In re Meling

Concealing pending criminal cases in a bar application under oath constitutes a lack of good moral character warranting suspension from the Shari'a Bar, and members of the Shari'a Bar who are not members of the Philippine Bar are prohibited from using the title "Attorney."

On May 21, 2001, Haron S. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners, and purportedly struck the wife, causing injuries. This incident led to the filing of three criminal cases against Meling before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cotabato City: two for Grave Oral Defamation and one for Less Serious Physical Injuries. Despite these pending cases, Meling did not disclose them in his sworn petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations. Furthermore, while serving as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, Meling used the appellation "Attorney" in official communications despite not being a member of the Philippine Bar.

• The Incident and Criminal Cases: On May 21, 2001, Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and attacked the wife, causing injuries. This resulted in three pending criminal cases before the MTCC of Cotabato City: Criminal Cases No. 15685 and 15686 for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
• Non-Disclosure in Bar Application: In his petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations, Meling did not disclose the pending criminal cases. The standard form required applicants to aver under oath whether they had been charged with any offense or crime involving moral turpitude, or if there were any pending cases against them.
• Unauthorized Use of Title: Meling used the appellation "Attorney" in an indorsement letter received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27, 2001, while serving as Secretary to the Mayor.
• Supervening Event: Meling did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations, rendering the prayer to prevent him from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys moot and academic.

• Non-Disclosure of Pending Cases: Melendrez alleged that Meling deliberately failed to disclose three pending criminal cases in his Bar application, constituting dishonesty and demonstrating a lack of good moral character.
• Unauthorized Use of Title: Melendrez asserted that Meling improperly used the title "Attorney" in official communications despite not being a member of the Philippine Bar.

• Justification for Non-Disclosure: Meling maintained that he did not disclose the cases because a retired judge and former professor advised him to settle the matter, leading him to consider the cases "closed and terminated" in good faith.
• Nature of the Offense: Meling argued that the acts complained of do not involve moral turpitude.
• Inadvertent Use of Title: Meling claimed that the word "Attorney" in his communications was typed by the office clerk and was not his deliberate doing.

• Good Moral Character: Whether the non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in a bar application under oath warrants disciplinary action for lack of good moral character.
• Use of Title "Attorney": Whether a member of the Shari'a Bar who is not a member of the Philippine Bar may use the title "Attorney."

• Good Moral Character: The deliberate concealment of pending criminal cases in a sworn bar application demonstrates a lack of good moral character, warranting suspension from the Shari'a Bar. The disclosure requirement exists to allow the Court to determine an applicant's moral fitness; concealing such cases flunks this test regardless of the merits of the pending cases. Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
• Use of Title "Attorney": The use of the title "Attorney" by a Shari'a Bar member not admitted to the Philippine Bar is prohibited. Only members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in good standing are authorized to use the title and practice law in the jurisdiction, while Shari'a Bar members are limited to practice before Shari'a courts.

• Good Moral Character — Good moral character includes at least common honesty. It is not a subjective term but corresponds to objective reality, distinguished from good reputation. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by conduct that merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. It is a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, and its continued possession is essential for remaining in the practice. Concealment of material facts under oath demonstrates a lack of this character.
• Distinction Between Shari'a Bar and Philippine Bar — Persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar and may only practice law before Shari'a courts. While both may be considered "counselors," only members of the Philippine Bar are "attorneys." The title "attorney" is reserved exclusively for those who have obtained the necessary law degree, passed the Bar Examinations, been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and remain members in good standing.

• "It has been held that good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral character includes at least common honesty."
• "[O]nly the latter [member of the Philippine Bar] is an 'attorney.' The title 'attorney' is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction."

• Bar Matter 1209 — Cited to support the proposition that non-disclosure or suppression of a material fact in connection with an application for admission to the bar makes a lawyer answerable, and that good moral character includes common honesty.
• Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997, 268 SCRA 628 — Applied as controlling precedent establishing that Shari'a Bar members are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar and are prohibited from using the title "Attorney."
• Leda v. Tabang, Adm. Case No. 2505, February 21, 1992, 206 SCRA 395 — Followed to support the suspension of a legal practitioner who made false statements or concealed material facts in bar applications.
• Tan v. Sabandal, Bar Matter No. 44, February 24, 1992, 206 SCRA 473 — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege bestowed upon individuals possessing good moral character, not a right.
• In Re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, Adm. Cases No. 1162-1164, 29 August 1975, 66 SCRA 245 — Cited to explain that the disclosure requirement in bar applications is imposed to determine whether there is satisfactory evidence of the applicant's good moral character.

• Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Applied to hold that a lawyer (or applicant) is answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with an application for admission to the bar.
• Section 3, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court — Cited in relation to the Office of the Bar Confidant's finding that the unauthorized use of the appellation "attorney" may render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.

Davide, Jr., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.