Yap Tan vs. Sabandal

The Court has sound discretion in admitting applicants to the Philippine Bar, and an applicant who has shown contrition and willingness to reform after a sufficient lapse of time may be allowed to take the lawyer's oath notwithstanding a prior denial for unauthorized practice of law, provided the applicant satisfies the Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law.

Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal is a bar examinee who passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyers oath because of pending administrative complaints filed against him. The complainants — Eufrosina Y. Tan, Benjamin Cabigon, Cornelio Agnis, and Diomedes D. Agnis — opposed his petition for admission to the Philippine Bar on several grounds, including unauthorized practice of law. Admission to the Philippine Bar requires both passing the bar examinations and taking the lawyers oath, and rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court.

Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but, because of pending administrative complaints filed against him, was not allowed to take the lawyers oath. He filed a Petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Rollo of Attorneys. The complainants — Eufrosina Y. Tan, Benjamin Cabigon, Cornelio Agnis, and Diomedes D. Agnis — opposed the Petition on several grounds.

In a Resolution of the Court en banc promulgated on 29 November 1983, the respondent's petition was denied, the Court finding that the evidence supported the charge of unauthorized practice of law. While the respondent's infraction may have been mitigated in that he appeared for his in-laws in CAR Cases Nos. 347 and 326 where they were parties, it was clear from the proceedings in CAR Case No. 347 that he clarified his position only after the opposing counsel had objected to his appearance. He specifically manifested "Atty. Nicolas Sabandal, appearing for the defendants, Your Honor" (Exhibit "A-l"), calling himself "attorney" knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar. The oppositors' evidence sufficiently showed that the respondent had held himself out as an "attorney" in the agrarian, civil, and criminal cases mentioned. The Court noted that the respondent could not shift the blame to the stenographer, for he could have easily asked for rectification. The oppositors had also presented evidence of proceedings wherein witnesses testified as to the respondent's being their lawyer and their compensating him for his services (Exhibits "D-8" and "D-9"). The Court acknowledged that in a municipal court, even non-lawyers may appear under Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, but the respondent had instead held himself out as a lawyer and even wrote to the Station Commander of Roxas complaining of harassment to "our clients." His argument that the term "client" means "dependent or person under the protection of another and not a person who engages in the profession" was characterized as "puerile."

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on 23 January 1984, opposed by the complainants, who stated that the "span of time was so short to determine with sufficient definiteness whether or not respondent has reformed" and that "the testimonials are self-serving obviously prepared by respondent himself and had them signed by the signatories who could not refuse him." The Court denied reconsideration on 8 May 1984. On 23 May 1985, the respondent filed an Ex-parte Motion for Reconsideration reiterating his prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath, which was again opposed and denied on 16 July 1985, with the Court stating that no other Motions of this kind would be entertained. Undaunted, on 2 December 1985, the respondent filed another Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal for Mercy and Forgiveness, which the Court simply NOTED in its Resolution of 7 January 1986. In a letter dated 4 December 1986, the respondent's children echoed his appeal to the Court, which was noted without action on 7 July 1987.

On 28 June 1988, the respondent filed a second Petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. The complainants were required to comment but have not done so to date. In a letter dated 23 November 1988 addressed to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices, the respondent asked for forgiveness, understanding, and benevolence, and promised that, if given a chance to be a member of the Philippine Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer's oath and conduct himself in an upright manner. He also submitted several testimonials, including one from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness.

• Reformation: The complainants argued that the "span of time was so short to determine with sufficient definiteness whether or not respondent has reformed."
• Testimonials: The complainants argued that the testimonials were "self-serving obviously prepared by respondent himself and had them signed by the signatories who could not refuse him."

• Mitigation: The respondent argued that his infraction was mitigated in that he appeared for his in-laws in CAR Cases Nos. 347 and 326 where they were parties.
• Meaning of "Client": The respondent argued that the term "client" means "dependent or person under the protection of another and not a person who engages in the profession."
• Mercy and Forgiveness: The respondent asked for forgiveness, understanding, and benevolence, and promised that, if given a chance to be a member of the Philippine Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer's oath and conduct himself in an upright manner.

• Admission to the Bar: Whether respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal should be allowed to take the lawyer's oath and be admitted to the Philippine Bar despite his prior unauthorized practice of law.

• Admission to the Bar: Yes. The Court allowed the respondent to take the lawyer's oath, finding that after the lapse of ten years from the time he passed the 1978 Bar Examination, he had shown contrition and willingness to reform, and had submitted testimonials attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness.

• Admission to the Bar: Whether or not the respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law. The Court applied the criteria for reinstatement to the legal profession: (1) the person appreciates the insignificance of his dereliction and assures the Court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law; (2) the time that has elapsed between disbarment and the application for reinstatement; (3) his good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent to his disbarment; (4) his active involvement in civic, educational, and religious organizations; (5) the favorable indorsement of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local government officials and citizens of his community; and (6) the pleas of his mother and wife for the sake and the future of his family. The Court found these criteria applicable to the respondent's case. After the lapse of ten years from the time the respondent took and passed the 1978 Bar Examination, he has shown contrition and willingness to reform. He also submitted several testimonials, including one from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness. Accordingly, the Court allowed him to take the lawyer's oath, binding him to his assurance that he shall strictly abide by and adhere to the language, meaning and spirit of the Lawyer's Oath and the highest standards of the legal profession.

• Criteria for Reinstatement to the Legal Profession — The Court enumerated the following criteria for reinstatement: (1) the person appreciates the insignificance of his dereliction and assures the Court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law; (2) the time that has elapsed between disbarment and the application for reinstatement; (3) his good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent to his disbarment; (4) his active involvement in civic, educational, and religious organizations; (5) the favorable indorsement of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local government officials and citizens of his community; and (6) the pleas of his mother and wife for the sake and the future of his family. The Court applied these criteria to the respondent's case, finding that after the lapse of ten years from the time he passed the 1978 Bar Examination, he had shown contrition and willingness to reform, and had submitted testimonials including one from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness.

• "Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law." — This states the controlling principle for bar admission, emphasizing the Court's discretionary authority and the moral character requirement.
• "After the lapse of ten (10) years from the time respondent took and passed the 1978 Bar Examination, he has shown contrition and willingness to reform." — This is the key finding that led to the Court's decision to allow the respondent to take the lawyer's oath.
• "He has also submitted several testimonials, including one from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness." — This supports the Court's finding of reformation and good moral character.
• "ACCORDINGLY, respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal is hereby allowed to take the lawyer's oath, with the Court binding him to his assurance that he shall strictly abide by and adhere to the language, meaning and spirit of the Lawyer's Oath and the highest standards of the legal profession." — This is the dispositive portion of the resolution, granting the respondent's petition with a binding condition.

• Magat vs. Santiago, L-43301-45665, April 1, 1980, 97 SCRA 1 — Cited for the criterion that the person appreciates the insignificance of his dereliction and assures the Court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law.
• In Re: Juan T. Publico, 102 SCRA 721 (1981) — Cited for the criteria of time elapsed between disbarment and application for reinstatement, good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent to disbarment, and active involvement in civic, educational, and religious organizations.
• In Re: Quinciano D. Vailoces, Adm. Case No. 439, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 1 — Cited for the criterion of favorable indorsement of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local government officials and citizens of the community.
• Andres vs. Cabrera, SBC-585, February 29, 1984, 127 SCRA 802 — Cited for the criterion of pleas of the mother and wife for the sake and the future of the family.

• Section 34, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Allows non-lawyers to appear in municipal courts. The Court noted in the 1983 resolution that if the respondent had so manifested his non-lawyer status, no one could have challenged him, but he instead held himself out as a lawyer.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concurred.