Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > February 1989 Decisions > B.M. No. 44 February 10, 1989 - EUFROSINA YAP TAN v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[B.M. No. 44. February 10, 1989.]

EUFROSINA YAP TAN, Complainant, v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, Respondent.

[B.M. No. 59. February 10, 1989.]

BENJAMIN CABIGON, Complainant, v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, Respondent.

[SBC No. 624. February 10, 1989.]

CORNELIO AGNIS and DIOMEDES D. AGNIS, Complainants, v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, Respondent.

Alberto Concha for Eufrosina Yap Tan.

Nelbert Poculan for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR; DEPENDS UPON DISCRETION OF THE COURT. — In a letter dated 23 November 1988 addressed to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court, respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the Philippine Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer’s oath and conduct himself in an upright manner. Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law.

2. ID.; ID.; REINSTATEMENT TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION; CRITERIA. — In several cases wherein reinstatements to the legal profession were allowed, the following criteria were considered: the person appreciates the significance of his dereliction and he has assured the Court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law (Magat v. Santiago, L-43301-45665, April 1, 1980, 97 SCRA 1); that time that has elapsed between disbarment and the application for reinstatement, his good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent to his disbarment, his active involvement in civic, educational, and religious organizations (In Re: Juan T. Publico, 102 SCRA 721 [1981]); the favorable indorsement of the Integrared Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local government officials and citizens of his community (In Re: Quinciano D. Vailoces, Adm. Case No. 439, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 1); the pleas of his mother and wife for the sake and the future of his family (Andres v. Cabrera, SBC-585, February 29, 1984, 127 SCRA 802).


R E S O L U T I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of pending administrative complaints filed against him, he was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. He then filed a Petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. The complainants, namely, Eufrosina Y. Tan, Benjamin Cabigon, Cornelio Agnis and Diomedes D. Agnis, opposed the Petition on several grounds.

In a Resolution of this Court en banc promulgated on 29 November 1983, respondent’s petition was denied, the Court finding, inter alia, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the evidence supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. While respondent’s infection may be mitigated in that he appeared for his in-laws in CAR Cases Nos. 347 and 346 where they were parties, it is clear from the proceedings in CAR Case No. 347 that he clarified his position only after the opposing counsel had objected to his appearance. Besides, he specifically manifested ‘Atty. Nicolas Sabandal, appearing for the defendants, Your Honor’ (Exhibit ‘A-1’). He called himself ‘attorney’ knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar. Oppositors’ evidence sufficiently shows that respondent had held himself by said oppositors. Respondent cannot shift the blame on the stenographer, for he could have easily asked for rectification. . . . Oppositors had also presented evidence of proceedings wherein witnesses testified as to respondent’s being their lawyer and their compensating him for his services (Exhibits ‘D-8’ and ‘D-9’). It may be that in the Court of a municipality, even non-lawyers may appear (Sec. 34, Rule 138, Rules of Court). If respondent had so manifested, no one could have challenged him. Wheat he did, however, was to hold himself out as a lawyer, and even to write the Station Commander of Roxas, complaining of harassment to ‘our clients’, when he could not but have known that he could not yet engage in the practice of law. His argument that the term ‘client’ is a ‘defendant or person under the protection of another and not a person who engages in the profession’ is puerile" (126 SCRA 60, at 67 & 68).

A Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution was filed by respondent on 23 January 1984, which was opposed by Complainants, who stated that the "span of time was so short to determine with sufficient definiteness whether or not respondent has reformed;" that "the testimonials are self-serving obviously prepared by respondent himself and had them signed by the signatories who could not refuse him." In its Resolution of 8 May 1984 the Court denied reconsideration.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

On 23 May 1985 respondent filed an Ex-parte Motion for Reconsideration reiterating his prayer to be allowed to take and which was denied by the Court on 16 July 1985, with the Court stating that no other Motions of this kind would be entertained.

Undaunted, on 2 December 1985, respondent filed another Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal for Mercy and Forgiveness, which the Court simply NOTED in its Resolution of 7 January 1986.

In a letter dated 4 December 1986 respondent’s children echoed his appeal to the Court to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath, which the Court noted without action on 7 July 1987.

On 28 June 1988, respondent filed a second Petition to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. Complainants were required to comment but they have not done so to date.

In a letter dated 23 November 1988 addressed to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court, respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the Philippine Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer’s oath and conduct himself in an upright manner.

Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law.

In several cases wherein reinstatements to the legal profession were allowed, the following criteria were considered: the person appreciates the significance of his dereliction and he has assured the Court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law (Magat v. Santiago, L-43301-45665, April 1, 1980, 97 SCRA 1); that time that has elapsed between disbarment and the application for reinstatement, his good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent to his disbarment, his active involvement in civic, educational, and religious organizations (In Re: Juan T. Publico, 102 SCRA 721 [1981]); the favorable indorsement of the Integrared Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local government officials and citizens of his community (In Re: Quinciano D. Vailoces, Adm. Case No. 439, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 1); the pleas of his mother and wife for the sake and the future of his family (Andres v. Cabrera, SBC-585, February 29, 1984, 127 SCRA 802).chanrobles law library : red

The foregoing criteria may be made applicable to respondent’s case. After the lapse of then (10) years from the time respondent took and passed the 1978 Bar Examination, he has shown contrition and willingness to reform. He has also submitted several testimonials, including one from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal is hereby allowed to take the lawyer’s oath, with the Court binding him to his assurance that he shall strictly abide by and adhere to the language, meaning and spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath and the highest standards of the legal profession.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayno, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 79690-707 February 1, 1989 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 50422 February 8, 1989 - NICOLAS ARRADAZA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50954 February 8, 1989 - EDUARDO SIERRA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 53515 February 8, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES UNION v. OPLE

  • G.R. No. 55665 February 8, 1989 - DELTA MOTOR CORPORATION v. EDUARDA SAMSON GENUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57664 February 8, 1989 - ANGELITO ORTEGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 58910 February 8, 1989 - ROBERT DOLLAR CO. v. JUAN C. TUVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77828 February 8, 1989 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79752 February 8, 1989 - SOLID HOMES INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80587 February 8, 1989 - WENPHIL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82819 February 8, 1989 - LUZ LUMANTA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84141 February 8, 1989 - TOP RATE INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1616 February 9, 1989 - RODORA D. CAMUS v. DANILO T. DIAZ

  • Adm. Case No. 2361 February 9, 1989 - LEONILA J. LICUANAN v. MANUEL L. MELO

  • G.R. No. 38969-70 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELICIANO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. 48705 February 9, 1989 - EDUARDO V. REYES v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64362 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL M. DECLARO

  • G.R. No. 67662 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS T. MANALANG

  • G.R. No. 73022 February 9, 1989 - GEORGIA ADLAWAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77930-31 February 9, 1989 - JEREMIAS EBAJAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78239 February 9, 1989 - SALVACION A. MONSANTO v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 83320 February 9, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • B.M. No. 44 February 10, 1989 - EUFROSINA YAP TAN v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL

  • G.R. No. 34710 February 10, 1989 - ARMANDO LOCSIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51450 February 10, 1989 - VALENTIN SOLIVEL, ET AL. v. MARCELINO M. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76018 February 10, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BENIGNO M. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79596 February 10, 1989 - C.W. TAN MFG., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72424 February 13, 1989 - INTESTATE ESTATE OF CARMEN DE LUNA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74930 February 13, 1989 - RICARDO VALMONTE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989 - SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80058 February 13, 1989 - ERNESTO R. ANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72476 February 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO A. MACABENTA

  • G.R. Nos. 75440-43 February 14, 1989 - ALEJANDRO G. MACADANGDANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55322 February 16, 1989 - MOISES JOCSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-30859 February 20, 1989 - MARIA MAYUGA VDA. DE CAILLES, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR MAYUGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35825 February 20, 1989 - CORA LEGADOS, ET AL. v. DOROTEO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39451 February 20, 1989 - ISIDRO M. JAVIER v. PURIFICACION C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-44642 February 20, 1989 - AURIA LIMPOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45323 February 20, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. L-63561 February 20, 1989 - MARCELINA LOAY DINGAL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68021 February 20, 1989 - HEIRS OF FAUSTA DIMACULANGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81031 February 20, 1989 - ARTURO L. ALEJANDRO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84076 February 20, 1989 - ANTONIO Q. ROMERO, ET AL. v. CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 28661 February 21, 1989 - RAYMUNDO SERIÑA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47275 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO SOMERA

  • G.R. No. L-47917 February 21, 1989 - RUFINO MENDIVEL, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48122 February 21, 1989 - VISIA REYES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 53969 February 21, 1989 - PURIFICACION SAMALA, ET AL. v. LUIS L. VICTOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64571 February 21, 1989 - TEODORO N. FLORENDO v. LUIS R. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76427 February 21, 1989 - JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LABOR UNION-FFW, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81385 February 21, 1989 - EDUARDO B. OLAGUER, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NCJR, BRANCH 48, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81389 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO C. DACUDAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81520 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEIL TEJADA

  • G.R. No. 83699 February 21, 1989 - PHILAMLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84673-74 February 21, 1989 - FLORENCIO SALVACION v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35578 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRITO DETALLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40824 February 23, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41423 February 23, 1989 - LUIS JOSEPH v. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49344 February 23, 1989 - ARISTOTELES REYNOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53569 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 75866 February 23, 1989 - NEW OWNERS/MANAGEMENT OF TML GARMENTS, INC., v. ANTONIO V. ZARAGOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82998 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO BALUYOT

  • G.R. No. L-40628 February 24, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. ONOFRE VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-55090 February 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO CANIZAR GOHOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85497 February 24, 1989 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32266 February 27, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY v. RUPERTO A. VILLAREAL

  • G.R. No. L-34807 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FABIO TACHADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46955 February 27, 1989 - CONSORCIA AGUSTINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48129 February 27, 1989 - TERESITA M. ESQUIVEL v. JOAQUIN O. ILUSTRE

  • G.R. No. 62968-69 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO GIMONGALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66634 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO MOLATO

  • G.R. No. 74065 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NERIO C. GADDI

  • G.R. No. 74657 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 74871 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELSO I. JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. 74964 February 27, 1989 - DILSON ENTERPRISES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76893 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO T. PACO

  • G.R. No. 77980 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78269 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. BACHAR

  • G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989 - GABINO ALITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80001 February 27, 1989 - CARLOS LEOBRERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83558 February 27, 1989 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ABRAHAM P. VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44237 February 28, 1989 - VICTORIA ONG DE OCSIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53597 February 28, 1989 - D.C. CRYSTAL, INC. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55226 February 28, 1989 - NIC V. GARCES, ET AL. v. VICENTE P. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55228 February 28, 1989 - MIGUELA CABUTIN, ET AL. v. GERONIMO AMACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56803 February 28, 1989 - LUCAS M. CAPARROS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59438 February 28, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE J. SALONDRO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 62219 February 28, 1989 - TEOFISTO VERCELES, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78210 February 28, 1989 - TEOFILO ARICA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80391 February 28, 1989 - ALIMBUSAR P. LIMBONA v. CONTE MANGELIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81123 February 28, 1989 - CRISOSTOMO REBOLLIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82252 February 28, 1989 - SEAGULL MARITIME CORP., ET AL. v. NERRY D. BALATONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83635-53 February 28, 1989 - DELIA CRYSTAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.