Civil Law was brought bac& to me #or such re.evaluation and upon veri#!ingm! fles / #ound that the noteboo& is number N93=

KI$ 'hat the original grade was IM and m! re.evaluation o# the answers were based on the samestandard used in the correction and evaluation o# all others= thus, :os$ E and with original grades o# 7Meach was reconsidered to 1M= :o$ with M to M= :o$ 7 with EM to M= and :o$ H with HM to 1MK+underscoring supplied$

@is answer dated ;arch 19, 197E substantiall! reiterated his allegations in his )pril 11, 197A a4davit withthe #ollowing additional statementsGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

KE$ $ $ $ $ @owever the grades in :os$ 1, A, I, 9 and 1, were not reconsidered as it is no longer possible toma&e the reconsideration o# these answers because o# the same evaluation and standard= hence, :os$ 1, Aand 1 remained at M and :os$ I and 9 at 1M=

K$ 'hat at the time / made the reconsideration o# e"amination boo&let :o$ 9 / did not &now the identit! o#its owner until / received this resolution o# the @onorable (upreme Court nor the identities o# thee"aminers in other sub*ects=

K$ 'hat the above re.evaluation was made in good #aith and under the belie# that / am authori0ed to do soin view o# the misrepresentation o# said )tt!$ Lanuevo, based on the #ollowingcircumstancesG*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

Ka (ince / started correcting the papers on or about 2ctober 1I, 1971, relationship between )tt!$ Lanuevoand m!sel# had developed to the point that with respect to the correction o# the e"amination boo&lets o#bar candidates / have alwa!s #ollowed him and considered his instructions as re%ecting the rules and polic!o# the @onorable (upreme Court with respect to the same= that / have no alternative but to ta&e his words=

Kb 'hat considering this relationship and considering his misrepresentation to me as re%ecting the realrules and polic! o# the @onorable (upreme Court, / did not bother an! more to get the consent andpermission o# the Chairman o# the Bar Committee$ Besides, at that time, / was isolating m!sel# #rom allmembers o# the (upreme Court and speciall! the chairman o# the Bar Committee #or #ear that / might heidentifed as a bar e"aminer=

Ke 'hat no consideration whatsoever has been received b! me in return #or such recorrection, and as proo#o# it, / declined to reconsider and evaluate one boo&let in Remedial Law a#oresaid because / was not theone who made the original correction o# the sameK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, pp$ EA.E, rec$= Emphasissupplied$

'hen )ssistant (olicitor eneral, now C>/ Fudge, Bernardo ardo, e"aminer in olitical Law and ublic/nternational Law, confrmed in his a4davit o# )pril H, 197A thatG*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

K2n a da! or two a#ter the Bar Confdant went to m! residence to obtain #rom me the last bag o# twohundred noteboo&s +bearing e"aminer3s code numbers 1A to 1 which according to m! record was on>ebruar! , 197A, he came to m! residence at about 7GE p$m$ riding in a Vo&swagen panel o# the (upreme

Court, with at least two companions$ 'he bar confdant had with him an e"aminee3s noteboo& bearing codenumber II1, and, a#ter the usual amenities, he reuested me i# it was possible #or me to review and re.e"amine the said noteboo& because it appears that the e"aminee obtained a grade o# 7, whereas,according to the Bar Confdant, the said e"aminee had obtained higher grades in other sub*ects, thehighest o# which was H, i# / recall correctl!, in remedial law$

K/ as&ed the Bar Confdant i# / was allowed to review or re.e"amine the noteboo& as / had submitted thesame be#orehand, and he told me that / was authori0ed to do so because the same was still within m!control and authorit! as long as the particular e"aminee3s name had not been identifed or that the codenumber decoded and the e"aminee3s name was revealed$ 'he Bar Confdant told me that the name o# thee"aminee in the case presented hearing code number II1 had not been identifed or revealed= and that itmight have been possible that / had given a particularl! low grade to said e"aminee$


6/241

K)ccepting at #ace value the truth o# the Bar Confdant3s representations to me, and as it was humanl!possible that / might have erred in the grading o# the said noteboo&, / re.e"amined the same, care#ull!read the answers, and graded it in accordance with the same standards / had used throughout the gradingo# the entire noteboo&s, with the result that the e"aminee deserved an increased grade o# II$ )#ter againclearing with the Bar Confdant m! authorit! to correct the grades and as he had assured me that the codenumber o# the e"aminee in uestion had not been decoded and his name &nown, $ $ $ / there#ore correctedthe total grade in the noteboo& and the grade card attached thereto, and properl! initia+led the same$ /also corrected the itemi0ed grades +#rom item :o$ 1 to item :o$ 1 on the two sets o# grading sheets, m!personal cop! thereo#, and the Bar Confdant brought with him the other cop! o# the grading sheetK +)dm$Case :o$ 11I, pp$ H.9= rec$= Emphasis supplied$

/n his answer dated ;arch 17, 197E which he denominated as K8"planationK, respondent Bernardo $ ardoadopted and repleaded therein b! re#erence the #acts stated in his earlier sworn statement and in additionalleged thatGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

KE$ )t the time / reviewed the e"aminee3s noteboo& in political and international law, code numbered II1, /did not &now the name o# the e"aminee$ /n #act, / came to &now his name onl! upon receipt o# theresolution o# ;arch , 197E= now &nowing his name, / wish to state that / do not &now him personall!, andthat / have never met him even up to the present=

K$ )t that time, / acted under the impression that / was authori0ed to ma&e such review and hadrepeatedl! as&ed the Bar Confdant whether / was authori0ed to ma&e such revision and was so assured o#m! authorit! as the name o# the e"aminee had not !et been decoded or his identit! revealed, the BarConfdant3s assurance was apparentl! regular and so appeared to be in the regular course o#o4cialB-(/:8(( which thus convinced me because there was no e"press prohibition in the rules andguidelines given to me as an e"aminer, and the Bar Confdant was m! o4cial liaison with the Chairman,as, unless called, / re#rained as much as possible #rom #reuent personal contact with the Chairman lest /be identifed as an e"aminer$ $ $ $=

K$ )t the time the Bar Confdant came to see me at about 7GE o3cloc& in the evening at m! residence, /#elt it inappropriate to veri#! his authorit! with the Chairman$ /t did not appear to me that hisrepresentation were unauthori0ed or suspicious$ /ndeed, the Bar Confdant was riding in the o4cial vehicleo# the (upreme Court, a Vol&swagen panel, accompanied b! two companions, which was usual, and thusloo&ed li&e a regular visit to me o# the Bar Confdant, as it was about the same hour that he used to seemeGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

K7$ /ndeed, the noteboo& code numbered II1 was still in the same condition as when / submitted thesame$ /n agreeing to review the said noteboo& code numbered II1, m! aim was to see i# / committed anerror in the correction, not to ma&e the e"aminee pass the sub*ect$ / considered it entirel! humanl!possible to have erred because / corrected that particular noteboo& on December E1, 1971, consideringespeciall! the representation o# the Bar Confdant that the said e"aminee had obtained higher grades inother sub*ects, the highest o# which was HM in remedial law, i# / recall correctl!$ 2# course, it did not stri&eme as unusual that the Bar Confdant &new the grades o# the e"aminee in the other sub*ects= / presumedthat, as Bar Confdant, he was in the position to &now and that there was nothing irregular inthatG*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

KH$ /n political and international law, the original grade obtained b! the e"aminee with noteboo& codenumbered II1 was 7M$ )#ter review, it was increased b! 9 points, resulting in a fnal grade o# II1$ (till,

the e"aminee did not pass the sub*ect, and, as hereto#ore stated, m! aim was not to ma&e the e"amineepass, notwithstanding the representation that he had passed the other sub*ects$ $ $ $

K9$ / uite recall that during the frst meeting o# the Bar 8"aminers3 Committee, which according to m!diar! was on >ebruar! H, 197A, the committee consensus was that where an e"aminee #ailed in onl! onesub*ect and passed the rest, the e"aminer in said sub*ect would review the noteboo&$ :obod! ob*ected toit as irregular$ )t the time o# the Committee3s frst meeting, we still did not &now the names o# thecandidates$

K1$ /n fne, / was a victim o# deception, not a part! to it$ / had absolutel! no &nowledge o# the motives o#the Bar Confdant or his mal#easance in o4ce, and did not &now the e"aminee concerned nor had / an!&ind o# contact with him be#ore or a#ter the review and even up to the presentK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, pp$
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1975augustdecisions.php?id=317#95730144http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1975augustdecisions.php?id=317#95730144


7/241

I.IE= rec$= Emphasis supplied$

)tt!$ ;anuel 'omacru0, e"aminer in Criminal Law, a4rmed in his a4davit dated )pril 1A,197AG*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

K1$ $ $ $

KA$ 'hat about wee&l!, the Bar Confdant would deliver and collect e"amination boo&s to m! thenresidence at 91 Luna ;encias, ;andalu!ong, Ri0al$

KE$ 'hat towards the end when / had alread! completed correction o# the boo&s in Criminal Law and washelping in the correction o# some o# the papers in another sub*ect, the Bar Confdant brought bac& to meone +1 paper in Criminal Law saving that particular e"aminee had missed the passing grade b! onl! a#raction o# a percent and that i# his paper in Criminal Law would be raised a #ew points to 7M then hewould ma&e the general passing average$

K$ 'hat seeing the *ustifcation, / raised the grade to 7M, that is, giving a raise o#, i# / remember correctl!,A or E points, initialled the revised mar& and revised also the mar& in the general list$

K$ 'hat / do not recall the number o# the boo& o# the e"aminee concernedK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, p$ I9,rec$= Emphasis supplied$

/n his answer dated ;arch 1A, 197E, respondent 'omacru0 stated that K/ accepted the word o# the BarConfdant in good #aith and without the slightest in&ling as to the identit! o# the e"aminee in uestion whoup to now remains a total stranger and without e"pectation o# nor did / derive an! personal beneftK +)dm$Case :o$ 11I, p$ 7, rec$= Emphasis supplied$

)tt!$ >idel ;analo, e"aminer in Remedial Law, stated in his a4davit dated )pril 1, 197A, thatGchanrob1esvirtual 1aw librar!

KA$ (ometime about the late part o# Fanuar! or earl! part o# >ebruar! 191A, )ttorne! Lanuevo, BarConfdant o# the (upreme Court, saw me in m! house at :o$ 1H )suncion (treet, ;a&ati, Ri0al$ @eproduced to me an e"aminee3s noteboo& in Remedial Law which / had previousl! graded and submitted tohim$ @e in#ormed me that he and others +he used the word Nwe3 had reviewed the said noteboo&$ @ereuested me to review the said noteboo& and possibl! reconsider the grade that / had previousl! given$@e e"plained that the e"aminee concerned had done well in other sub*ects, but that because o# thecomparativel! low grade that / had given him in Remedial Law his general average was short o# passing$;r$ Lanuevo remar&ed that he thought that i# the paper were reviewed / might fnd the e"aminee deservingo# being admitted to the Bar$ )s #ar as / can recall, ;r$ Lanuevo particularl! called m! attention to the #actin his answers the e"aminee e"pressed himsel# clearl! and in good enough 8nglish$ ;r$ Lanuevo howeverin#ormed me that whether / would reconsider the grades / had previousl! given and submitted was entirel!within m! discretion$

KE$ Believing #ull! that it was within ;r$ Lanuevo3s authorit! as Bar Confdant to address such a reuest tome and that the said reuest was in order, /, in the presence o# ;r$ Lanuevo, proceeded to re.read and re.evaluate each and ever! item o# the paper in uestion$ / recall that in m! re.evaluation o# the answers, /increased the grades in some items, made deductions in other items, and maintained the same grades inother items$ @owever, / recall that a#ter ;r$ Lanuevo and / had totalled the new grades that / had givena#ter re.evaluation, the total grade increased b! a #ew points, but still short o# the passing mar& o# 7M in

m! sub*ect$

$ $ $K +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, pp$ 7.7, rec$= Emphasis supplied$

/n his answer +response dated ;arch 1H, 197E, respondent ;analo reiterated the contents o# his swornstatement, adding the #ollowingGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

K$ /n agreeing to re.evaluate the noteboo&, with resulted in increasing the total grade o# the e"amineeconcerned in Remedial Law #rom IE$7M to 7$M, herein respondent acted in good #aith$ /t ma! well bethat he could be #aulted #or not having verifed #rom the Chairman o# the Committee o# Bar 8"aminers thelegitimac! o# the reuest made b! ;r$ Lanuevo$ @erein respondent, however, pleads in attenuation o# suchomission, that ?


8/241

Ka @aving been appointed an 8"aminer #or the frst time, he was not aware, not having been apprisedotherwise, that it was not within the authorit! o# the Bar Confdant o# the (upreme Court to reuest orsuggest that the grade o# a particular e"amination noteboo& be revised or reconsidered$ @e had ever!right to presume, owing to the highl! fduciar! nature o# the position o# the Bar Confdant, that the reuestwas legitimate$

Kc /n revising the grade o# the particular e"aminee concerned, herein respondent care#ull! evaluated eachand ever! answer written in the noteboo&$ 'esting the answers b! the criteria laid down b! the Court, andgiving the said e"aminee the beneft o# doubt in view o# ;r$ Lanuevo3s representation that it was onl! inthat particular sub*ect that the said e"aminee #ailed, herein respondent became convinced that the saide"aminee deserved a higher grade than that previousl! given to him, but that he did not deserve, in hereinrespondent3s honest appraisal, to be given the passing grade o# 7M$ /t should also be mentioned that, inreappraising the answers, herein respondent downgraded a previous rating o# an answer written b! thee"aminee, #rom 9$AM to 9MK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, pp$ EI.E9, rec$= Emphasis supplied$

)tt!$ ;anuel ;ontecillo, e"aminer in ;ercantile Law, a4rmed in his a4davit dated )pril 17,197AGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

K'hat during one o# the deliberations o# the Bar 8"aminers3 Committee a#ter the Bar 8"aminations wereheld, / was in#ormed the one Bar e"aminee passed all other sub*ects e"cept ;ercantile Law=

K'hat / in#ormed the Bar 8"aminers3 Committee that / would be willing to re.evaluate the paper o# thisparticular Bar candidate=

K'hat the ne"t da!, the Bar Confdant handed to me a Bar candidate3s noteboo& +:o$ 1I1E showing agrade o# I1M=

K'hat / reviewed the whoPe paper and a#ter re.evaluating the answers o# this particular Bar candidate /decided to increase his fnal grade to 71M=

K'hat conseuentl!, / amended m! report and dul! initialed the changes in the grade sheetK +)dm$ Case:o$ 11I, p$ 7A, rec$= Italics supplied$

/n his answer dated ;arch 19, 197E, respondent ;ontecillo restated the contents o# his sworn statement o#)pril 17, 197A, and

KA$ (upplementar! to the #oregoing sworn statement, / hereb! state that / re.evaluated the e"aminationnoteboo& o# Bar Candidate :o$ 1I1E in ;ercantile Law in absolute good #aith and in direct compliance withthe agreement made during one o# the deliberations o# the Bar 8"aminers Committee that where acandidate #ails in onl! one sub*ect, the 8"aminer concerned should ma&e a re.evaluation o# the answers o#the candidate concerned, which / did$

KE$ >inall!, / hereb! state that / did not &now at the time / made the a#orementioned re.evaluation thatnoteboo& :o$ 1I1E in ;ercantile Law pertained to bar e"aminee Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang,and that / have never met up to this time this particular bar e"amineeK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, pp$ .1,rec$= Emphasis supplied$

/n his sworn statement dated )pril 1A, 197A, Bar Confdant Lanuevo statedGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

K)s / was going over those noteboo&s, chec&ing the entries in the grading sheets and the posting on therecord o# ratings, / was impressed o# the writing and the answers on the frst noteboo&$ 'his led me toscrutini0e all the set o# noteboo&s$ Believing that those fve merited re.evaluation on the basis o# thememorandum circulari0ed to the e"aminers shortl! earlier to the e6ect that$

$ $ $ in the correction o# the papers, substantial weight should then be given to clarit! o# language andsoundness o# reasoning +par$ ,

/ too& it upon m!sel# to bring them bac& to the respective e"aminers #or re.evaluation andor re.chec&ing$

K/t is our e"perience in the Bar Division that immediatel! a#ter the release o# the results o# the


9/241

e"aminations, we are usuall! swarmed with reuests o# the e"aminees that the! be shown theirnoteboo&s$ ;an! o# them would cop! their answers and have them chec&ed b! their pro#essors$ 8ventuall!some o# them would fle motions or reuests #or re.correction andor re.evaluation$ Right now, we havesome 19 o# such motions or reuests which we are read!ing #or submission to the @onorable Court$

K2#ten we #eel that a #ew o# them are meritorious, but *ust the same the! have to be denied because theresult o# the e"aminations when released is fnal and irrevocable$

K/t was to at least minimi0e the occurrence o# such instances that motivated me to bring those noteboo&sbac& to the respective e"aminers #or re.evaluationK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IA, p$ A, rec$= Italics supplied$

/n his answer dated ;arch 19, 197E, respondent Lanuevo aversG*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

K'hat he submitted the noteboo&s in uestion to the e"aminers concerned in his honest belie# that thesame merited re.evaluation= that in so doing, it was not his intention to #orsa&e or betra! the trust reposedin him as bar confdant but on the contrar! to do *ustice to the e"aminee concerned= that neither did heact in a presumptuous manner, because the matter o# whether or not re.evaluation was in order was le#talone to the e"aminers3 decision= and that, to his &nowledge, he does not remember having made thealleged misrepresentation but that he remembers having brought to the attention o# the Committee duringthe meeting a matter concerning another e"aminee who obtained a passing general average but with agrade below M in ;ercantile Law$ )s the Committee agreed to remove the disualifcation b! wa! o#raising the grade in said sub*ect, respondent brought the noteboo& in uestion to the 8"aminer concernedwho thereb! raised the grade thus enabling the said e"aminee to pass$ /# he remembers right, thee"aminee concerned is one surnamed Nde la Cru03 or N'!.de la Cru03$

Kebruar!, 197A, on m! wa! hac& to theo4ce +Bar Division a#ter lunch, / thought o# bu!ing a sweepsta&e tic&et$ / have alwa!s made it a point thatthe moment / thin& o# so bu!ing, / pic& a number #rom an! ob*ect and the frst number that comes into m!sight becomes the basis o# the tic&et that / bu!$ )t that moment, the frst number that / saw was N93boldl! printed on an electrical contribance +evidentl! belonging to the ;8R)LC2 attached to a poststanding along the right sidewal& o# $ >aura street towards the (upreme Court building #rom (an ;arcelino

street and almost ad*acent to the southeastern corner o# the #ence o# the )raullo @igh (chool +photographo# the number N93, the contrivance on which it is printed and a portion o# the post to which it is attachedis identifed and mar&ed as 8"hibit .Lanuevo and the number N93 as 8"h$ .a.Lanuevo$

K5ith this number +9 in mind, / proceeded to la0a (ta$ Cru0 to loo& #or a tic&et that would contain suchnumber$ 8ventuall!, / #ound a tic&et, which / then bought, whose last three digits corresponded to N93$

'his number became doubl! impressive to me because the sum o# all the si" digits o# the tic&et numberwas NA73, a number that is so signifcant to me that ever!thing / do / tr! somewhat instinctivel! to lin& orconnect it with said number whenever possible$ 'hus even in assigning code numbers on the ;aster List o#e"aminees #rom 19IH when / frst too& charge o# the e"aminations as bar confdant up to 1971, / eitherstarted with the number NA73 +or NAA73 or end with said number$ +19IH ;aster List is identifed and mar&edas 8"h$ .Lanuevo and the fgure NA73 at the beginning o# the list, as 8"h$ .a.Lanuevo= 19I9 ;aster List as


10/241

8"h$ I.Lanuevo and the fgure NAA73 at the beginning o# the list, as 8"h$ I.a.Lanuevo= 197 ;aster List as8"h$ 7.Lanuevo and the fgure NAA73 at the beginning o# the list as 8"h$ 7.a.Lanuevo= and the 1971 ;asterList as 8"h$ H.Lanuevo and the fgure NAA73 at the end o# the list as 8"h$ H.a.Lanuevo$

K'he signifcance to me o# this number +A7 was born out o# these incidents in m! li#e, to witG +a 2n:ovember A7, 191 while with the hilippine )rm! stationed at Camp ;anacnac, Cabanatuan, :ueva 8ci*a,/ was stric&en with pneumonia and was hospitali0ed at the :ueva 8ci*a rovincial @ospital as a result$ )swill be recalled, the last acifc 5ar bro&e out on December H, 191$ 5hile / was still confned at thehospital, our camp was bombed and stra#ed b! Fapanese planes on December 1E, 191 resulting in man!casualties$ >rom then on, / regarded :ovember A7, 191 as the beginning o# a new li#e #or me having beensaved #rom the possibilit! o# being among the casualties= +b 2n >ebruar! A7, 19I, / was able to get out o#the arm! b! wa! o# honorable discharge= and +c on >ebruar! A7, 197, / got married and since then webegot children the !oungest o# whom was born on >ebruar! A7, 197$

KReturning to the o4ce that same a#ternoon a#ter bu!ing the tic&et, / resumed m! wor& which at the timewas on the chec&ing o# the noteboo&s$ 5hile thus chec&ing, / came upon the noteboo&s bearing the o4cecode number N93$ )s the number was still #resh in m! mind, it aroused m! curiosit! prompting me to pr!into the contents o# the noteboo&s$ /mpressed b! the clarit! o# the writing and language and the apparentsoundness o# the answers and, thereb!, believing in all good #aith on the basis o# the a#orementionedConfdential ;emorandum +8"h$ 1.Lanuevo and 8"h$ 1.a.Lanuevo that the! merited re.evaluation, / setthem aside and later on too& them bac& to the respective e"aminers #or possible review recalling to themthe said Confdential ;emorandum but leaving absolutel! the matter to their discretion and *udgment$

KE$ 'hat the alleged misrepresentation or deception could have re#erence to either o# the two cases which /brought to the attention o# the Committee during the meeting and which the Committee agreed to re#erbac& to the respective e"aminers, namel!G*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

K+a 'hat o# an e"aminee who obtained a passing general average but with a grade below M +7M in;ercantile Law +the noteboo&s o# this e"aminee hear the 24ce Code :o$ 11, identifed and mar&ed as8"h$ 9.Lanuevo and the noteboo& in ;ercantile Law bearing the 8"aminer3s Code :o$ 91 with the originalgrade o# 7M increased to M a#ter re.evaluation as 8"h$ 9.a.Lanuevo= and

K+b 'hat o# an e"aminee who obtained a borderline general average o# 7E$1M with a grade below IM+7M in one sub*ect which, at the time, / could not pinpoint having inadvertentl! le#t in the o4ce the datathereon$ /t turned out that the sub*ect was olitical and /nternational Law under )sst$ (olicitor eneralBernardo ardo +'he noteboo&s o# this e"aminee bear the 24ce Code :o$ 1IAA identifed and mar&ed as8"h$ 1.Lanuevo and the noteboo& in olitical and /nternational Law bearing the 8"aminer3s Code :o$ II1with the original grade o# 7M increased to IIM a#ter re.evaluation, as 8"h$ 1.a.Lanuevo$ 'his noteboo&in olitical and /nternational Law is precisel! the same noteboo& mentioned in the sworn statement o# )sst$(olicitor eneral Bernardo ardo +8"h$ ..... ardo$

K$ 'hat in each o# the two cases mentioned in the ne"t preceding paragraph, onl! one +1 sub*ect ornoteboo& was reviewed or re.evaluated, that is, onl! ;ercantile Law in the #ormer= and onl! olitical and/nternational Law in the latter, under the #acts and circumstances / made &nown to the Committee andpursuant to which the Committee authori0ed the re#erral o# the noteboo&s involved to the e"aminersconcerned=

K$ 'hat at that *uncture, the e"aminer in 'a"ation even volunteered to review or re.chec& some 19, or so,noteboo&s in his sub*ect but that / told the Committee that there was ver! little time le#t and that the

increase in grade a#ter re.evaluation, unless ver! highl! substantial, ma! not alter the outcome since thesub*ect carries the weight o# onl! 1MK +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IA, pp$ .7, rec$$

'he #oregoing last.minute embellishment onl! serves to accentuate the #act that Lanuevo3s stor! is devoido# truth$ /n his sworn statement o# )pril 1A, 197A, he was Kled to scrutini0e all the set o# noteboo&sK o#respondent alang, because he Kwas impressed o# the writing and the answers on the frst noteboo&K ashe Kwas going over those noteboo&s, chec&ing the entries in the grading sheets and the posting on therecord o# ratings$K /n his a4davit o# )ugust A7, 197E, he stated that the number 9 on a ;eralco postprovo&ed him Kto pr! into the contents o# the noteboo&sK o# respondent alang Kbearing o4ce codenumber N9$Kcralaw virtua1aw librar!

Respondent Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang, asserted, among others=


11/241

K1$ 'hat herein respondent is not acuainted with #ormer Bar Confdant Victorio Lanuevo and never methim be#ore e"cept once when, as reuired b! the latter respondent submitted certain papers necessar! #orta&ing the bar e"aminations$

K$ 'hat it has been the consistent polic! o# the (upreme Court not to reconsider N#ailure3 cases= a#ter theo4cial release thereo#= wh! should it now reconsider a Npassing3 case, especiall! in a situation where therespondent and the bar confdant do not &now each other and, indeed, met onl! once in the ordinar!course o# o4cialB-(/:8(( O

K/t is not inevitable, then, to conclude that the entire situation clearl! mani#ests a reasonable doubt towhich respondent is richl! entitledO

K$ 'hat respondent, be#ore reading a cop! o# this @onorable Court3s resolution dated ;arch , 197E, hadno &nowledge whatsoever o# #ormer Bar Confdant Victorio Lanuevo3s actuations which are stated inparticular in the resolution$ /n #act, the respondent never &new this man intimatel! nor, had the hereinrespondent utili0ed an!one to contact the Bar Confdant Lanuevo in his behal#$

KBut, assuming as true, the said actuations o# Bar Confdant Lanuevo as stated in the Resolution, which areevidentl! purported to show as having redounded to the beneft o# herein respondent, these uestionsariseG >irst, was the re.evaluation o# Respondent3s e"amination papers b! the Bar 8"amination Committeedone onl! or especiall! #or him and not done generall! as regards the paper o# the other bar candidateswho are supposed to have #ailedO /# the re.evaluation o# Respondent3s grades was done among those o#others, then it must have been done as a matter o# polic! o# the Committee to increase the percentage o#passing in that !ear3s e"amination and, there#ore, the insinuation that onl! respondent3s papers were re.evaluated upon the in%uence o# Bar Confdant Lanuevo would be un*ustifable, i# not #ar #etched$ (econdl!,is the #act that Bar Confdant Lanuevo3s actuations resulted in herein Respondent3s beneft an evidence perse o# Respondent3s having caused actuations o# Bar Confdant Lanuevo to be done in #ormer3s behal#O 'oassume this could be disastrous in e6ect because that would be presuming all the members o# the Bar8"amination Committee as devoid o# integrit!, unft #or the bar themselves and the result o# their wor&that !ear, as also unworth! o# an!thing$ )ll o# these in#erences are deductible #rom the narration o# #acts inthe resolution, and which onl! goes to show said narration o# #acts as unworth! o# credence, orconsideration$

K7$ 'his @onorable 'ribunal3s Resolution o# ;arch , 197E would ma&e this Respondent )ccount or answer#or the actuations o# Bar Confdant Lanuevo as well as #or the actuations o# the Bar 8"aminers impl!ing thee"istence o# some conspirac! between them and the Respondent$ 'he evident imputation is denied and itis contended that the Bar 8"aminers were in the per#ormance o# their duties and that the! should beregarded as such in the consideration o# this case$

K$ $ $K +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IE, pp$ 1.1, rec$$

/$ 'he evidence thus disclosed clearl! demonstrates how respondent Lanuevo s!stematicall! and cleverl!initiated and prepared the stage leading to the re.evaluation andor re.correction o# the answers o#respondent alang b! deceiving separatel! and individuall! the respondents.e"aminers to ma&e thedesired revision without prior authorit! #rom the (upreme Court a#ter the corrected noteboo&s had beensubmitted to the Court through the respondent Bar Confdant, who is simpl! the custodian thereo# #or andin behal# o# the Court$

/t appears that one evening, sometime around the middle part o# December, 1971, *ust be#ore Christmasda!, respondent Lanuevo approached Civil Law e"aminer amatian while the latter was in the process o#correcting e"amination boo&lets, and then and there made the representations that as Bar Confdant, hema&es a review o# the grades obtained in all sub*ects o# the e"aminees and i# he fnds that a candidateobtains an e"traordinaril! high grade in one sub*ect and a rather low one in another, he will bring bac& tothe e"aminer concerned the noteboo& #or re.evaluation and change o# grade +8"h$ A.amatian, )dm$ Case:o$ 11I, pp$ .I= Vol$ V, pp$ E, rec$$

(ometime in the latter part o# Fanuar!, 197A, respondent Lanuevo brought bac& to respondent.e"amineramatian an e"amination boo&let in Civil Law #or re.evaluation, representing that the e"aminee who ownedthe particular noteboo& is on the borderline o# passing and i# his grade in said sub*ect could bereconsidered to 7M, the said e"aminee will get a passing average$ Respondent.e"aminer amatian too&


12/241

respondent Lanuevo3s word and under the belie# that was reall! the practice and polic! o# the (upremeCourt and in his #urther belie# that he was *ust mani#esting cooperation in doing so, he re.evaluated thepaper and reconsidered the e"aminee3s grade in said sub*ect to 7M #rom IM$ 'he particular noteboo&belonged to an e"aminee with 8"aminer3s Code :umber 9 and with 24ce Code :umber 9$ 'hise"aminee is Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang$ Respondent amatian did not &now the identit! o#the e"aminee at the time he re.evaluated the said boo&let +8"hs$ 1.amatian, A.amatian, and E.amatian,)dm$ Case :o$ 11I, pp$ EA.EE, .I, 7= Vol$ V, pp$ E., rec$$

Be#ore Fustice amatian made the revision, 8"aminee alang #ailed in seven sub*ects including Civil Law$)#ter such revision, e"aminee alang still #ailed in si" sub*ects and could not obtain the passing average o#7M #or admission to the Bar$

'herea#ter, about the latter part o# Fanuar!, 197A or earl! part o# >ebruar!, 197A, respondent Lanuevowent to the residence o# respondent.e"aminer >idel ;analo at 1H )suncion (treet, ;a&ati, Ri0al, with ane"aminee3s noteboo& in Remedial Law, which respondent ;analo had previousl! corrected and graded$Respondent Lanuevo then reuested respondent ;analo to review the said noteboo& and possibl! toreconsider the grade given, e"plaining and representing that Kthe!K had reviewed the said noteboo& andthat the e"aminee concerned had done well in other sub*ects, but that because o# the comparativel! lowgrade given said e"aminee b! respondent ;analo in Remedial Law, the general average o# said e"amineewas short o# passing$ Respondent Lanuevo li&ewise made the remar& and observation that he thought thati# the noteboo& were reviewed, respondent ;analo might !et fnd the e"aminee deserving o# beingadmitted to the Bar$ Respondent Lanuevo also particularl! called the attention o# respondent ;analo to the#act that in his answers, the e"aminee e"pressed himsel# clearl! and in good 8nglish$ >urthermore,respondent Lanuevo called the attention o# respondent ;analo to aragraph o# the Confdential;emorandum that read as #ollowsG*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

K$ 8"amination uestions should be more a test o# logic, &nowledge o# legal #undamentals, and abilit! toanal!0e and solve legal problems rather than a test o# memor!= in the correction o# papers, substantialweight should be given to clarit! o# language and soundness o# reasoning$Kcralaw virtua1aw librar!

Respondent ;analo was, however, in#ormed b! respondent Lanuevo that the matter o# reconsideration wasentirel! within his +;analo3s discretion$ Respondent ;analo, believing that respondent Lanuevo, as BarConfdant, had the authorit! to ma&e such reuest and #urther believing that such reuest was in order,proceeded to re.evaluate the e"aminee3s answers in the presence o# Lanuevo, resulting in an increase o#the e"aminee3s grade in that particular sub*ect, Remedial Law, #rom IE$AM to 7$M$ Respondent ;analoauthenticated with his signature the changes made b! him in the noteboo& and in the grading sheet$ 'hesaid noteboo& e"aminer3s code number is 1EI, instead o# E1 as earlier mentioned b! him in his a4davit,and belonged to Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang +8"hs$ 1 Q A.;analo, )dm$ Case :o$ 11I, pp$EI.E9, 7.7= Vol$ V, pp$ .E, rec$$

But even a#ter the re.evaluation b! )tt!$ ;analo, e"aminee alang could not ma&e the passing grade dueto his #ailing mar&s in fve sub*ects$

Li&ewise, in the latter part o# Fanuar!, 197A, on one occasion when respondent Lanuevo went to deliver torespondent uillermo ablo, Fr$ in the latter3s house a new batch o# e"amination papers in olitical Law andublic /nternational Law to be corrected, respondent Lanuevo brought out a noteboo& in olitical Lawbearing 8"aminer3s Code :umber 17A +8"h$ .ardo, )dm$ Case :o$ 11I, p$ II, rec$, in#ormingrespondent ablo that particular e"aminee who owns the said noteboo& seems to have passed in all othersub*ects e"cept in olitical Law and ublic /nternational Law= and that i# the said noteboo& would be re.

evaluated and the mar& be increased to at least 7M, said e"aminee will pass the bar e"aminations$ )#tersatis#!ing himsel# #rom respondent that this is possible ? the respondent Bar Confdant in#orming him thatthis is the practice o# the Court to help out e"aminees who are #ailing in *ust one sub*ect ? respondentablo acceded to the reuest and thereb! told the Bar Confdant to *ust leave the said noteboo&$Respondent ablo therea#ter re.evaluated the answers, this time with lenienc!$ )#ter the re.evaluation, thegrade was increased to 7HM #rom IHM, or an increase o# 1M$ Respondent ablo then made thecorresponding corrections in the grading sheet and accordingl! initialed the changes made$ 'his noteboo&with 24ce Code :umber 9 also belonged to Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang +Vol$ V, pp$ E.I,rec$$

)#ter the re.evaluation b! )tt!$ ablo, Fr$, e"aminee alang3s general average was still below the passinggrade, because o# his #ailing mar&s in #our sub*ects$


13/241

'owards the end o# the correction o# e"amination noteboo&s, respondent Lanuevo brought bac& torespondent 'omacru0 one e"amination boo&let in Criminal Law, with the #ormer in#orming the latter, whowas then helping in the correction o# papers in olitical Law and ublic /nternational Law, as he had alread!fnished correcting the e"amination noteboo&s in his assigned sub*ect ? Criminal Law ? that the e"amineewho owns that particular noteboo& had missed the passing grade b! onl! a #raction o# a percent and that i#his grade in Criminal Law would be raised a #ew points to 7M, then the e"aminee would ma&e the passinggrade$ )ccepting the words o# respondent Lanuevo, and seeing the *ustifcation and because he did notwant to be the one causing the #ailure o# the e"aminee, respondent 'omacru0 raised the grade #rom IMto 7M and therea#ter, he initialed the revised mar& and also revised the mar& in the general list andli&ewise initialed the same$ 'he e"aminee3s 8"aminer Code :umber is 7I while his 24ce Code :umber is9$ 'his e"aminee is Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang +8"hs$ 1, A Q E.'omacru0, )dm$ Case :o$11I, pp$ I, II and 71= Vol$ V, pp$ A.A, I.I1, rec$$

Respondent 'omacru0 does not recall having been shown an! memo b! respondent Lanuevo when thelatter approached him #or this particular re.evaluation= but he remembers Lanuevo declaring to him thatwhere a candidate had almost made the passing average but had #ailed in one sub*ect, as a matter o#polic! o# the Court, lenienc! is applied in reviewing the e"aminee3s noteboo& in the #ailing sub*ect$ @erecalls, however, that he was provided a cop! o# the Confdential ;emorandum but this was long be#orethe re.evaluation reuested b! respondent Lanuevo as the same was received b! him be#ore thee"amination period +Vol$ V, p$ I1, rec$$

@owever, such revision b! )tt!$ 'omacru0 could not raise alang3s general average to a passing gradebecause o# his #ailing mar& in three more sub*ects, including ;ercantile Law$ >or the revision o# e"amineealangs noteboo& in ;ercantile Law, respondent Lanuevo neatl! set the last phase o# his uite ingeniousscheme ? b! securing authori0ation #rom the Bar 8"amination Committee #or the e"aminer in ;ercantileLaw to re.evaluate said noteboo&$

)t the frst meeting o# the Bar 8"amination Committee on >ebruar! H, 197A, respondent Lanuevosuggested that where an e"aminee #ailed in onl! one sub*ect and passed the rest, the e"aminer concernedwould review the noteboo&$ :obod! ob*ected to it as irregular and the Committee adopted the suggestion+8"hs$ ) Q B.;ontecillo, 8"h$ A.ardo, )dm$ Case :o$ 11I1, pp$ 1, 7A, IE= Vol$ Vi, p$ 1I, rec$$

)t a subseuent meeting o# the Bar 8"amination Committee, respondent ;ontecillo was in#ormed b!respondent Lanuevo that a candidate passed all other sub*ects e"cept ;ercantile Law$ 'his in#ormationwas made during the meeting within hearing o# the other members, who were all closel! seated together$Respondent ;ontecillo made &nown his willingness to re.evaluate the particular paper$ 'he ne"t da!,respondent Lanuevo handed to respondent ;ontecillo a bar candidate3s noteboo& with 8"aminer3s Code:umber 1I1E with a grade o# I1M$ Respondent ;ontecillo then reviewed the whole paper and a#ter re.evaluating the answers, decided to increase the fnal grade to 71M$ 'he matter was not howevertherea#ter o4ciall! brought to the Committee #or consideration or decision +8"hs$ ) Q B.;ontecillo, )dm$Case :o$ 11I, pp$ .1, 7.11= Vol$ V, pp$ EE.E, rec$$

Respondent ;ontecillo declared that without being given the in#ormation that the particular e"aminee#ailed onl! in his sub*ect and passed all the others, he would not have consented to ma&e the re.evaluationo# the said paper +Vol$ V, p$ EE, rec$$ Respondent ;ontecillo li&ewise added that there was onl! oneinstance he remembers, which is substantiated b! his personal records, that he had to change the grade o#an e"aminee a#ter he had submitted his report, re#erring to the noteboo& o# e"aminee Ramon 8$ alang,alias Roman 8$ alang, with 8"aminer3s Code :umber 1I1E and with 24ce Code :umber 9 +Vol$ V, pp

E.E, rec$$

) da! or two a#ter >ebruar! , 197A, when respondent Lanuevo went to the residence o# respondent.e"aminer ardo to obtain the last bag o# A noteboo&s, respondent Lanuevo returned to the residence o#respondent ardo riding in a Vol&swagen panel o# the (upreme Court o# the hilippines with twocompanions$ )ccording to respondent Lanuevo, this was around the second wee& o# >ebruar!, 197A, a#terthe frst meeting o# the Bar 8"amination Committee$ Respondent Lanuevo had with him on that occasionan e"aminee3s noteboo& bearing 8"aminer3s Code :o$ II1$ Respondent Lanuevo, a#ter the usualamenities, reuested respondent ardo to review and re.e"amine, i# possible, the said noteboo& because,according to respondent Lanuevo, the e"aminee who owns that particular noteboo& obtained highergrades in other sub*ects, the highest o# which is HM in Remedial Law$ )#ter clearing with respondentLanuevo his authorit! to reconsider the grades, respondent ardo re.evaluated the answers o# the


14/241

e"aminee concerned, resulting in an increase o# grade #rom 7M to IIM$ (aid noteboo& has number 1IAAas o4ce code number$ /t belonged to e"aminee 8rnesto Juitaleg +8"hs$ 1 Q A.ardo, )dm$ Case :o$ 11I,pp$ H.IE= Vol$ V, pp$ 1A.A, A9.E, rec$$

//$ ReG )dministrative Case :o$ 11IA, Victorio D$ Lanuevo, Respondent$) -:)-'@2R/8D R8.8V)L-)'/2: 2> '@8 ):(58R( 2> 8);/:88 R);2: 8$ )L):, alias R2;): 8$)L):, alias /: )LL >/V8 + ;)F2R (-BF8C'($

Respondent Victorio D$ Lanuevo admitted having reuested on his own initiative the fve e"aminersconcerned to re.evaluate the fve noteboo&s o# Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang, that eventuall!resulted in the increase o# alang3s average #rom II$AM to the passing grade 7$1M, or a total increaseo# eight +H weighted points, more or less, that enabled alang to hurdle the 1971 Bar e"aminations via aresolution o# the Court ma&ing 7M the passing average #or that !ear3s e"amination without an! gradebelow f#t! percent +M in an! sub*ect$ alang therea#ter too& his law!er3s oath$ /t is li&ewise be!onddispute that he had no authorit! #rom the Court or the Committee to initiate such steps towards the saidre.evaluation o# the answers o# alang or o# other e"aminees$

Den!ing that he made representations to the e"aminers concerned that respondent alang #ailed onl! intheir respective sub*ects andor was on the borderline o# passing, respondent Lanuevo sought to *usti#! hisactuations on the authorit! o# the a#oreuoted paragraph o# the Confdential ;emorandum +8"hs$ 1 and1.).Lanuevo, )dm$ Cases :os$ 11IA Q 11I, p$ 1, )dm$ Case :o$ 11IA= Vol$ V//, p$ , rec$ distributed tothe members o# the Bar 8"amination Committee$ @e maintains that he acted in good #aith and Kin hishonest belie# that the same merited re.evaluation= that in doing so, it was not his intention to #orsa&e orbetra! the trust reposed in him as Bar Confdant but on the contrar! to do *ustice to the e"amineeconcerned= and that neither did he act in a presumptuous manner because the matter o# whether or notre.evaluation was in order was le#t alone to the e"aminers3 decision $ $ $K +8"h$ A.Lanuevo, )dm$ Case :o$11IA, pp$ E.E7, rec$$

But as openl! admitted b! him in the course o# the investigation, the said confdential memorandum wasintended solel! #or the e"aminers to guide them in the initial correction o# the e"amination papers andnever as a basis #or him to even suggest to the e"aminers the re.evaluation o# the e"amination papers o#the e"aminees +Vol$ V//, p$ AE, rec$$ )n! such suggestion or reuest is not onl! presumptuous but alsoo6ensive to the norms o# delicac!$

5e believe the 8"aminers ? ablo, ;analo, ;ontecillo, 'omacru0, ardo and amatian ? whosedeclarations on the matter o# the misrepresentations and deceptions committed b! respondent Lanuevo,are clear and consistent as well as corroborate each other$

>or indeed the #acts un#olded b! the declarations o# the respondents.e"aminers +)dm$ Case :o$ 11I andclarifed b! e"tensive cross.e"amination conducted during the investigation and hearing o# the cases showhow respondent Lanuevo adroitl! maneuvered the passing o# e"aminee Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$alang in the 1971 Bar 8"aminations$ /t is patent li&ewise #rom the records that respondent Lanuevo too&undue advantage o# the trust and confdence reposed in him b! the Court and the 8"aminers implicit in hisposition as Bar Confdant as well as the trust and confdence that prevailed in and characteri0ed hisrelationship with the fve members o# the 1971 Bar 8"amination Committee, who were thus deceived andinduced into re.evaluating the answers o# onl! respondent alang in fve sub*ects that resulted in theincrease o# his grades therein, ultimatel! enabling him to be admitted a member o# the hilippine Bar$

/t was plain, simple and unmitigated deception that characteri0ed respondent Lanuevo3s well.studied and

well.calculated moves in successivel! representing separatel! to each o# the fve e"aminers concerned tothe e6ect that the e"aminee #ailed onl! in his particular sub*ect andor was on the borderline o# passing$ 'orepeat, be#ore the unauthori0ed re.evaluations were made, alang #ailed in the fve + ma*or sub*ects andin two +A minor sub*ects while his general average was onl! II$AM ? which under no circumstances orstandard could it be honestl! claimed that the e"aminee #ailed onl! in one, or he was on the borderline o#passing$ /n #act, be#ore the frst noteboo& o# alang was re#erred bac& to the e"aminer concerned #or re.evaluation, alang had onl! one passing mar& and this was in Legal 8thics and ractical 8"ercises, a minorsub*ect, with a grade o# H1M$ 'he averages and individual grades o# alang be#ore and a#ter theunauthori0ed reevaluation are as #ollowsGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

B ) /


15/241

1$ olitical Law and ublic

/nternational Law IHM 7HM S 1 pts$

or E weighted points

B ) /

Labor Laws and (ocial

Legislations I7M I7M S no re.

evaluation made$

A$ Civil Law IM 7M S 11 points

or EE weighted points$

'a"ation 7M 7M S no re.

evaluation made$

E$ ;ercantile Law I1M 71M S 1pts$

or E weighted points$

$ Criminal Law IM 7M S 11 pts$ or

AA weighted points$

$ Remedial Law IE$7M +I 7$M +7M S

11 pts$ or weighted points$

Legal 8thics and ractical 8"ercises H1M H1M S no re

evaluation made$

???????????

eneral 5eighted )verages II$AM 7$1M

@ence, b! the simple e"pedient o# initiating the re.evaluation o# the answers o# alang in the fve +sub*ects under the circumstances alread! narrated, alang3s original average o# II$AM was increased to7$1M or an increase o# 7$9 weighted points, to the great damage and pre*udice o# the integrit! o# the Bare"aminations and to the disadvantage o# the other e"aminees$ @e did this in #avor onl! o# e"amineealang, with the possible addition o# e"aminees 8rnesto Juitaleg and )l#redo '! dela Cru0$ But onl! onenoteboo& was re.evaluated #or each o# the latter two ? olitical Law and ublic /nternational Law #or.Juitaleg and ;ercantile Law #or '! dela Cru0$

'he 24ce o# the Bar Confdant, it must be stressed, has absolutel! nothing to do in the re.evaluation orreconsideration o# the grades o# e"aminees who #ail to ma&e the passing mar& be#ore or a#ter theirnoteboo&s are submitted to it b! the 8"aminers$ )#ter the corrected noteboo&s are submitted to him b! the8"aminers, his onl! #unction is to tall! the individual grades o# ever! e"aminee in all sub*ects ta&en andtherea#ter compute the general average$ 'hat done, he will then prepare a comparative data showing thepercentage o# passing and #ailing in relation to a certain average to be submitted to the Committee and tothe Court and on the basis o# which the Court will determine the passing average, whether 7 or 7 or 7E,etc$ 'he Bar Confdant has no business evaluating the answers o# the e"aminees and cannot assume the#unctions o# passing upon the appraisal made b! the 8"aminer concerned$ @e is not the over.all 8"aminer$@e cannot presume to &now better than the 8"aminer$ )n! reuest #or re.evaluation should be done b! thee"aminee and the same should be addressed to the Court, which alone can validl! act thereon$ ) Bar


16/241

Confdant who ta&es such initiative, e"poses himsel# to suspicion and thereb! compromises his position aswell as the image o# the Court$

Respondent Lanuevo3s claim that he was merel! doing *ustice to alang without an! intention o# betra!ingthe trust and confdence reposed in him b! the Court as Bar Confdant, can hardl! invite belie# in the #aceo# the incontrovertible #act that he singled out alang3s papers #or re.evaluation, leaving out the papers o#more than ninet! +9 e"aminees with #ar better averages ranging #rom 7M to 7E 9M o# which he was#ull! aware +Vol$ V/, pp$ I.7, 11, rec$, which could be more properl! claimed as borderline cases$ 'his#act #urther betra!s respondent Lanuevo3s claim o# absolute good #aith in re#erring bac& the papers o#alang to the 8"aminers #or re.evaluation$ >or certainl!, as against the original weighted average o#II$AM, o# alang, there can hardl! be an! dispute that the cases o# the a#oresaid more than ninet! +9e"aminees were more deserving o# reconsideration$ @ence, in tr!ing to do *ustice to alang, as claimed b!respondent Lanuevo, grave in*ustice was in%icted on the other e"aminees o# the 1971 Bar e"aminations,especiall! the said more than ninet! candidates$ )nd the une"plained #ailure o# respondent Lanuevo toapprise the Court or the Committee or even the Bar Chairman o# the #act o# re.evaluation be#ore or a#terthe said re.evaluation and increase o# grades, precludes, as the same is inconsistent with, an! pretensiono# good #aith$

@is reuest #or the re.evaluation o# the noteboo& in olitical Law and /nternational Law o# 8rnesto Juitalegand the noteboo& in ;ercantile Law o# )l#redo '! dela Cru0 was to give his actuations in the case o# alanga semblance o# impartialit!, hoping that the over ninet! e"aminees who were #ar better situated thanalang would not give him awa!$ 8ven the reevaluation o# one noteboo& o# Juitaleg and one noteboo& o#

'! dela Cru0 violated the agreement o# the members o# the 1971 Bar 8"amination Committee to re.evaluate when the e"aminee concerned #ails onl! in one sub*ect$ Juitaleg and '! dela Cru0 #ailed in #our+ and three +E sub*ects respectivel! ? as hereina#ter shown$

'he strange stor! concerning the fgures 9, the o4ce code number given to alang3s noteboo&, unveiled#or the frst time b! respondent Lanuevo in his supplemental sworn statement +8"h$ E.Lanuevo, )dm$ Case:o$ 11IA, pp$ .7, rec$ fled during the investigation with this Court as to wh! he pried into the paperso# alang deserves scant consideration$ /t onl! serves to picture a man desperatel! clutching at straws inthe wind #or support$ >urthermore, it was revealed b! respondent Lanuevo #or the frst time onl! on )ugustA7, 197E or a period o# more than fve + months a#ter he fled his answer on ;arch 19, 197E +8"h$ A.Lanuevo, )dm$ Case :o$ 11IA, pp$ E.EI, rec$, showing that it was *ust an a#ter.thought$

B$ R8>8RR)L 2> 8);/:88 )L>R8D2 '< D8L) CR-3 :2'8B22T /: ;8RC):'/L8 L)5 '2 R)/(8 @/( R)D82> 7M '2 M '2 8);/:8R ;):-8L ;2:'8C/LL2 ):D 2> 8);/:88 8R:8('2 J-/')L83( :2'8B22T/: 2L/'/C)L L)5 '2 8);/:8R B8R:)RD2 )RD2 >2R R8.8V)L-)'/2:, R8(-L'/: /: '@8 /:CR8)(8 2>@/( R)D8 /: '@)' (-BF8C' >R2; 7M '2 IIM$

Li&ewise, respondent Victorio D$ Lanuevo admitted having re#erred bac& the a#oresaid noteboo&s on;ercantile Law and olitical Law respectivel! o# )l#redo '! dela Cru0 and 8rnesto Juitaleg to the 8"aminersconcerned$

'he records are not clear, however, under what circumstances the noteboo&s o# '! dela Cru0 and Juitalegwere re#erred bac& to the 8"aminers concerned$ Respondent Lanuevo claimed that these two cases wereo4ciall! brought to the Bar 8"amination Committee during its frst meeting +Vol$ V/, pp$ .1, rec$ andthe latter decided to re#er them bac& to the 8"aminers concerned #or re.evaluation with respect to thecase o# Juitaleg and to remove the disualifcation in the case o# '! dela Cru0 +Vol$ V/, pp$ EE.E9, H.HI,rec$$ Respondent Lanuevo #urther claimed that the data o# these two cases were contained in a sheet o#

paper which was presented at the said frst meeting o# the Committee +Vol$ V/, pp$ E9.E, 9.1, rec$$Li&ewise a record o# the dates o# ever! meeting o# the Committee was made b! respondent Lanuevo +Vol$V/, p$ AH, rec$$ 'he alleged sheet containing the data o# the two e"aminees and record o# the dates o# themeeting o# the Committee were not presented b! respondent Lanuevo as, according to him, he le#t theminadvertentl! in his des& in the Confdential Room when he went on leave a#ter the release o# the Barresults +Vol$ V/, pp$ AH, 1., rec$$ /t appears, however, that the inventor! conducted b! o4cials o# theCourt in the Confdential Room o# respondent Lanuevo did not !ield an! such sheet or record +8"h$ , )dm$Case :o$ 11IA, p$ 1, rec$= Vol$ V///, pp$ 11.1E, A.AA, A9E1, rec$$

Respondent 8"aminer ;ontecillo, ;ercantile Law, maintained that there was onl! one noteboo& in;ercantile Law which was o4ciall! brought to him and this is substantiated b! his personal fle and record+Vol$ V/, pp$ E.E, rec$$ )ccording to him, this noteboo&3s e"aminer code number is 1I1E +Vol$ V, p$ E,


17/241

rec$ and is owned b! Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang$ /t appears, however, that the originalgrade o# 7M in ;ercantile Law o# '! dela Cru0 was changed to M as appearing in the cover o# thenoteboo& o# said e"aminee and the change is authenticated with the initial o# 8"aminer ;ontecillo$ @e waspresent when respondent Lanuevo presented in evidence the noteboo& o# '! dela Cru0 bearing 8"aminerCode :umber 91 and 24ce Code :umber 11 as 8"hibit 9.Lanuevo in )dministrative Case :o$ 11IA, andthe fgures 7 crossed out, replaced b! the fgures bearing the initial o# 8"aminer ;ontecillo as 8"hibit9.a.Lanuevo +)dm$ Case :o$ 11IA, p$ H, rec$= Vol$ V/, pp$ AE.A, Vol$ V///, p$ , rec$= but )tt!$ ;ontecillo didnot interpose an! ob*ection to their admission in evidence$

/n this connection, respondent 8"aminer ardo testifed that he remembers a case o# an e"amineepresented to the Committee, who obtained passing mar&s in all sub*ects e"cept in one and the Committeeagreed to re#er bac& to the 8"aminer concerned the noteboo& in the sub*ect in which the e"aminee #ailed+Vol$ V, pp$ 1.1I, rec$$ @e cannot recall the sub*ect, but he is certain that it was not olitical Law +Vol$ V,p$ 1I, rec$$ >urther, ardo declared that he is not aware o# an! case o# an e"aminee who was on theborderline o# passing but who got a grade below M in one sub*ect that was ta&en up b! the Committee+Vol$ V, pp$ 1I.17, rec$$

8"aminer ;ontecillo testifed that it was the noteboo& with 8"aminer Code :umber 1I1E +belonging toalang which was re#erred to the Committee and the Committee agreed to return it to the 8"aminerconcerned$ 'he da! #ollowing the meeting in which the case o# an e"aminee with Code :umber 1I1E wasta&en up, respondent Lanuevo handed him said noteboo& and he accordingl! re.evaluated it$ 'hisparticular noteboo& with 24ce Code :umber 9 belongs to alang$

8"aminer 'omacru0 recalled a case o# an e"aminee whose problem was ;ercantile Law that was ta&en upb! the Committee$ @e is not certain o# an! other case brought to the Committee +Vol$ V, pp$ 9.I1, rec$$ardo declared that there was no case o# an e"aminee that was re#erred to the Committee that involvedolitical Law$ @e re.evaluated the answers o# 8rnesto Juitaleg in olitical Law upon the representationmade b! respondent Lanuevo to him$

)s hereto#ore stated, it was this consensus at the meeting on >ebruar! H, 197A o# the members o# theCommittee that where an e"aminee #ailed in onl! one sub*ect and passed all the others, the 8"aminer inwhose sub*ect the e"aminee #ailed should reevaluate or rechec& the noteboo& +Vol$ V, p$ 1I, rec$G 8"h$ A.ardo, allegation :o$ 9, )dm$ Case :o$ 11I, pp$ I.IE, 8"h$ ).;ontecillo, )llegation :o$ A, )dm$ Case :o$11I, pp$ .1, and 8"h$ B.;ontecillo, )dm$ Case :o$ 11I, p$ 7A, rec$$

)t the time the noteboo& o# 8rnesto Juitaleg in olitical Law with a grade o# 7M was re#erred bac& to8"aminer ardo, said e"aminee had other #ailing grades in three +E sub*ects, as #ollowsGchanrob1es virtual1aw librar!

Labor Laws 7EM

'a"ation I9M

;ercantile Law IHM

8rnesto Juitaleg3s grades and averages be#ore and a#ter the re.evaluation o# his grade in olitical Law areas #ollowsGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

B )

olitical Law 7M IIM S 9 pts$ or A7

weighted points

Labor Laws 7EM 7EM S :o reevaluation

Civil Law 7M 7M SK

'a"ation I9M I9M SK

;ercantile Law IHM IHM SK


18/241

Criminal Law 7HM 7HM SK

Remedial Law HM HM SK

Legal 8thics HEM HEM SK

??????????

)verage +weighted ? 7E$1M ? 7$M

+Vol$ V/, pp$ AI.A7= 8"hs$ 1 and 1.).Lanuevo, )dm$ Case :o$ 11IA, rec$

)l#redo '! dela Cru0, at the time his noteboo& in ;ercantile Law was re#erred to 8"aminer ;ontecillo toremove the disualifcation grade o# 7M in said sub*ect, had two +A other #ailing grades$ 'heseareGchanrob1es virtual 1aw librar!

olitical Law 7M

'a"ation 7AM

@is grades and averages be#ore and a#ter the disuali#!ing grade was removed are as #ollowsGchanrob1esvirtual 1aw librar!

B )

olitical Law 7M 7M S :o reevaluation

Labor Laws 7M 7M SK

Civil Law H9M H9M SK

'a"ation 7AM 7AM SK

;ercantile Law 7M M S E pts$ or 9

weighted points

Criminal Law 7HM 7HM S no reevaluation

Remedial Law HHM HHM SK

Legal 8thics 79M 79M SK

????????????????

5eighted )verages ? 7$9M ? 7$M

+Vol$ V/, pp$ AI.A7, rec$$

'he re.evaluation o# the answers o# Juitaleg in olitical Law and the answers o# '! dela Cru0 in ;ercantileLaw, violated the consensus o# the Bar 8"amination Committee in >ebruar!, 1971, which violation was dueto the misrepresentation o# respondent Lanuevo$

/t must be stated that the re#erral o# the noteboo& o# alang in ;ercantile Law to 8"aminer ;ontecillo canhardl! be said to be covered b! the consensus o# the Bar 8"amination Committee because even at thetime o# said re#erral, which was a#ter the unauthori0ed re.evaluation o# his answers o# #our + sub*ects,alang had still #ailing grades in 'a"ation and Labor Laws$ @is re.evaluated grade o# 7$M in RemedialLaw was considered 7M under the Confdential ;emorandum and was so entered in the record$ @is gradein ;ercantile Law as subseuentl! reevaluated b! 8"aminer ;ontecillo was 71M$


19/241

Respondent Lanuevo is there#ore guilt! o# serious misconduct ? o# having betra!ed the trust andconfdence reposed in him as Bar Confdant, thereb! impairing the integrit! o# the Bar e"aminations andundermining public #aith in the (upreme Court$ @e should be disbarred$

)s to whether 8rnesto Juitaleg and )l#redo '! dela Cru0 should be disbarred or their names stric&en #romthe Roll o# )ttorne!s, it is believed that the! should be reuired to show cause and the correspondinginvestigation conducted$

///$ ReG )dministrative Case :o$ 11IE, Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang, Respondent$

)$ 'he name o# respondent Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang, should li&ewise be stric&en o6 theRoll o# )ttorne!s$ 'his is a necessar! conseuence o# the un.authori0ed reevaluation o# his answers in fve+ ma*or sub*ects ? Civil Law, olitical and /nternational Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law, and ;ercantileLaw$

'he *udicial #unction o# the (upreme Court in admitting candidates to the legal pro#ession, whichnecessaril! involves the e"ercise o# discretion, reuiresG +1 previous established rules and principles= +Aconcrete #acts, whether past or present, a6ecting determinate individuals= and +E a decision as to whetherthese #acts are governed b! the rules and principles +/n reG Cunanan ? >lun&ers3 etition #or )dmission tothe Bar ? 9 hil$ E, .$ 'he determination o# whether a bar candidate has obtained the reuiredpassing grade certainl! involves discretion +Legal and Fudicial 8thics, Fustice ;artin, 19I9 ed$, p$ 1E$

/n the e"ercise o# this #unction, the Court acts through a Bar 8"amination Committee, composed o# amember o# the Court who acts as Chairman and eight +H members o# the Bar who act as e"aminers in theeight +H bar sub*ects with one sub*ect assigned to each$ )cting as a sort o# liaison o4cer between theCourt and the Bar Chairman, on one hand, and the individual members o# the Committee, on the other, isthe Bar Confdant who is at the same time a deput! cler& o# the Court$ :ecessaril!, ever! act o# theCommittee in connection with the e"ercise o# discretion in the admission o# e"aminees to membership o#the Bar must be in accordance with the established rules o# the Court and must alwa!s be sub*ect to thefnal approval o# the Court$ 5ith respect to the Bar Confdant, whose position is primaril! confdential asthe designation indicates, his #unctions in connection with the conduct o# the Bar e"aminations are defnedand circumscribed b! the Court and must be strictl! adhered to$

'he re.evaluation b! the 8"aminers concerned o# the e"amination answers o# respondent alang in fve +sub*ects, as alread! clearl! established, was initiated b! respondent Lanuevo without an! authorit! #romthe Court, a serious breach o# the trust and confdence reposed b! the Court in him as Bar Confdant$Conseuentl!, the re.evaluation that enabled respondent alang to pass the 1971 Bar e"aminations and tobe admitted to the Bar is a complete nullit!$ 'he Bar Confdant does not possess an! discretion withrespect to the matter o# admission o# e"aminees to the Bar$ @e is not clothed with authorit! to determinewhether or not an e"aminee3s answers merit re.evaluation or re.correction or whether the 8"aminer3sappraisal o# such answers is correct$ )nd whether or not the e"aminee benefted was in connivance or apriv! thereto is immaterial$ 5hat is decisive is whether the proceedings or incidents that led to thecandidate3s admission to the Bar were in accordance with the rules$B

(ection A o# Rule 1EH o# the Revised Rules o# Court o# 19I, in connection, among others, with thecharacter reuirement o# candidates #or admission to the Bar, provides that Kever! applicant #or admissionas a member o# the Bar must be $ $ $ o# good moral character $ $ $ and must produce be#ore the (upreme

Court satis#actor! evidence o# good moral character, and that no charges against him involving moralturpitude, have been fled or are pending in an! court in the hilippines$K rior to 19I, or under the oldRules o# Court, a bar applicant was reuired to produce be#ore the (upreme Court satis#actor! testimonialso# good moral character +(ec$ A, Rule 1A7$ -nder both rules, ever! applicant is dut! bound to la! be#orethe Court all his involvement in an! criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to#ull! ascertain or determine applicant3s moral character$ >urthermore, as to what crime involves moralturpitude, is #or the (upreme Court to determine$ @ence, the necessit! o# la!ing be#ore or in#orming theCourt o# one3s personal record ? whether he was criminall! indicted, acuitted, convicted or the casedismissed or is still pending ? becomes more compelling$ 'he #orms #or application to ta&e the Bare"aminations provided b! the (upreme Court beginning the !ear 19I reuire the disclosure not onl! o#criminal cases involving moral turpitude fled or pending against the applicant but also o# all other criminalcases o# which he has been accused$ /t is o# course true that the application #orm used b! respondent


20/241

alang when he too& the Bar #or the frst time in 19IA did not e"pressl! reuire the disclosure o# theapplicant3s criminal records, i# an!$ But as alread! intimated, implicit in his tas& to show satis#actor!evidence or proo# o# good moral character is his obligation to reveal to the Court all his involvement in an!criminal case so that the Court can consider them in the ascertainment and determination o# his moralcharacter$ )nd undeniabl!, with the applicant3s criminal records be#ore it, the Court will be in a betterposition to consider the applicant3s moral character= #or it could not be gainsaid that an applicant3sinvolvement in an! criminal case, whether pending or terminated b! its dismissal or applicant3s acuittalor conviction, has a bearing upon his character or ftness #or admission to the Bar$ /n 19IE and 19I, whenrespondent alang too& the Bar #or the second and third time, respectivel!, the application #orm providedb! the Court #or use o# applicants alread! reuired the applicant to declare under oath that Khe has notbeen accused o#, indicted #or or convicted b! an! court or tribunal o# an! o6ense involving moral turpitudeand that there is no pending case o# that nature against him$K B! 19II, when alang too& the Bare"aminations #or the #ourth time, the application #orm prepared b! the Court #or use o# applicants reuiredthe applicant to reveal all his criminal cases whether involving moral turpitude or not$ /n paragraph o#that #orm, the applicant is reuired under oath to declare that Khe has not been charged with an! o6ensebe#ore a >iscal, ;unicipal Fudge, or other o4cer= or accused o#, indicted #or or convicted b! an! court ortribunal o# an! crime involving moral turpitude= nor is there a pending case against himK +)dm$ Case :o$11IE, p$ I, rec$$


21/241

5hile this aspect o# the investigation was not part o# the #ormal resolution o# the Court reuiring him toe"plain wh! his name should not be stric&en #rom the Roll o# )ttorne!s, respondent alang was, as earl! as)ugust, 197E, apprised o# his omission to reveal to the Court his pending criminal case$ or as 58 said in Re >elipe del RosarioG*gcGchanrobles$com$ph

K'he practice o# the law is not an absolute right to be granted ever! one who demands it, but is a privilegeto be e"tended or withheld in the e"ercise o# sound discretion$ 'he standards o# the legal pro#ession arenot satisfed b! conduct which merel! enables one to escape the penalties o# the criminal law$ /t would bea disgrace to the Fudiciar! to receive one whose integrit! is uestionable as an o4cer o# the court, toclothe him with all the prestige o# its confdence, and then to permit him to hold himsel# as a dul!authori0ed member o# the Bar +citing )merican casesK UA hil$ E99.1P$

5hat 58 now do with respondent Ramon 8$ alang, alias Roman 8$ alang, in this present case is notwithout an! precedent in this *urisdiction$ 58 had on several occasions in the past nullifed the admissiono# success#ul bar candidates to the membership o# the Bar on the grounds, among others, o# +amisrepresentations o#, or #alse pretenses relative to, the reuirement on applicant3s educationalattainment U'apel v$ ublico, resolution o# the (upreme Court stri&ing o6 the name o# Fuan '$ ublico #romthe Roll o# )ttorne!s on the basis o# the fndings o# the Court /nvestigators contained in their report andrecommendation, >eb$ AE, 19IA= /n reG 'eles#oro )$ Diao, 7 (CR) 7.7HP= +blac& o# good moral characterU/n reG eralta, 11 hil$ E1E.E1P= and +c #raudulent passing o# the Bar e"aminations Ueople v$ Romualde0? reG Luis ;abuna!, 7 hil$ 11= /n reG Del Rosario, A hil$ E99 and eople v$ Castro and Doe, hil$ AP$/n the cases o# Romualde0 +;abuna! and Castro, the Court #ound that the grades o# ;abuna! and Castrowere #alsifed and the! were convicted o# the crime o# #alsifcation o# public documents$

/V$ R8G )dministrative Case :o$ 11I, )ssistant (olicitor eneral Bernardo ardo +now C>/ Fudge, FudgeRamon amatian +Later )ssociate Fustice o# the Court o# )ppeals, now deceased )tt!$ ;anuel $;ontecillo, )tt!$ >idel ;analo, )tt!$ ;anuel 'omacru0 and )tt!$ uillermo ablo, Fr$, Respondents$

)ll respondents Bar e"aminers candidl! admitted having made the re.evaluation andor re.correction o# thepapers in uestion upon the misrepresentation o# respondent Bar Confdant Lanuevo$ )ll, however,pro#essed good #aith= and that the! re.evaluated or increased the grades o# the noteboo&s without &nowingthe identit! o# the e"aminee who owned the said noteboo&s= and that the! did the same without an!consideration or e"pectation o# an!$ 'hese the records clearl! demonstrate and 58 are o# the opinion and58 so declare that indeed the respondents.e"aminers made the re.evaluation or recorrection in good #aithand without an! consideration whatsoever$

Considering however the vital public interest involved in the matter o# admission o# members to the Bar,the respondents bar e"aminers, under the circumstances, should have e"ercised greater care and cautionand should have been more inuisitive be#ore

Date post:	24-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	j
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times

Cases Ethics (1)

Documents