In re: Lanuevo

A bar candidate's admission to the Bar is a complete nullity where the re-evaluation of his examination papers was initiated by the Bar Confidant without authority from the Court, and the candidate may be disbarred regardless of whether he was privy to the irregularity. Additionally, fraudulent concealment of a pending criminal case in bar examination applications constitutes ground for revocation of the license to practice law, and a Bar Confidant who initiates unauthorized re-evaluations of examinees' papers betrays the trust reposed in his position and is guilty of serious misconduct warranting disbarment.

The Supreme Court exercises its judicial function of admitting candidates to the legal profession through a Bar Examination Committee composed of a member of the Court as Chairman and eight members of the Bar as examiners. The Bar Confidant, who is also a Deputy Clerk of Court, serves as liaison officer between the Court and the Bar Chairman on one hand and the individual examiners on the other, and is primarily a custodian of corrected examination notebooks submitted by the examiners. Victorio D. Lanuevo held the position of Bar Confidant from 1968 through the 1971 Bar Examinations. Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, was a perennial bar candidate who had failed the examinations in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, and 1969. The 1971 Bar Examinations were administered under a Court resolution setting the passing average at 74%, with no grade below 50% in any subject. The application forms for the bar examinations, beginning in 1963, required applicants to disclose any criminal cases involving moral turpitude, and from 1966 onward required disclosure of all criminal cases of which the applicant had been accused.

The administrative proceedings arose from a confidential letter dated March 29, 1972, in which Oscar Landicho — a candidate who failed the 1971, 1968, and 1967 Bar Examinations — informed the Court that the grade of at least one bar candidate in Civil Law had been raised before the release of the 1971 bar results, without any formal motion or request from the candidate concerned. Landicho stated that this was confirmed by Civil Law Examiner Ramon C. Pamatian and by Bar Confidant Victorio D. Lanuevo, and urged the Court to investigate the matter. Acting on the letter, the Court examined the records of the 1971 Bar Examinations and discovered that the grades in five subjects — Political Law and Public International Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law, and Remedial Law — of a successful candidate bearing Office Code No. 954 had undergone changes, all initialed and authenticated by the respective examiners. The candidate was identified as Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang, who had failed the bar examinations in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, and 1969, and who passed the 1971 examinations with a grade of 74.15%, which was considered 75% under a Court resolution making 74% the passing average for that year.

Upon the Court's direction, Lanuevo and the five examiners submitted sworn statements. Lanuevo admitted having brought Galang's five examination notebooks back to the respective examiners for re-evaluation and re-checking, claiming he did so in good faith because he was impressed by the clarity of the writing and soundness of the answers, and because a Confidential Memorandum circulated to the examiners directed that substantial weight be given to clarity of language and soundness of reasoning. Each examiner admitted re-evaluating the notebook in his subject upon Lanuevo's representation that the examinee had failed only in that particular subject and was on the borderline of passing. The examiners testified that they believed Lanuevo's representations reflected the practice and policy of the Supreme Court, and that they acted in good faith without knowing the identity of the examinee and without receiving any consideration.

The investigation revealed that before any re-evaluation was made, Galang had failed in seven subjects with a general weighted average of only 66.25%, and had only one passing mark — 81% in Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, a minor subject. Through the successive re-evaluations in five major subjects, Galang's average was raised to 74.15%, an increase of approximately eight weighted points. The re-evaluations were conducted sequentially: Pamatian in Civil Law raised the grade from 64% to 75%; Manalo in Remedial Law raised it from 63.75% to 74.5%; Pablo in Political Law raised it from 68% to 78%; Tomacruz in Criminal Law raised it from 64% to 75%; and Montecillo in Mercantile Law raised it from 61% to 71%. None of these re-evaluations, except possibly the last, was authorized by the Court or the Bar Examination Committee. Lanuevo also referred back the notebooks of two other successful candidates — Ernesto Quitaleg in Political Law (raised from 57% to 66%) and Alfredo Ty dela Cruz in Mercantile Law (raised from 47% to 50%) — though both had failing grades in multiple subjects, violating the Committee's consensus that re-evaluation would occur only where an examinee failed in one subject.

A separate investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation revealed that Galang had been charged with the crime of slight physical injuries on September 8, 1959, in the Municipal Court of Manila, committed against another student at Manuel L. Quezon University. When confronted, Galang declared he did not remember having been so charged. In all his applications to take the bar examinations from 1962 through 1971, Galang never disclosed this pending criminal case, and from 1966 onward, when the application form expressly required disclosure of all criminal cases, he committed perjury by declaring under oath that he had no pending criminal case. The investigation also uncovered suspicious acquisitions by Lanuevo shortly after the release of the 1971 bar results, including a house and lot purchased for P84,114.00 with a down payment of P17,000.00 that was not fully accounted for in his Statements of Assets and Liabilities, and a 1956 Volkswagen car valued at P5,200.00. Possible prior connections between Lanuevo and Galang were also noted: from 1955 to 1958, both were connected with the Philippine Veterans Board — Lanuevo as an investigator and Galang as a beneficiary of the G.I. Bill of Rights educational program — though both denied knowing each other during that period.

• Good Faith (Lanuevo): Respondent Lanuevo maintained that he submitted Galang's notebooks to the examiners in his honest belief that they merited re-evaluation based on the Confidential Memorandum directing that substantial weight be given to clarity of language and soundness of reasoning, and that it was not his intention to betray the trust reposed in him as Bar Confidant but rather to do justice to the examinee concerned. He denied having deceived the examiners into believing that Galang failed only in their respective subjects.

• Justification via Sweepstakes Number (Lanuevo): Respondent Lanuevo claimed that his curiosity about Galang's notebooks was prompted by the coincidence of seeing the number "954" — Galang's office code number — on a Meralco contrivance while thinking of buying a sweepstakes ticket, and that the number 27, significant to him personally, further impressed him.

• No Conspiracy or Connivance (Galang): Respondent Galang asserted that he was not acquainted with Lanuevo except for one ordinary official encounter, that he had no knowledge of Lanuevo's actuations until he read the Court's resolution, and that the benefit he derived from Lanuevo's acts was not evidence per se of his having caused those acts. He argued that if re-evaluation was done among those of others, it must have been done as a matter of policy, and that to presume a conspiracy would be to impugn the integrity of the entire Bar Examination Committee.

• Good Faith and No Consideration (Examiners): Respondents-examiners uniformly professed that they re-evaluated the notebooks in good faith, without knowing the identity of the examinee, and without any consideration or expectation of personal benefit. They maintained that they acted under the belief that Lanuevo's request reflected the practice and policy of the Supreme Court, and that they applied the same standards in re-evaluation as in the original correction.

• Vindictiveness of Pamatian (Lanuevo): Respondent Lanuevo claimed in his memorandum that Examiner Pamatian was motivated by vindictiveness due to Lanuevo's refusal to be pressured into helping Pamatian's alleged friend, Oscar Landicho, who failed the 1971 Bar Examinations.

• Authority of Bar Confidant: Whether the Bar Confidant has authority to initiate or request the re-evaluation of examination notebooks already submitted by the examiners, without prior authority from the Court or the Bar Examination Committee.

• Validity of Galang's Admission: Whether the unauthorized re-evaluation of Galang's examination papers renders his admission to the Bar a nullity, and whether his name should be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

• Concealment of Criminal Case: Whether Galang's concealment of a pending criminal case for slight physical injuries in his bar applications constitutes fraud and perjury warranting disbarment.

• Liability of Bar Examiners: Whether the bar examiners who re-evaluated the notebooks upon Lanuevo's misrepresentations should be subjected to disciplinary action.

• Liability of Bar Confidant: Whether Lanuevo's actuations constitute serious misconduct warranting disbarment.

• Suspicious Acquisitions: Whether Lanuevo's acquisitions of property shortly after the bar results, disproportionate to his salary, may be linked to the illegal machination.

• Authority of Bar Confidant: No. The Bar Confidant has absolutely nothing to do with the re-evaluation or reconsideration of grades; after corrected notebooks are submitted, his only function is to tally grades and compute the general average. Any request for re-evaluation must come from the examinee and be addressed to the Court.

• Validity of Galang's Admission: Yes, the admission is a nullity. The re-evaluation that enabled Galang to pass was initiated without Court authority and is therefore void, regardless of whether Galang was privy to the irregularity. His name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

• Concealment of Criminal Case: Yes. Galang's fraudulent concealment of his pending criminal case from 1962 to 1971, and his perjury from 1966 onward in declaring under oath that he had no pending criminal case, independently warrant disbarment.

• Liability of Bar Examiners: No disciplinary action was imposed. The examiners acted in good faith and without consideration, though they were admonished for failing to exercise greater care and vigilance.

• Liability of Bar Confidant: Yes. Lanuevo was disbarred for serious misconduct — betraying the trust and confidence reposed in him as Bar Confidant, impairing the integrity of the Bar examinations, and undermining public faith in the Supreme Court.

• Suspicious Acquisitions: The Court noted that Lanuevo's acquisitions were manifestly out of proportion to his salary and tended to link his acquisitions to the illegal machination, and that criminal proceedings may be instituted against him under the Anti-Graft Law.

• Authority of Bar Confidant: The Office of the Bar Confidant is primarily confidential and custodial in nature. After examiners submit corrected notebooks, the Bar Confidant's only function is to tally individual grades, compute general averages, and prepare comparative data for the Committee and the Court. He is not the over-all examiner and cannot presume to know better than the examiner who corrected the papers. Any request for re-evaluation must come from the examinee and be addressed to the Court, which alone can validly act thereon. Lanuevo's initiative in bringing back Galang's notebooks to the examiners was entirely without authority, and his representations to each examiner that the examinee had failed only in their particular subject were false — Galang had failed in seven subjects with an average of 66.25%. The Confidential Memorandum cited by Lanuevo was intended solely to guide examiners in the initial correction of papers and never as a basis for the Bar Confidant to suggest re-evaluation, as Lanuevo himself admitted during the investigation.

• Validity of Galang's Admission: The judicial function of the Supreme Court in admitting candidates to the Bar requires that proceedings conform to established rules and principles and be subject to final Court approval. Because the re-evaluations were initiated by Lanuevo without any authority from the Court, they constituted a serious breach of trust, and the resulting admission was a complete nullity. Whether or not the examinee benefited was in connivance or a privy thereto is immaterial; what is decisive is whether the proceedings that led to the candidate's admission were in accordance with the rules. Galang's original average of 66.25% was raised to 74.15% solely through the unauthorized re-evaluations, and under no circumstances could 66.25% be honestly characterized as borderline. The Court also noted that more than ninety other examinees with averages ranging from 70% to 73.9% were far more deserving of reconsideration, yet Lanuevo singled out only Galang's papers.

• Concealment of Criminal Case: Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every applicant for admission to the Bar to be of good moral character and to produce satisfactory evidence thereof, with no charges involving moral turpitude pending against him. Even under the earlier rules, the obligation to reveal all involvement in any criminal case was implicit in the duty to show good moral character. From 1963 onward, the application forms expressly required disclosure, and from 1966 onward required disclosure of all criminal cases. Galang's persistent concealment of his pending criminal case for slight physical injuries constituted fraud upon the Court, and his sworn declarations from 1966 to 1971 that he had no pending criminal case constituted perjury. The concealment of an indictment or criminal charge in a bar application is well-settled ground for revocation of the license to practice law. Galang's persistent denial of involvement even when confronted, and his failure for approximately thirteen years to clear his name, indicated a lack of honesty, probity, and good demeanor.

• Liability of Bar Examiners: All respondents-examiners candidly admitted re-evaluating the notebooks upon Lanuevo's misrepresentations, but professed good faith, lack of knowledge of the examinee's identity, and absence of any consideration. The Court found their explanations satisfactory and declared that they acted in good faith and without any consideration whatsoever. However, considering the vital public interest in Bar admissions, the examiners should have exercised greater care and caution, should have been more inquisitive, and could have consulted the Chairman or required Lanuevo to produce the complete grades of the examinee. While respondents Pamatian, Montecillo, Manalo, and Pardo maintained that the increased grades were deserved, and respondents Tomacruz and Pablo appeared to have raised grades solely because of Lanuevo's misrepresentations, the favorable re-evaluations were to some extent influenced by the deception. Nevertheless, their conceded integrity, honesty, and competence, and the absence of any corrupt motive, precluded the imposition of disciplinary action. Examiner Pamatian was separately admonished for having mentioned to Landicho, after the release of bar results, that a booklet had been re-evaluated — an indecorous act tending to undermine the integrity of the examinations.

• Liability of Bar Confidant: Lanuevo's conduct constituted plain, simple, and unmitigated deception. He systematically and separately represented to each of five examiners that Galang had failed only in their particular subject, when Galang had failed in seven subjects. His claim of good faith was belied by his singling out of Galang's papers while ignoring more than ninety examinees with better averages, his failure to apprise the Court, the Committee, or the Bar Chairman of the re-evaluations, and his unexplained resignation after being informed of the irregularities. His late-invented story about the sweepstakes number "954" was an afterthought deserving scant consideration. The proximity in time between the release of bar results and his acquisition of a house and lot for P84,114.00 and a car, with funds not fully accounted for in his Statements of Assets and Liabilities, tended to link his acquisitions to the illegal machination. Criminal proceedings may be instituted under Republic Act No. 1379 and Republic Act No. 3019 for manifestly disproportionate property and for inducing public officers to violate rules and regulations.

• Suspicious Acquisitions: Lanuevo's 1971 Statement of Assets and Liabilities listed only P2,000.00 in bank deposits, and his claimed P5,000.00 savings and P12,000.00 loan from his sister in Okinawa were not reflected therein. The alleged loan was extremely doubtful: no note was presented, no mode or time of payment was agreed upon, and the sister's address was never furnished despite a promise to do so. The conclusion that the P17,000.00 down payment was either ill-gotten or undeclared income was inevitable. Possible prior connections between Lanuevo and Galang through the Philippine Veterans Board from 1955 to 1958, and through guerrilla movements in Nueva Ecija during the war, were noted though not conclusively established.

• Functions of the Bar Confidant — The Bar Confidant, as custodian of corrected examination notebooks, has no authority to initiate, suggest, or request the re-evaluation or reconsideration of examinees' grades. After notebooks are submitted by the examiners, his only function is to tally individual grades, compute general averages, and prepare comparative data for the Committee and the Court. Any request for re-evaluation must come from the examinee and be addressed to the Court, which alone can validly act thereon. A Bar Confidant who takes such initiative exposes himself to suspicion and compromises his position and the image of the Court.

• Nullity of Unauthorized Bar Admission — Where the re-evaluation of a bar candidate's examination papers was initiated without authority from the Court, the resulting admission to the Bar is a complete nullity. Whether or not the examinee was in connivance or was a privy to the irregularity is immaterial; what is decisive is whether the proceedings leading to admission were in accordance with the rules.

• Concealment of Criminal Records as Ground for Disbarment — An applicant for admission to the Bar is duty bound to lay before the Court all his involvement in any criminal case, whether pending or terminated, to enable the Court to ascertain his moral character. Fraudulent concealment of a pending criminal case in bar applications constitutes ground for revocation of the license to practice law. Where the application form expressly requires disclosure and the applicant declares under oath that he has no pending criminal case, the false declaration constitutes perjury.

• Good Faith as Defense for Bar Examiners — Bar examiners who re-evaluate examination notebooks upon the misrepresentation of the Bar Confidant, without knowledge of the examinee's identity and without any consideration, may be exonerated from disciplinary action on the ground of good faith. However, they are expected to exercise the greatest care and vigilance, and should verify the authority of any request for re-evaluation with the Chairman of the Bar Examination Committee.

• Practice of Law as a Privilege — The practice of law is not an absolute right to be granted to everyone who demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of sound discretion. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law.

• "The Office of the Bar Confidant, it must be stressed, has absolutely nothing to do in the re-evaluation or reconsideration of the grades of examinees who fail to make the passing mark before or after their notebooks are submitted to it by the Examiners." — This passage defines the doctrinal boundary of the Bar Confidant's authority and is the ratio decidendi for Lanuevo's disbarment.

• "And whether or not the examinee benefited was in connivance or a privy thereto is immaterial. What is decisive is whether the proceedings or incidents that led to the candidate's admission to the Bar were in accordance with the rules." — This formulation establishes that the validity of bar admission depends on the regularity of proceedings, not on the examinee's culpability — the controlling principle for Galang's disbarment.

• "The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted every one who demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of sound discretion." — Quoted from In re: Felipe del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399, this passage articulates the foundational principle governing admission to and removal from the Bar.

• "It was plain, simple and unmitigated deception that characterized respondent Lanuevo's well-studied and well-calculated moves in successively representing separately to each of the five examiners concerned to the effect that the examinee failed only in his particular subject and/or was on the borderline of passing." — This passage characterizes the nature of Lanuevo's misconduct and the systematic method of his deception.

• In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 — Cited for the proposition that the judicial function of the Supreme Court in admitting candidates to the Bar requires previous established rules and principles, concrete facts affecting determinate individuals, and a decision as to whether those facts are governed by the rules.

• In re: Felipe del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege, not an absolute right, and that the Court may refuse to receive one whose integrity is questionable as an officer of the court.

• In re: Telesforo A. Diao, 7 SCRA 475 — Cited as precedent for nullifying admission to the Bar on the ground of misrepresentations relative to the requirement on the applicant's educational attainment.

• In re: Peralta, 101 Phil. 313 — Cited as precedent for nullifying admission on the ground of lack of good moral character.

• People vs. Romualdez (re: Luis Mabunay), 57 Phil. 151 — Cited as precedent for nullifying admission based on fraudulent passing of the Bar examinations, where the examinee's grades were falsified.

• People vs. Castro and Doe, 54 Phil. 42 — Cited alongside Romualdez for the proposition that falsification of bar examination grades warrants nullification of admission and criminal conviction for falsification of public documents.

• State ex rel. Board of Law Examiners vs. Podell, 207 N.W. 709 — Cited as American authority for the proposition that concealment of an indictment in a bar application constitutes fraud upon the court and warrants revocation of the license to practice law.

• In re Carpel, 165 N.Y.S. 102 — Cited for the principle that silence respecting indictments against an applicant for bar admission is reprehensible as tending to deceive the court.

• Section 2, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (1964) — Requires every applicant for admission to the Bar to be of good moral character and to produce satisfactory evidence thereof, with no charges involving moral turpitude filed or pending in any court. Applied to hold that Galang's concealment of his pending criminal case violated this requirement and warranted disbarment.

• Section 2, Rule 127, Old Rules of Court (prior to 1964) — Required bar applicants to produce satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. Noted as the earlier formulation under which the obligation to reveal criminal involvement was implicit.

• Section 3(a) & (e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Prohibits persuading or inducing a public officer to violate rules and regulations, and causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality or evident bad faith. Identified as the basis for potential criminal proceedings against Lanuevo.

• Section 9, Republic Act No. 1379 — Authorizes forfeiture of property found to have been unlawfully acquired by a public officer. Identified alongside Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 as authorizing dismissal where property is manifestly out of proportion to salary.

• Section 8, Republic Act No. 3019 — Authorizes dismissal or removal of a public officer whose property is manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income. Applied to Lanuevo's suspicious acquisitions.

Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma, and Aquino, JJ., concurred. Teehankee, J., concurred in the result. Antonio, J., was on official leave. Concepcion and Martin, JJ., took no part.