ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[B.M. No. 986.April 13, 2000]

IN RE 1999 BAR EXAMINATIONS

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 13 2000.

B.M. No. 986(In re 1999 Bar Examinations.)

In Bar Matter No. 979 we resolved on 19 March 2000 "(a) to approve the report and recommendation of the 1999 Committee on Bar Examinations under its new Chairman; and, (b) to order the immediate decoding and release of the names of the candidates who passed the last 1999 Bar Examinations and who have complied with the prescribed requirements" (underscoring supplied). Among those conditionally/provisionally admitted to take the examinations who obtained passing averages but failed to comply with the prescribed requirements were applicants Mark Anthony A. Purisima, Josenilo M. Reoma, Ma. Salvacion S. Revilla and Victor E. Tesorero. These examinees were each furnished a copy of the Resolution of the Court allowing them "to take the 1999 Bar Examinations, subject to the CONDITION that they shall submit to the Court the required certification of completion of the pre-bar review course within sixty (60) days from the last day of the examinations." Purisima received copy of the Resolution on 20 August 1999; Reoma on 27 August 1999; Revilla on 1 September 1999, and Tesorero on 25 August 1999.

Despite due notice, subject petitioners failed to comply with the requirement. In fact, as of 19 March 2000 when the results of the 1999 Bar Examinations were released, or almost six (6) months from the last day of the examinations, they had not complied with the requirement, even up to the present. Neither is there any showing that any of them was granted a longer period than that prescribed in the Resolutions issued on various dates conditionally/provisionally admitting them to take the examinations. Nor can they justify such failure on the pretext that they have not read the Resolutions herein mentioned, as they executed a uniform "UNDERTAKING," which they individually signed, that they "have read and understood the rules on the conduct of the bar examinations and that (they) agree to abide by them strictly without any reservations."

Aside from the pertinent Resolutions of the Court, par. 4 of the Instructions stated at the bottom of the standard petition for three- or more- time repeaters which Messrs. Purisima, Reoma, Revilla and Tesorero adopted and filed specifically provides, "4. If conditionally or provisionally admitted to the examinations, the condition/s must be satisfied within 60 days from the last day of the examination, unless otherwise indicated." As previously stated, there is no showing that any of these applicants was granted a longer period than that prescribed in par. 4 of their petitions.

As regards petitioner Purisima, he did not only fail to comply with a basic requirement, i.e., submitting a certificate of completion of the Pre-Bar Review course under oath for his conditional admission to the 1999 Bar Examinations, but he also committed a serious act of dishonesty which renders him unfit to become a member of the Philippine Bar when he made it appear in his petition that he was enrolled in the Pre-Bar Review course of the Philippine Law School when he filed his petition on 19 July 1999. But, as Dean Tomas P. Maddela Jr. of the Philippine Law School through its Acting Registrar Rosalia C. Kapauan certified, Philippine Law School has never offered Pre-Bar Review course since 1967.

With respect to petitioners Reoma, Revilla and Tesorero, although they were able to present certifications that they enrolled in and were attending the Pre-Bar Review course as of the time they filed their petitions, they failed to show that they have satisfactorily completed their attendance therein, a basic requirement they failed to comply with within the prescribed sixty (60)-day period from the last day of the 1999 Bar Examinations.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, for non-compliance with the prescribed requirements of this Court for their conditional admission to take the 1999 Bar Examinations, and also for gross dishonesty on the part of petitioner MARK ANTHONY ABAYA PURISIMA, all four (4) petitioners, namely, MARK ANTHONY ABAYA PURISIMA, JOSENILO MARQUEZ REOMA, MA. SALVACION SUCGANG REVILLA and VICTOR ESTELLA TESORERO are declared DISQUALIFIED from the last Bar Examinations; consequently, as regards them, the examinations taken by them on the basis thereof are considered NULL and VOID.

This is without prejudice to whatever further action the Court may take against any of subject examinees/petitioners for perjury or falsification of public document as the facts may warrant. Purisima, J., no part. Vitug, J., is abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE