Tan v. Sabandal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyers oath due to pending administrative complaints. Complainants Eufrosina Y. Tan, Benjamin Cabigon, Cornelio Agnis, and Diomedes D. Agnis opposed his petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to sign the Rollo of Attorneys. Procedural History: In a Resolution dated November 29, 1983, the Court denied respondent's petition, finding evidence of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 8, 1984. A subsequent ex-parte motion for reconsideration was denied on July 16, 1985, with a warning that no further motions of that kind would be entertained. The Court noted without action a motion for reconsideration and appeal for mercy filed on December 2, 1985, and a letter from respondent's children on December 4, 1986. On June 28, 1988, respondent filed a second petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath, to which complainants have not yet commented. The Petition: Respondent filed a second Petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath, reiterating his prayer for admission to the Philippine Bar and to sign the Rollo of Attorneys.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal should be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. Whether respondent has demonstrated good moral character and fitness to practice law.
Ruling
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.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal should be allowed to take the lawyer's oath: The Court, in its sound discretion, may admit an applicant to the Philippine Bar if they satisfy the Court of their good moral character and fitness to practice law. In this case, after the lapse of ten (10) years from passing the Bar Examinations, respondent has shown contrition and a willingness to reform. He has submitted several testimonials, including one from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness. These factors, considered alongside the criteria used in previous reinstatement cases, support the granting of his petition. The Court emphasized that admission to the Bar is a privilege that requires a demonstration of probity and integrity. The respondent's repeated petitions and eventual submission of favorable endorsements indicate a sustained effort to prove his worthiness. The Court's decision hinges on its assessment of his present character and commitment to the legal profession's standards. On whether respondent has demonstrated good moral character and fitness to practice law: The Court found that respondent has demonstrated sufficient contrition and a willingness to reform over the ten-year period since passing the Bar Examinations. The submission of testimonials from various entities, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Zamboanga del Norte chapter, attests to his good moral character and civic consciousness. These endorsements, coupled with the respondent's own assurances in his letters to the Court, satisfy the requirement of demonstrating fitness to practice law. The Court noted that in previous cases of reinstatement, similar criteria such as appreciation of dereliction, assurance of probity, time elapsed, good conduct, and community involvement were considered. Respondent's consistent efforts and the favorable indorsements suggest a positive transformation and a commitment to uphold the lawyer's oath and the highest standards of the legal profession.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may allow an applicant to take the lawyer's oath if, after considering the time elapsed, the applicant shows contrition, willingness to reform, good conduct, honorable dealings, and favorable testimonials, thereby satisfying the Court of his good moral character and fitness to practice law.