IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VA VAILOCES AC NO. 439, SEPTEMBER 30, 30 , 1982
Fac!
This is a petition filed by Quinciano D. Vailoces for readmission to the practice of law and the inclusion of his name in the roll of attorneys after having served his sentence for being convicted of falsification of public document wherein the court found that petitioner, as a member of the bar and in his capacity as a notary public, acknowledged the execution of a documen documentt purpor purportin ting g to be the last last will will and testam testament ent of one Tarcil arcilaa Visit Visitaci acion on de Jesus. Jesus. resented for probate before the !ourt of "irst #nstance of $egros %riental, the genuineness of the document was impugned by the forced heirs of the alleged testatrix, and the court, finding that the document was a forgery, denied probate to the will.
%n Decemb December er &', ()*', ()*', petiti petitione onerr was granted granted by the resid resident ent of the hili hilippin ppines es +absolute and unconditional pardon+ and restored him +to full civil and political rights. ince -ugust &, ()*/, petitioner had repeatedly sought readmission to the practice of law, the first of which was denied by this !ourt in a minute resolution dated -ugust 0, ()*/.
%n December (&, ()'', he filed another petition, attaching thereto copies, among others, of the following documents, to wit1 the resolution of the $egros %riental 2ar -ssociation signed by '/ members thereof, indorsing his plea for reinstatement.
#t may be recalled that on January (', ()'/, the 2oard of 3overnors of the #ntegrated 2ar transmitted to the 4onorable upreme !ourt for its favorable consideration the above stated petition for reinstatement. ubse5uent to its being served with a copy of the resolution of the upreme !ourt, the #nte #ntegr grat ated ed 2ar 2ar recei receive ved d a peti petiti tion on date dated d "ebru "ebruar ary y (6, ()'/ ()'/ signe signed d by 7the 7the peopl peoplee of the the 8unicipality of 2indoy, rovince of $egros %riental7 vehemently opposing the reinstatement of 8r. Vail Vailoces oces in the 9oll of -ttorneys accusing the lawyer of having a 5uerida and misbehaviours.
I!!"#
:hether the lawyer should be reinstated
$#%&
The !ourt sustains the conclusion of the olicitor 3eneral that petitioner has sufficiently proven himself fit to be readmitted to the practice of law. True it is that the plenary pardon extended to him by the resident does not of itself warrant his reinstatement. ;vidence of reformation is re5uired before applicant is entitled to reinstatement, notwithstanding the attorney has received a pardon following his conviction, and the re5uirements of reinstatement had been held to be the same as for original admission to the bar, except that the court may re5uire a greater degree of proof than in an original evidence.
The decisive 5uestion on an application for reinstatement is whether applicant is 7of good moral character7 in the sense in which that phrase is used when applied to attorneys
ustify his reinstatement. etitioner, now *) years of age, has reached the twilight of his life. 4e has been barred from the practice of his profession for a period of &( years. -de5uate punishment has been exacted.
!hastened by his painful and humiliating experience, he further +pledges with all his honor ... that if reinstated in the roll of attorneys he will surely and consistently conduct himself honestly, uprightly and worthily.+ #ndeed, there is reasonable expectation that he will endeavor to lead an irreproachable life and maintain steadfast fidelity to the lawyer7s oath.
