In Re Rusiana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana was disbarred on May 29, 1959, for committing acts of misconduct as a notary public and exhibiting conduct unworthy of a member of the legal profession. Procedural History: Since his disbarment, respondent has filed intermittent petitions for re-admission, supported by various testimonials and resolutions from members of the Bench, Bar, labor unions, and civic organizations attesting to his good conduct and moral character. Earlier petitions were denied. The Petition: On June 13, 1972, respondent filed a verified petition for reinstatement, submitting proofs of honesty, integrity, and good moral character, including clearances from various courts and law enforcement agencies, and testimonials from legal professionals and civic leaders. After a hearing, the Court issued a resolution on July 20, 1972, requiring respondent to enroll in and pass regular fourth-year review classes in a recognized law school as a condition for readmission, to guarantee his ability to render adequate service given the changes in law since 1959. Respondent has since complied with this requirement, submitting sworn certificates from professors and confirmations from the law school's Registrar and Dean.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana has sufficiently demonstrated rehabilitation and is fit to be readmitted to the Philippine Bar. Whether respondent has complied with the conditions set by the Court for his reinstatement.
Ruling
The Court resolved to allow respondent Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana to take anew the lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys after paying the requisite fees, thereby granting his petition for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana has sufficiently demonstrated rehabilitation and is fit to be readmitted to the Philippine Bar: The Court's sole objective in considering a disbarred lawyer's application for reinstatement is to determine if the applicant has provided positive evidence of successful character rehabilitation. This involves assessing whether the effort made towards rehabilitation has been successful, making the applicant worthy of re-admission to a profession that is intrinsically an office of trust. The respondent had submitted numerous certifications and resolutions attesting to his good conduct and moral character since his disbarment thirteen years prior, indicating repentance for his past offense. The Court considered that he had undergone adequate punishment and could be reasonably expected to scrupulously observe the Canons of Legal Ethics in the future. On Whether respondent has complied with the conditions set by the Court for his reinstatement: The Court had previously set a condition for reinstatement: that the respondent enroll in and pass regular fourth-year review classes in a recognized law school, and submit sworn certificates from professors attesting to his regular attendance and passing of subjects under the same conditions as ordinary students. This condition was imposed to ensure his ability to render adequate service, given the numerous changes in the law since his disbarment in 1959. The respondent has fully complied with this requirement, as evidenced by the sworn certificates from his professors and the confirmations from the Registrar and Dean of the Gullas Law School, University of the Visayas.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court's primary objective when considering a petition for reinstatement by a disbarred lawyer is to determine, through positive evidence, whether the applicant has successfully rehabilitated their character and is worthy of being readmitted to the legal profession. This involves assessing their conduct since disbarment and ensuring they can uphold the ethical standards required of attorneys. In this instance, the Court also imposed a condition of further legal study to ensure continued competence.