Melendrez vs. Meling

Concealment of pending criminal cases in an application to take the Bar Examinations constitutes dishonesty and lack of good moral character warranting disciplinary sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law; members of the Philippine Shari'a Bar who are not members of the Philippine Bar are not entitled to use the title "Attorney" and may only practice before Shari'a courts.

• 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 other people, and attacked and hit the face of Melendrez's wife causing injuries.
• The incident resulted in three pending criminal cases against Meling before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City: Criminal Cases Nos. 15685 and 15686 for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
• On October 14, 2002, Melendrez filed a Petition with the Office of the Bar Confidant to disqualify Meling from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose disciplinary action as a member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar.
• Meling did not disclose the three pending criminal cases in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations, which required applicants to aver under oath that they have no pending cases involving moral turpitude.
• Meling, serving as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, used the title "Attorney" in his official communications, including an indorsement letter received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod on November 27, 2001, despite not being a member of the Philippine Bar.
• In his Answer, Meling claimed that retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez, and believing in good faith that the cases would be settled due to the judge's moral ascendancy, he considered the three cases "closed and terminated."
• Meling admitted that some communications contained the word "Attorney" but claimed they were typed by the office clerk.
• Meling failed the 2003 Bar Examinations, rendering the prayer to prevent him from taking the Lawyer's Oath moot.

• Meling failed to disclose three pending criminal cases (two for Grave Oral Defamation and one for Less Serious Physical Injuries) in his petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations, constituting concealment and dishonesty in violation of the disclosure requirement.
• Meling has been using the title "Attorney" in his official communications as Secretary to the Mayor despite not being a member of the Philippine Bar, constituting false representation and unauthorized assumption of a title reserved for members of the Integrated Bar.
• These acts demonstrate Meling's lack of good moral character, which is a requisite for admission to the Bar and continued membership in the Shari'a Bar.

• Meling did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson advised him to settle the misunderstanding with Melendrez, and he believed in good faith that the cases would be settled due to the judge's moral ascendancy over them as their former professor.
• Meling considered the three cases, which arose from a single incident involving the same parties, as "closed and terminated" despite their pending status before the MTCC.
• Meling denied the charges and argued that the acts complained of do not involve moral turpitude.
• Regarding the use of the title "Attorney," Meling admitted that some communications contained the appellation but claimed they were typed by the office clerk, implying lack of intent to misrepresent.

• Procedural: Whether the petition to disqualify Meling from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys has become moot and academic in view of his failure in the 2003 Bar Examinations; and whether the prayer for disciplinary action as a member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar is ripe for resolution.
• Substantive Issues: Whether Meling's concealment of pending criminal cases in his bar application constitutes lack of good moral character warranting disciplinary sanctions; whether Meling's use of the title "Attorney" despite not being a member of the Philippine Bar constitutes a violation warranting sanctions; and whether a member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar who is not a member of the Philippine Bar is entitled to use the title "Attorney."

• Procedural: The Court dismissed the prayer seeking to prevent Meling from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as moot and academic because Meling failed the 2003 Bar Examinations. However, the Court held that the prayer for disciplinary action as a member of the Shari'a Bar was ripe for resolution and granted.
• Substantive: The Court held that Meling's deliberate concealment of three pending criminal cases in his bar application, made under oath, constitutes dishonesty and demonstrates lack of the requisite good moral character for the practice of law, resulting in forfeiture of the privilege as a Shari'a Bar member. The Court further held that Meling's use of the title "Attorney" knowing he was not entitled thereto, and his status as a Shari'a Bar member (not a Philippine Bar member), precludes him from using such title, which is reserved only for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court suspended Meling's membership in the Philippine Shari'a Bar until further orders, effective immediately.

• Good Moral Character Requirement — Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation or public opinion, and includes at least common honesty; it is a continuing requirement for both admission to and retention in the practice of law.
• Concealment as Dishonesty — The non-disclosure or concealment of pending criminal cases in a bar application constitutes dishonesty and lack of good moral character, regardless of whether the underlying cases involve moral turpitude or are ultimately proven unwarranted.
• Unauthorized Use of Title "Attorney" — Only 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 are entitled to use the title "Attorney" and practice law; members of the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar and may only practice before Shari'a courts.
• Public Office as Public Trust — Officers of the court must possess honesty and integrity to maintain public faith in the judiciary; anything short of this standard constitutes infidelity to the constitutional tenet that public office is a public trust.

• "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."
• "The judiciary has no place for dishonest officers of the court, such as Meling in this case. The solemn task of administering justice demands that those who are privileged to be part of service therein, from the highest official to the lowliest employee, must not only be competent and dedicated, but likewise live and practice the virtues of honesty and integrity."
• "Persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence, may only practice law before Shari'a courts... 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."

• Bar Matter 1209 — Cited for the definition of good moral character and the rule that unauthorized use of the appellation "attorney" may render a person liable for indirect contempt; also cited regarding suppression of material facts in bar applications.
• Alawi v. Alauya — Distinguished the status of Shari'a Bar members from Philippine Bar members; held that only members of the Philippine Bar are entitled to use the title "Attorney."
• Leda v. Tabang — Cited for the principle that continued possession of good moral character is essential for remaining in the practice of law; respondent therein was suspended for concealing marriage in bar application.
• Tan v. Sabandal — Cited for the principle that practice of law is a privilege bestowed only upon those learned in law and possessing good moral character.
• In Re: Victorio D. Lanuevo — Cited regarding the disclosure requirement imposed to determine satisfactory evidence of good moral character.

• Rule 7.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
• Section 3, Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court — Cited regarding indirect contempt for unauthorized assumption of the title "Attorney."