- The practice of law is not a matter of right.
- No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.
FACTS:
Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's oath.
Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In compliance therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment that he is not aware of any acts committed by the respondent as would disqualify him to from admission to the Bar. However, he added that respondent has a pending civil case before his court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to have secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold at public auction and respondent has not redeemed the land since then.
The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement canceled the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising acts of possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and interest.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he already submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been terminated.
HELD:
His petition must be denied.
Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character.
It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the property which he could not but have known was a public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot be erased by the termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made because the suit has been compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.
Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting several petitions and motions for reconsiderations reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.
Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral qualification for membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.
The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement canceled the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising acts of possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and interest.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he already submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been terminated.
HELD:
His petition must be denied.
Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character.
It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the property which he could not but have known was a public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot be erased by the termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made because the suit has been compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.
Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting several petitions and motions for reconsiderations reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.
Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral qualification for membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.
No comments:
Post a Comment