B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court).
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila
The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138, to wit:
NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames:
SEC. 5.Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. — All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding sections shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law sc hool or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the f oreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted. No applicant who obtained the Bac helor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed the following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics. A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of c ertifications showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of L aws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government. SEC. 6.Pre-Law. — An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present a certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the study of law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences. A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of ha ving completed a separate bachelor's degree course.
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 8, 2011, which 2011, which reads as f ollows: "B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for Improving the Conduct of the Bar Examinations). - The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter dated January 28, 2011 of Justice Roberto A. Abad re: Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (Annual Examination), incident to t he implementation of B.M. No. 2265 (Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations). The Court further Resolved to APPROVE to APPROVE the the Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit: "Section 11. Annual examination. - Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the Ci ty of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as f ollows: First day: Political and International Law, and Labor and Social Legislation (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Mercantile Law (afternoon); Third day: Remedial Law, and Legal Ethics a nd Forums (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Trial Memorandum (morning) and Legal Opinion (afternoon)". (adv107) Very truly yours, (Sgd.)ENRIQUETA (Sgd.)ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL Clerk of Court Honorable Roberto A. Abad (x) Associate Justice and Chairperson 2011 Committee on Bar Examinations Supreme Court Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa (x)
BAR MATTER No. 1161 RE: PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE BAR EXAMINATIONS RESOLUTION ON REFORM IN THE BAR EXAMINANTIONS WHEREAS , pursuant to its Constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning
the admission to the practice of law, the Supreme Court en banc item in its Resolution of 21 March 2000, created a "Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms" to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools"; WHEREAS , the Special Study Group, with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA)
Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted to the Supreme Court its Final Report, dated 18 September 2000, containing its findings and recommendations;
WHEREAS , under the auspices of the PMO, the CLEBM conducted fur (4) regional
round-table discussions with the law deans, professors, the students and members of the Integrated Bar of he Philippines for (a) the National Capital Region, at Manila Diamond Hotel on 19 November 2003; (b) Mindanao, a t the Grand Regal Hotel Davao City on 23 January 2004; (c) the Visayas, at the Montebello Hotel in Cebu City on January 2004; and (d) Luzon, at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Manila on 6 February 2004. WHEREAS , in a Special Meeting of the CLEBM at the Pan Pacific Hotel on 23 April
2004, the Committee heard the views of Ms. Erica Moeser, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the N ational Conference of Board Examiners in the United States of America on a number of proposed bar reforms; WHEREAS , the CLEBM, after extensive deliberation and consultation, has arived at
certain recommendations for consideration by the Supreme Court and submitted its report , dated 21 May 2004, to the Court en banc; NOW, THEREFORE , the Court, sitting en banc, hereby RESOLVES to approve and
adopt the following Bar Examination Reforms: A.
WHEREAS , on 21 August 2001, the Supreme Court en banc referred, for further
study, report and recommendation, the Final Report of the Special Study Group to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM) headed by Justice Jose C. Vitug; WHEREAS , in connection with t he discussion on the proposed reforms in the bar
examinations, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, then a Member of the CLEBM, submitted a Paper, entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer, proposing structural and administrative reforms, changes in the design and construction of questions, and the methodological reforms concerning the marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination; WHEREAS , proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine Association of Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the University of the Philippines College of Law, Arellano Law Foundation, the Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Ba r; WHEREAS , considering her Memorandum to the Chief Justice on "Proposed
For implementation within one (1) up to two (2) years: 1. Initial determination by the Chairman of admission to the bar examinations of candidates (on the merits of the each case) to be passed upon by the Court en banc. 2. Submission by law deans of a certification that a candidate has no derogatory record in school and, if any, the details and status thereof. 3. Disqualification of a candidate after f ailing in three(3) examinations, provided, that he may take a fourth and fifth examination if he successful completes a one (1) year refresher course for each examination; provided, further, that upon the effectivity of this Resolution, those who have already failed in five(5) or more bar examinations shall be allowed to take only one (1) more bar examination af ter copleting (1) year refresher course. 4. Promulgation of disciplinary measures for those involved in (a) attempts to violate or vitiate the integrity and confidentiality of the bar examination process; (b) improper conduct during the bar examination; and (c) improper conduct of "bar examinations." 5. Disqualification of a Bar Examination Chairperson: a. kinship with an examinee who if his or her spouse or
b.
having a member of his or her office staff as a n examinee, or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an examinee; and c. being a member of the governing board, faculty or administration of a law school. 6. Desirable qualifications of Examiners: a. membership in good standing in the Philippine Bar; b. competence in the assigned subject; c. a teacher of the subject or familiarity with the principles of test construction; and d. commitment to check test pa pers personally and promptly pending the creation and organization of the readership panels provided for in item B(6) below 7. Disqualifications of Examiners: a. kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; b. having a member of his or her office staff as a n examinee; or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an examinee; c. being a member of the governing board, faculty or administration of a law school d. teaching or lecturing in a ny law school, institution or review center during the particular semester following the bar examinations; e. having any interest or involvement in a ny law school, bar review center or group; and f. suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction. 8. Personal preparation, by handwriting or using a typewriter, of fifty (50) main questions, excluding subdivisions, and their submission to the Chairperson in sealed envelope at least fortyfive (45) days before the sc hedule examination on any particular subject; examiners should not use computers in preparing questions; 9. Apportionment of examination questions among the various topics covered by the subject; 10. Burning and shredding of rough drafts a nd carbon papers used in the preparation of questions or in any other act connected with such preparation; 11. Publication of names candidates admitted to take the bar examinations; 12. Disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in
13. Fixing at June 30 of the immediately preceding year as the cut-off date for laws a nd Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar examinations; and 14. Consideration of suggested answers to bar examinations questions prepared by the U.P. Law Center and submitted to the Chairperson. B. For implementation within two (2) years up to five (5) years: 1. Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions; 2. Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as part of the calibration of test papers; 3. Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and improving the essay examination;1awphil.net 4. Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on t he number of examinees ; 5. Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson; 6. Creation and organization of readership panels for each subject area to address the issue of bias or subjectivity and facilitate the formulation of test questions and the c orrection of examination booklets; and 7. Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay questions to correct variations in the level of test standards.1awph!l.ñêt C. For implementation within five(5) years and beyond is the further computerization or automation of the bar examinations to facilitate application, testing, and reporting procedures. D. Items not covered by this resolution, such as those that pertain to a possible review of the coverage and relative weights of the subjects of the bar examinations, are maintained. E. For referral to the Legal education Boards: 1. Accreditation and supervision of law schools. 2. Inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in the law curriculum, including an apprenticeship program in the Judiciary, prosecution service, and law offices. 3. Imposition of sanctions on law schools that fai l to meet the standards as may be prescribed by the Legal Education Board. 4. Mandatory Law School Admission Test. This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of July 2004, and shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 18, 2011, which reads as follows: "B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations [Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for Improving the Conduct of t he Bar Examinations]. Acting on the Letter dated January 10, 2011 of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, proposing to move the 2011 Bar Examinations from September to November, the Court Resolved to NOTE the sai d Letter and G RANT the proposal of Justice Abad to MOVE the 2011 Bar Examinations from September to November. The Court further Resolved to (a) NOTE the L etter dated September 2, 2010 of Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, recommending the final approval by the Court En Banc of the proposed changes for improving the conduct of the bar examinations by Justice Abad, inasmuch as the Court En B anc had provisionally approved the proposals (b) APPROVE the Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations, hereto attached as Annex "A"; and (c) NOTE Resolution No. 12-991-2010 dated October 1, 2010 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Cebu, Cebu City Hall, praying anew that the Supreme Court, through the Bar Committee will extend the venue of the Bar Examinations to Cebu City, a nd hold simultaneous annual examinations in Manila and Cebu City." (a dv14) Very truly yours,
ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC B.M. No. 2265 RE: REFORMS IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS Preliminary Statement The Court has found merit in the proposed changes in the conduct of the bar examinations that the Chairperson of t he 2011 Bar Examinations and Philippine Association of Law Schools recommended. One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the annual bar examinations that in t he past consisted merely of naming the laws that each subject covered. This description has been regarded as too general and provides no specific understanding of the entry-level legal knowledge required of beginning law practitioners. A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar examinations that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of laws, doctrines, principles, and precedents, it has been noted t hat such examinations are unable to hit a sign ificant cross-section of the subject matter. Further, the huge number of candidates t aking the examinations annually and the limited time available for correcting the answers make fair correction of purely essay-type examinations difficult to attain. Besides, the use of multiple choice questions, properly and carefully constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying professionals all over the world because of its proven reliability and facility of correction. A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type examinations but dedicating these to the assessment of the requisite communication skills, creativity, and fine intellect that bar candidates need for the p ractice of law. Approved Changes The Court has previously approved in principle the above r ecommended changes. It now resolves to approve t he following rules that shall govern the future conduct of the bar examinations: 1. The coverage of the bar examinations shall be drawn up by topics and sub-topics rather than by just stating the covered laws. The test for including a topic or sub-topic in the coverage of the examinations is whether it covers laws, doctrines, principles and rulings that a new lawyer needs to know to begin a reasonably prudent and competent law
The coverage shall be approved by the Cha irperson of the Bar Examination in consultation with the academe, subject to annual review and re-approval by subsequent Chairpersons. 2. The bar examinations shall measure the candidate’s knowledge of the law and its applications through multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) that are to be so constructed as to specifically: 2.1. Measure the candidate’s knowledge of and ability to recall the laws, doctrines, and principles that every new lawyer needs in his practice; 2.2. Assess the candidate’s understanding of the meaning and significance of those same laws, doctrines, and principles as they apply to specific situations; and 2.3. Measure his ability to analyze legal problems, apply the correct law or principle to such problems, and provide solutions to them. 3. The results of the MCQ examinations shall, if feasible, be corrected electronically. 4. The results of the MCQ examinations in each bar subject shall be given the following weights: Political Law
— 15%
Labor Law
— 10%
Civil Law
— 15%
Taxation
— 10%
Mercantile Law
— 15%
Criminal Law
— 10%
Remedial Law
— 20%
Legal Ethics/Forms — 5%
organizing his thoughts, constructing his arguments, and persuading his readers to his point of view. The essays will not be bar subject specific. 5.1. One such essay examination shall require the ca ndidate to prepare a trial memorandum or a decision based on a documented legal dispute. (60% of essays) 5.2 Another essay shall require him to prepare a written opinion sought by a client concerning a potential legal dispute facing him. (40% of essays) 6. The essays shall not be graded for technically right or wrong aswers, but for the quality of the candida te’s legal advocacy. The passing standard for correction shall be work expected of a beginning practitioner, not a seasoned lawyer. 7. The examiners in a ll eight bar subjects shall, apart from preparing the MCQs for their respective subjects, be divided i nto two panels of f our members each. One panel will grade the memorandum or decision essay while the other will grade the lega l opinion essay. Each member shall read and grade the examination answer of a bar candidate independently of the other members in his panel. The final grade of a candidate for each essay shall be the average of the grades given by the four members of the panel for that essay. 8. The results of the a) MCQ and b) essay-type examinations shall be given weights of 60% a nd 40%, respectively, in the computation of the candidate’s final grade. 9. For want of historical data needed for computing the passing grade in MCQ kind of examinations, the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar Examinations shall, with the assistance of experts in c omputing MCQ examination grades, recommend to the Court the appropriate c onversion table or standard that it might adopt for arriving at a reasonable passing grade for MCQs in bar examinations. 10. In the interest of establishing needed data, the answers of all candidates in the essay-type examinations i n the year 2011 shall be corrected irrespective of the results of their MC Q examinations, which are sooner known because they are electronically corrected. In future bar
that it would serve no useful purpose to correct their answers in the essay-type examinations. 11. Using the data and experience obtained from the 2011 Bar Examinations, future Chairpersons of Bar Examination are directed to study the feasibility of: 11.1. Holding in the interest of convenience and economy bar examinations simultaneously in Luzon, the Visayas, a nd Mindanao; and 11.2. Allowing those who pass the MCQ examinations but f ail the essay-type examinations to take removal examinations in the immediately following year. 12. All existing rules, regulations, and instructions that are inconsistent with the above are repealed. This Bar Matter shall take effect immediately, and shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. January 18, 2011.
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice
EN BANC
RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS
B.M. No. 1222
x ---------------------------------------- x ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, April 24, 2009 x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J .:
This treats the Petition f or Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated November 10, 2008 filed by petitioner Danilo de Guzman. He prays that this Honorable Court in the exercise of equity and compassion, grant petitioners plea for judicial clemency, and thereupon, order his reinstatement as a member in g ood standing of the Philippine Bar.1[1]
To recall, on February 4, 2004, the Court promulgated a Resolution, in B.M. No. 1222, the dispositive portion of which reads in part:
WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of the I nvestigating Committee, hereby resolves to
(1) DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of law effective upon his receipt of this RESOLUTION;
xxxx
The subject of the Resolution is the leakage of questions in Mercantile Law during the 2003 Bar Examinations. Petitioner at that time was employed as an assistant lawyer in the law firm of Balgos & Perez, one of whose partners, Marcial Balgos, was the examiner for Mercantile Law during the said bar examinations. The C ourt had adopted the findings of the Investigating Committee, which identified petitioner as the person who had downloaded the test questions from the computer of Balgos and fa xed them to other persons.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) has favorably recommended the reinstatement of petitioner in the Philippine Bar. In a Report dated January 6, 2009, the OBC rendered its a ssessment of the petition, the relevant portions of which we quote hereunder:
Petitioner narrated that he had labored to become a lawyer to fulfill his f athers childhood dream to become one. This task was not particularly easy for him a nd his family but he willed to endure the same in order to pay tribute to his parents.
Petitioner added that even at a very young a ge, he already imposed upon himself the duty of rendering service to his fellowmen. At 19 years, he started his exposure to public service when he wa s elected Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig City. During this time, he initiated several projects benefiting the youth in their barangay.
Thereafter, petitioner focused on his studies, taking up Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and eventually pursuing Bachelor of Laws. In his second year in law school, he was elected as the President of the Student Council of the Institute of Law of the Far Eastern University (FEU). Here, he spearheaded various activities including the conduct of seminars for law students as well as the holding of bar operations for bar examinees.
Despite his many extra-curricular activities as a youth and student leader, petitioner still managed to excel in his studies. Thus, he was conferred an Academic Excellence Award upon his graduation in Bachelor of Laws.
Upon admission to the bar in April 1999, petitioner immediately entered government service as a Legal Officer assigned at the Sangguniang Bayan of Taguig. Simultaneously, he also rendered free legal services to less fortunate residents of Taguig City who were then in need of legal assistance.
In March 2000, petitioner was hired as one of the Associate Lawyers at the Balgos and Perez Law Offices. It was during his stay with this firm when his craft as a lawyer was polished and developed. Despite having entered private practice, he continued to render free legal services to his fellow Taguigeos.
Then in February 2004, by a sudden twist of fate, petitioners flourishing career was cut short as he was stripped of his license to practice law for his alleged involvement in the leakage in the 2003 Bar Examinations.
Devastated, petitioner then practically locked himself inside his house to a void the rather unavoidable consequences of his disbarment.
On March 2004, however, petitioner was given a new lease in life w hen he was taken as a consultant by the City Government of Taguig. Later, he was d esignated as a member of the Secretariat of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). For the next five (5) years, petitioner concentrated mainly on rendering public service.
Petitioner humbly acknowledged the damaging impact of his ac t which unfortunately, compromised the integrity of the bar examinations. As c ould be
has offered his sincerest apologies to Atty. Balgos, to the Court as well as to all the 2003 bar examinees for the unforeseen and unintended effects of his actions.
Petitioner averred that he has since learned from his mistakes and has taken the said humbling experience to make him a better person.
Meanwhile, as part of his Petition, petitioner submitted the following testimonials and endorsements of various individuals and entities all attesting to his good moral character:
1) Resolution No. 101, Series of 2007, Resolution Expressing Full Support to Danilo G. De Guzman in his Application for Judicial C lemency, Endorsing his Competence and Fitness to be Reinstated as a Member of the Philippine Bar and for Other Purposes dated 4 June 2007 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, City of Taguig;
2) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Southeast Peoples Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA) kay Danilo G. D e Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pagsusulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado dated 1 June 2007 of the Southeast Peoples Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA), Ibayo-Tipas, City of Taguig;
3) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc. (SAREMAC) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at a ng Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado dated 1 June 2007 of the Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc.
4) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahan ng mga Maralita (PULONG KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Ka nyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado dated 1 June 2007 of the Samahan ng mga Maralita (PULONG KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA), Sta. Ana, City of Taguig;
5) An Open Letter Attesting Personally to the Competence and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman as to Warrant the Grant of Judicial Clemency and his Reinstatement as Member of the Philippine Bar dated 8 June 2007 of Mig uelito Nazareno V. Llantino, Laogan, Trespeses and Llantino Law Offices;
6) Testimonial to the Moral and Spiritual Competence of Danilo G. De Guzman to be Truly Deserving of Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated 5 July 2007 of Rev. Fr. Paul G. Balagtas, Parish Priest, Archdiocesan Shrine of St. Anne;
7) Testimonial Letter dated 18 February 2008 of Atty. Loreto C. Ata, President, Far Eastern University Law Alumni Association (FEULAA), Far Eastern University (FEU);
8) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (SABISKA) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado dated 8 July 2008 of the Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (SABISKA);
(PLEB) Taguig City, Attesting to his Utmost Dedication and Commitment to the Call of Civic and Social Duty and for Other Purposes dated 11 July 2008 of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB);
10) A Personal Appeal for the Grant of Judicial Forgiveness and Compassion in Favor of Danilo G. De Guzman dated 14 July 2008 of Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval, Professor, College of Law, San Sebastian College Recoletos;
11) An Open Letter Personally Attesting to the Moral competence and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman dated 5 September 2008 of Mr. Nixon F. Faderog, Deputy Grand [Kn]ight, Knights of Columbus and President, General ParentTeacher Association, Taguig National High School, Lower Bicutan, Taguig City;
12) Testimonial Letter dated 5 September 2008 of Atty. Primitivo C. Cruz, President, Taguig Lawyers League, Inc., Tuktukan, Taguig City;
13) Testimonial Letter dated 21 October 2008 of Judge Hilario L. Laqui, Presiding Judge, Regional Trail Court (RTC), Branch 218, Quezon City; and
14) Testimonial Letter dated 28 October 2008 of Justice Oscar M. Herrera, former Justice, Court of Appeals and former Dean, Institute of Law, Far Eastern University (FEU).
Citing the case of In Re: Carlos S. Basa , petitioner pleaded that he be afforded the same kindness and compassion in order that, like Atty. Basa, his promising future may not be perpetually foreclosed. In the said case, the Court had the occasion to say:
Carlos S. Basa is a young man about 29 years of age, admitted to the bars of California and the Philippine Islands. Recently, he was c harged in the Court of F irst Instance of the City of Manila with the crime of a bduction with consent, was found guilty in a decision rendered by the Honorable M.V. De Rosario, Judge of First Instance, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two years, eleven months and eleven days of prision c orreccional. On appeal, this decision was affirmed in a judgment handed down by the second division of the Supreme Court.
xxxx
When come next, as we must, to determine the exact action which should be taken by the court, we do so regretfully and reluctantly. On the one hand, the violation of the criminal law by the respondent attorney ca nnot be lightly passed over. On the other hand, we are willing to strain the limits of our compassion to the uttermost in order that so promising a career may not be utterly ruined.
Petitioner promised to commit himself to be more circ umspect in his actions and solemnly pledged to exert all efforts to atone for his misdeeds.
There may be a reasonable ground to consider the herein Petition.
In the case of Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyers Oath (Bar Matter 712), which may be applied in the instant case, the Court said:
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the f ollowing admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyers oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the va rious certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts, to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.
xxxx
Meanwhile, in the case of Rodolfo M. Bernardo vs. Atty. Ismael F. Mejia (Administrative Case No. 2984), the Court [in] deciding whether or not to reinstate Atty. Mejia to the practice of law stated:
The Court will take into consideration the applicants character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment and the time that has elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.
Petitioner was barely thirty (30) years old and had only been in the practice of law for five (5) years when he was disbarred from the practice of law. It is of no doubt that petitioner had a promising future ahead of him where it not for the decision of the Court stripping off his license.
Petitioner is also of good moral repute, not only before but likewise, after his disbarment, as attested to overwhelmingly by his c onstituents, colleagues as
Way before the petitioner was even admitted to the bar, he had already manifested his intense desire to render public service as evidenced by his act ive involvement and participation in several social and civic projects and activities. Likewise, even during and after his disbarment, which could be perceived by some as a debilitating circumstance, petitioner still managed to continue extending his assistance to others in whatever means possible. This only proves petitioners strength of character and positive moral fiber.
However, still, it is of no question that petitioners act in copying the examination questions from Atty. Balgos computer without the latters knowledge and consent, and which questions later turned out t o be the bar examinations questions in Mercantile Law in the 2003 Bar Examinations, is not at all commendable. While we do believe that petitioner sincerely did not intend t o cause the damage that his action ensued, still, he must be sanctioned for unduly compromising the integrity of the bar examinations as well as of this Court.
We are convinced, however, that petitioner has since reformed and has sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in view of the circumstances and likewise for humanitarian considerations, the penalty of disbarment may now be commuted to suspension. Considering the fact, however, that petitioner had already been disbarred for more than five (5) years, the same may be considered as proper service of said c ommuted penalty and thus, may now be allowed to resume practice of law.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that the instant Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated 10 November 2008 of petitioner DANILO G. DE GUZMAN be GRANTED. Petitioners disbarment is now commuted to suspension, which suspension is considered as served in view of the petitioners five (5) year disbarment. Hence, petitioner may now be allowed to resume practice of law.
seven (7) years suspension from the practice of law, inclusive of the five (5) years he has already served his disbarment.
Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders.2[2] While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose.3[3]
In cases where we have deigned to lift or commute the supreme penalty of disbarment imposed on the lawyer, we have ta ken into account the remorse of the disbarred lawyer4[4] and the conduct of his public life during his years outside of the bar.5[5] For example, in Valencia v. Antiniw , we held:
However, the record shows that the long period of respondent's disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his misconduct, t o show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again to the exacting standards of conduct demanded of every member of the bar and officer of the court. During respondent's disbarment for more than fifteen (15) years to date for his professional infraction, he has been persistent in reiterating his apologies and pleas for reinstatement to the practice of law and unrelenting in his efforts to show that he has regained his worthiness to practice law, by his civic and humanitarian activities and unblemished record as an elected public servant, as attested to by numerous civic and professional organizations, government institutions, public officials and members of the judiciary.6[6]
mitigate the stain on his record. Compassion to the petitioner is wa rranted. Nonetheless, we wish to impart to him the following stern warning:
And in Bernardo v. Atty. Mejia,7[7] we noted:
Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced years. While the age of the petitioner and the length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his punishment has lasted long enough. x x x
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bands of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.8[8]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The disbarment of DANILO G. D E GUZMAN from the practice of law is hereby COMMUTED to SEVEN (7) YEARS SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW, reckoned from February 4, 2004.
SO ORDERED. Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse expected of him considering the gravity of his transgressions. Even more to his favor, petitioner has redirected focus since his disbarment towards public service, particularly with the Peoples Law Enforcement Board. The attestations submitted by his peers in the community and other esteemed members of the lega l profession, such as retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui, Professor Edwin Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata, and the ecclesiastical community such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtas testify to his positive impact on society at large since the unfortunate events of 2003.
Petitioners subsequent track record in public service affords the Court some hope that if he were to reacquire membership in the Philippine bar, his achievements as a lawyer would redound to the general g ood and more than
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993."
Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench in the administration of justice and to develop social competence.
(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues; (3) to prepare law students f or advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal problems of the present and the f uture; (4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and ca pacity for continuing study and self-improvement; (5) to inculcate in them the ethics a nd responsibilities of the legal profession; and (6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.
Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education.
Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education B oard, hereinafter referred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.
Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education in the Philippines is geared to attain the f ollowing objectives:
The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of ac tive law practitioners; and, a representative from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board.
(1) to prepare students for the practice of law; (2) to increase awareness among members of t he legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society; (3) to train persons for leadership; (4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and in other countries.
With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the practice of law, as well as in the teac hing of law in a duly authorized or recognized law school.
(b) Legal education shall aim t o accomplish the following specific objectives: Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular members of
position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the representatives of the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the representative from the ranks of active law practitioners and the representative of the law students' sector, for one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any vacanc y shall be only for the unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor. The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary a nd rank as the C hairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be dimi nished during their term of office. Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a principal office to be located in Metropolitan Manila. The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary in the performanceof its powers and f unctions. Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and functions: (a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Act; (b) to supervise the law sc hools in the country, consistent with its powers and functions as herein enumerated; (c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning; (d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation; (e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty members; (f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the
such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges under the different levels of ac creditation status; (g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a tota l of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary g uidelines for such accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual work of a new member of the Bar. (h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such c ourses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and (i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act. Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate a law school unless accredited by t he Board. Accreditation of law sc hools may be granted only to educational institutions recognized by the Government. Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may withdraw or downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if it fails to maintain the standards set for its accreditation status. Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive af ter the lapse ofthe semester or trimester following the receipt by the school of the notice of withdrawal or downgrading unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or upgrades the standards or corrects the defici encies upon which the withdrawal or downgrading of the accreditation status is based. Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a specia l endowment fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of the Board, and administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest the same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety and liquidity.
and from such donations, legacies, grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for the purposes of this Act. Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for faculty development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar programs for the advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law schools. The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be utilized. The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and regulations for the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund. Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and colleges of law which are presently under the supervision of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to the Board. Law schools and colleges which shall be established following the approval of this Act shall likewise be covered. Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the Contingent Fund for the initial expenses of the Board. To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually, under the budget of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the a mount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective Fiscal Year 1994. Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person, circumstance or transaction is held invalid, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act and the applicability of such provisions to other persons, circumstances and transactions shall not be affected thereby. Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby
Section 16. Effectivity . - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
