Rovero v. Rovero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Atty. Tranquilino Rovero was disbarred on October 24, 1952, after being found guilty of violating Section 2703 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended (Smuggling), and sentenced to pay a fine of P2,500.00. Procedural History: The respondent filed a petition for reinstatement on July 7, 1956, claiming untold misery and mental anguish due to disbarment, and asserting that he had been granted an absolute and unconditional pardon for his crime, restoring his civil and political rights. This petition was denied. A second petition was filed on March 10, 1958, which was also denied. The respondent, now 71 years old, filed a third petition for reinstatement. The Petition: The respondent seeks reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys, emphasizing his advanced age and his desire to practice law again.
Issue(s)
Is Atty. Tranquilino Rovero qualified for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys?
Ruling
The Court granted the petition for reinstatement. The order of disbarment was lifted, and Atty. Tranquilino Rovero was reinstated to the legal profession and restored to the practice of law. The Clerk of Court was directed to return his lawyer's diploma, certificate of admission to the Bar, and any other related certificates.
Ratio Decidendi
On Is Atty. Tranquilino Rovero qualified for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys? The Supreme Court held that to be reinstated to the practice of law, a respondent must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, making him a fit and proper individual to practice law, consistent with the precedent set in Cui vs. Cui. In the present case, the Court found that since his disbarment in 1952, respondent Tranquilino Rovero had honorably dealt with his fellow citizens and demonstrated significant moral rehabilitation and reformation, thereby proving his fitness to re-engage in the practice of law. His extensive involvement in civic and educational organizations, coupled with his tenure in high positions of trust in commercial establishments and positive testimonials from community figures, served as strong evidence of his reformed character. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the late President Ramon Magsaysay had granted him an absolute and unconditional pardon for his crime, which, as held in In re Marcelino Lontok and reiterated in In re Atty. Saturnino Parcasio and In re Gregorio D. Yaranon, not only blots out the crime but also removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction. An absolute pardon releases the punishment and blots out the existence of guilt, effectively making the offender as innocent as if the crime had never been committed, and restoring them to all civil rights. Considering that more than 28 years had passed since his disbarment, the Court concluded that Rovero had been sufficiently punished and disciplined, as supported by Royo vs. Oliva, thus warranting his reinstatement.
Main Doctrine
An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed but also removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction, restoring the offender to all civil rights and making him, in the eye of the law, as innocent as if he had never committed the crime. This restoration of rights includes the right to practice law, provided the applicant demonstrates good moral character and fitness to re-enter the legal profession.