SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

A.C. No. 69-28             June 14, 1969

PRAXEDES LIMALIMA, complainant, vs. ALBERTO SANJURJO, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

DIZON, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

          In a verified complaint dated December 12, 1956 filed with this Court, Praxedes Limalima of Medellin Cebu, sought to prevent Alberto Sanjurjo from taking his oath as member of the Philippine Bar should he pass the 1956 bar examination, on the ground of immorality and breach of promise to marry her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          On March 4, 1957, after the release of the results of said bar examination, the complainant wrote an air-mail letter to this Court requesting the Chairman, 1956 Bar Examination, not to allow the respondent to take his oath of office. However, thru oversight, the respondent, who passed with a rating of 75%, was able to participate in the mass oath-taking on March 7, to sign the roll of attorneys (Roll No. 11062) and to receive his lawyer's certificate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          Upon discovery of the error the then Deputy Clerk of Court and Reporter wrote the respondent on April 1, 1957 requiring him to return his lawyer's diploma, but the latter ignored the request. Thereupon this Court took cognizance of the case and required the respondent to answer the complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          In his answer the respondent denied the allegations of the complaint and prayed that said complaint be dismiss on the ground that the cause of action had become moot and academic as he had already taken his oath as member of the bar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          On May 10, 1957 - after the respondent had taken his oath - this undocketed administrative case was referred to the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu for investigation and report, together with the complainant's additional petition praying that the respondent be declared in contempt of Court for not surrendering his lawyer's diploma to this Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          Answering the additional petition aforesaid, the respondent averred that the proper proceedings should have been for his disbarment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          Having been summoned by the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu, both parties appeared and presented their respective evidence, and under date of January 20, 1958 said Provincial Fiscal submitted his report finding that the respondent had committed "acts of immorality which is, unbecoming of a prospective member of the bar" and recommended "that he be given such punishment as the Honorable Supreme Court may deem proper."chanrobles virtual law library

          The question to be resolved now is whether, in view of the fact that the respondent, as stated heretofore, was able to take his oath as member of the bar prior to the indorsement of the case to the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu for proper investigation, these proceedings may be treated as proceedings for his disbarment. Our answer is in the affirmative. There is nothing sacred in procedural forms, and it is our settled jurisprudence that technicalities of the nature of the one invoked by the respondent - namely that these proceedings should be dismissed without prejudice to complainant instituting disbarment proceedings against him - may be disregarded as long as, in doing so, the party concerned will not suffer any prejudice, and is given his day in court. All these condition are present in this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          Consequently, pursuant to the provision of Section 5, Rule 139 of the Rules of Court, the Solicitor is hereby directed to file the corresponding complaint the respondent with this Court, a copy of be served upon him to be answered, within days from notice. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on leave.
Solicitor General directed to file complaint against respondent.