Re: Purisima
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mark Anthony A. Purisima was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Examinations, with the requirement to submit a certification of completion of a pre-bar review course within sixty (60) days. Procedural History: Purisima passed the examinations but was later disqualified by the Court on April 13, 2000, for failing to submit the required certificate and for making it appear in his petition that he took his pre-bar review course at the Philippine Law School (PLS) when PLS had not offered such a course since 1967. His motion for reconsideration was denied. His father, retired Judge Amante P. Purisima, filed a petition to reopen the matter, which the Court noted without action. Purisima then filed a Motion for Due Process on July 2, 2002, explaining the discrepancy in the pre-bar review course location. The Petition: Purisima argued that stating PLS instead of the University of Santo Tomas (UST) in his petition was a "self-evident clerical error and a mere result of an oversight." He claimed his schoolmate, Ms. Lilian A. Felipe, filled up the form and he did not have the opportunity to check its veracity due to his bar exam preparations. He also explained that he did not submit the post-examination certification because he believed the certification issued by UST Dean Amado L. Damayuga, attesting to his enrollment and completion, was sufficient. He presented numerous documents and affidavits to corroborate his attendance and completion of the review course at UST.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Mark Anthony A. Purisima should be allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath despite the misstatement in his petition regarding the pre-bar review course and the failure to submit the required certification within the prescribed period. Whether the misstatement in the petition regarding the pre-bar review course was a deliberate act of dishonesty or a mere clerical error. Whether the certification of completion issued by the UST Dean was sufficient compliance with the requirement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the prayer in Bar Matters Nos. 979 and 986, allowing examinee Mark Anthony A. Purisima, who passed the 1999 Bar Examinations, to take the Lawyer's Oath and be admitted to the Philippine Bar upon payment of the required fees. He was also allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court allowed petitioner Mark Anthony A. Purisima to take the Lawyer's Oath. The Court considered his explanation, fortified by "unquestionably genuine documents," and gave him the benefit of the doubt. The Court noted that his father pleaded that the three years of denial of his son's request for oath-taking should be sufficient penalty. The Court also cited previous cases where similar leniency was extended to other examinees who failed to submit the required certification within the prescribed period, such as Josenio Marquez Reoma, Ma. Salvacion Sucgang Revilla, and Victor Estell Tesorero, and even Victor Rey T. Gingoyon who had a conviction for Grave Threats that was not disclosed. The Court stated, "It is time to move on." On Issue 2: The Court found that the misstatement in the petition regarding the pre-bar review course was a "self-evident clerical error and a mere result of an oversight." Petitioner explained that his schoolmate, Ms. Lilian A. Felipe, filled up the form for him, and he did not have the opportunity to check its veracity due to his intense preparation for the bar examinations. The Court found this explanation credible, especially when corroborated by documentary evidence showing his actual enrollment and completion of the course at UST. The Court stressed that there was "nothing on record which impugns the authenticity of the subject Certification as well as that of the other documentary evidence proferred by petitioner." On Issue 3: The Court found the petitioner's explanation for not submitting the required certification within sixty days to be "impressed with truth." Petitioner argued that it was unnecessary to submit another certification because the July 22, 1999 Certification from Dean Dimayuga already attested to his enrollment and completion of the pre-bar review course at UST. While acknowledging that the certification might have been "defective" for certifying completion of an ongoing course, the Court noted that this defect should not be attributed to the petitioner, as he had no participation in its preparation. The Court emphasized that the certification from UST appeared genuine and was supported by other evidence.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in its discretion, may allow a candidate who has passed the Bar examinations to take the lawyer's oath despite procedural missteps in their application, such as misstatements or failure to submit required documents, if the candidate provides a credible explanation, supported by substantial evidence, and has already undergone a period of deprivation of the privilege. This approach emphasizes compassion and fairness, particularly when the misstep appears to be an oversight rather than deliberate dishonesty, and when other candidates in similar situations have been granted similar relief.