[Legprof] Bar Matters

7/26/2019 [Legprof] Bar Matters

1/15

B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in

the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court).

The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of

Rule 138, to wit:

SEC. 5.Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. All applicants for

admission other than those referred to in the two preceding sections shall, beforebeing admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have successfullycompleted all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its

equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially recognized by the

Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the f oreign jurisdiction

where the degree has been granted.

No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be

admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed the

following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the government:

civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private

international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,

taxation and legal ethics.

A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to thebar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications

showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or

its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the

proper authority; and (c) completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor

of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine

Government.

SEC. 6.Pre-Law. An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present

a certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing thestudy of law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorizedand recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the

completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed

therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.

A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree

or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having completed a

separate bachelor's degree course.

The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, is hereby directed to

CIRCULARIZE this resolution among all law schools in the country."

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

N O T I C E

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 8,

2011,which reads as follows:

"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for

Improving the Conduct of the Bar Examinations). - The Court Resolved to NOTE

the Letter dated January 28, 2011 of Justice Roberto A. Abad re: Amendment to

Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (Annual Examination), incident to the

implementation of B.M. No. 2265 (Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations).

The Court further Resolved toAPPROVEthe Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138

of the Rules of Court, to wit:

"Section 11. Annual examination. - Examinations for admission to the bar of the

Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in

four days to be designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners.The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International

Law, and Labor and Social Legislation (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Second

day: Civil Law (morning) and Mercantile Law (afternoon); Third day: Remedial

Law, and Legal Ethics and Forums (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon);

Fourth day: Trial Memorandum (morning) and Legal Opinion (afternoon)".

(adv107)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

Clerk of Court

Honorable Roberto A. Abad (x)

Associate Justice and Chairperson

2011 Committee on Bar Examinations

Supreme Court

Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa (x)

Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant

Supreme Court


2/15

BAR MATTER No. 1161

RE: PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE BAR EXAMINATIONS

RESOLUTION

ON

REFORM IN THE BAR EXAMINANTIONS

WHEREAS, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning

the admission to the practice of law, the Supreme Court en bancitem in its

Resolution of 21 March 2000, created a "Special Study Group on Bar ExaminationReforms" to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar

Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the

law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools";

WHEREAS, the Special Study Group, with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA)

Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retiredJustice Jose Y. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted

to the Supreme Court its Final Report, dated 18 September 2000, containing its

findings and recommendations;

WHEREAS, on 21 August 2001, the Supreme Court en bancreferred, for further

study, report and recommendation, the Final Report of the Special Study Group to

the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM) headed by Justice

Jose C. Vitug;

WHEREAS, in connection with the discussion on the proposed reforms in the bar

examinations, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, then a Member of the CLEBM, submitted

a Paper, entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination"with a

Primer, proposing structural and administrative reforms, changes in the designand construction of questions, and the methodological reforms concerning the

marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination;

WHEREAS, proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine

Association of Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the

University of the Philippines College of Law, Arellano Law Foundation, the

Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association and other

prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar;

WHEREAS, considering her Memorandum to the Chief Justice on "Proposed

Technical Assistance Project on Legal Education," dated 27 February 2003,

Program Director Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum of the Program Management Office(PMO) was invited to a meeting of the CLEBM;

WHEREAS, under the auspices of the PMO, the CLEBM conducted fur (4) regional

round-table discussions with the law deans, professors, the students and members

of the Integrated Bar of he Philippines for (a) the National Capital Region, at

Manila Diamond Hotel on 19 November 2003; (b) Mindanao, at the Grand RegalHotel Davao City on 23 January 2004; (c) the Visayas, at the Montebello Hotel in

Cebu City on January 2004; and (d) Luzon, at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Manila on 6

February 2004.

WHEREAS, in a Special Meeting of the CLEBM at the Pan Pacific Hotel on 23 April2004, the Committee heard the views of Ms. Erica Moeser, the Chief Executive

Officer and President of the National Conference of Board Examiners in the United

States of America on a number of proposed bar reforms;

WHEREAS, the CLEBM, after extensive deliberation and consultation, has arived at

certain recommendations for consideration by the Supreme Court and submitted

its report , dated 21 May 2004, to the Court en banc;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, sitting en banc, hereby RESOLVESto approve and

adopt the following Bar Examination Reforms:

A.

For implementation within one (1) up to two (2) years:

1.

Initial determination by the Chairman of admission to the bar

examinations of candidates (on the merits of the each case) to bepassed upon by the Court en banc.

2.

Submission by law deans of a certification that a candidate has no

derogatory record in school and, if any, the details and status

thereof.

3.

Disqualification of a candidate after failing in three(3)

examinations, provided, that he may take a fourth and fifth

examination if he successful completes a one (1) year refreshercourse for each examination; provided, further, that upon the

effectivity of this Resolution, those who have already failed infive(5) or more bar examinations shall be allowed to take only

one (1) more bar examination after copleting (1) year refresher

course.

4. Promulgation of disciplinary measures for those involved in (a)attempts to violate or vitiate the integrity and confidentiality of

the bar examination process; (b) improper conduct during the

bar examination; and (c) improper conduct of "bar

examinations."

5.

Disqualification of a Bar Examination Chairperson:

a.

kinship with an examinee who if his or her spouse or

relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity;


3/15

b.

having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee,

or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an

examinee; and

c. being a member of the governing board, faculty oradministration of a law school.

6.

Desirable qualifications of Examiners:

a.

membership in good standing in the Philippine Bar;

b.

competence in the assigned subject;

c.

a teacher of the subject or familiarity with the principlesof test construction; and

d.

commitment to check test papers personally and

promptly pending the creation and organization of the

readership panels provided for in item B(6) below

7.

Disqualifications of Examiners:

a.

kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or

relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or

affinity;b.

having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee;

or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an

examinee;

c.

being a member of the governing board, faculty oradministration of a law school

d.

teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or

review center during the particular semester followingthe bar examinations;

e.

having any interest or involvement in any law school, bar

review center or group; and

f.

suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the

imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction.

8.

Personal preparation, by handwriting or using a typewriter, offifty (50) main questions, excluding subdivisions, and their

submission to the Chairperson in sealed envelope at least forty-

five (45) days before the schedule examination on any particularsubject; examiners should not use computers in preparing

questions;

9. Apportionment of examination questions among the various

topics covered by the subject;10.

Burning and shredding of rough drafts and carbon papers used in

the preparation of questions or in any other act connected with

such preparation;

11.

Publication of names candidates admitted to take the bar

examinations;

12.

Disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade below 50% inany subject;

13.

Fixing at June 30 of the immediately preceding year as the cut-off

date for laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be

included in the bar examinations; and

14. Consideration of suggested answers to bar examinationsquestions prepared by the U.P. Law Center and submitted to the

Chairperson.

B.

For implementation within two (2) years up to five (5) years:

1.

Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40%

of the total number of questions;2.

Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as partof the calibration of test papers;

3.

Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and

improving the essay examination;1awphil.net

4.

Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on the

number of examinees ;

5.

Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent

Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson;6.

Creation and organization of readership panels for each subject

area to address the issue of bias or subjectivity and facilitate the

formulation of test questions and the correction of examination

booklets; and7.

Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay

questions to correct variations in the level of test

standards.1awph!l.tC.

For implementation within five(5) years and beyond is the further

computerization or automation of the bar examinations to facilitate

application, testing, and reporting procedures.

D.

Items not covered by this resolution, such as those that pertain to a

possible review of the coverage and relative weights of the subjects

of the bar examinations, are maintained.E.

For referral to the Legal education Boards:

1.

Accreditation and supervision of law schools.

2.

Inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in the lawcurriculum, including an apprenticeship program in the Judiciary,

prosecution service, and law offices.

3. Imposition of sanctions on law schools that fai l to meet the

standards as may be prescribed by the Legal Education Board.

4. Mandatory Law School Admission Test.

This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of July 2004, and shall be

published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Promulgated this 8th day of June 2004.


4/15


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

N O T I C E

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 18,

2011, which reads as follows:

"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations [Letter of Justice

Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for Improving the Conduct of the Bar

Examinations]. Acting on the Letter dated January 10, 2011 of Associate Justice

Roberto A. Abad, proposing to move the 2011 Bar Examinations from September

to November, the Court Resolved to NOTE the said Letter and GRANT the proposal

of Justice Abad to MOVE the 2011 Bar Examinations from September to November.

The Court further Resolved to

(a) NOTE the Letter dated September 2, 2010 of Justice Antonio Eduardo

B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters,

recommending the final approval by the Court En Banc of the proposed

changes for improving the conduct of the bar examinations by JusticeAbad, inasmuch as the Court En Banc had provisionally approved the

proposals

(b) APPROVE the Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations, hereto attached

as Annex "A"; and

(c) NOTE Resolution No. 12-991-2010 dated October 1, 2010 of theSangguniang Panlungsod ng Cebu, Cebu City Hall, praying anew that the

Supreme Court, through the Bar Committee will extend the venue of the

Bar Examinations to Cebu City, and hold simultaneous annual

examinations in Manila and Cebu City." (adv14)

Very truly yours,

ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

Clerk of Court


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

B.M. No. 2265

RE: REFORMS IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS

Preliminary Statement

The Court has found merit in the proposed changes in the conduct of the

bar examinations that the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar Examinations and

Philippine Association of Law Schools recommended.One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the

annual bar examinations that in the past consisted merely of naming the

laws that each subject covered. This description has been regarded as too

general and provides no specific understanding of the entry-level legalknowledge required of beginning law practitioners.

A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar

examinations that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of

laws, doctrines, principles, and precedents, it has been noted that such

examinations are unable to hit a significant cross-section of the subjectmatter. Further, the huge number of candidates taking the examinations

annually and the limited time available for correcting the answers makefair correction of purely essay-type examinations difficult to attain.

Besides, the use of multiple choice questions, properly and carefully

constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying professionals all over the

world because of its proven reliability and facility of correction.A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type examinations

but dedicating these to the assessment of the requisite communication

skills, creativity, and fine intellect that bar candidates need for the practice

of law.

Approved ChangesThe Court has previously approved in principle the above recommended

changes. It now resolves to approve the following rules that shall govern

the future conduct of the bar examinations:

1. The coverage of the bar examinations shall be drawn up by topics andsub-topics rather than by just stating the covered laws. The test for

including a topic or sub-topic in the coverage of the examinations is

whether it covers laws, doctrines, principles and rulings that a new

lawyer needs to know to begin a reasonably prudent and competent law

practice.


5/15

The coverage shall be approved by the Chairperson of the Bar

Examination in consultation with the academe, subject to annual review

and re-approval by subsequent Chairpersons.

2. The bar examinations shall measure the candidates knowledge of the

law and its applications through multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) that

are to be so constructed as to specifically:

2.1. Measure the candidates knowledge of and ability to recall thelaws, doctrines, and principles that every new lawyer needs in his

practice;

2.2. Assess the candidates understanding of the meaning andsignificance of those same laws, doctrines, and principles as they

apply to specific situations; and

2.3. Measure his ability to analyze legal problems, apply thecorrect law or principle to such problems, and provide solutions

to them.

3. The results of the MCQ examinations shall, if feasible, be corrected

electronically.

4. The results of the MCQ examinations in each bar subject shall be given

the following weights:

Political Law 15%

Labor Law 10%

Civil Law 15%

Taxation 10%

Mercantile Law 15%

Criminal Law 10%

Remedial Law 20%

Legal Ethics/Forms 5%

5. Part of the bar examinations shall be of the essay-type, dedicated to

measuring the candidates skills in writing in English, sorting out therelevant facts in a legal dispute, identifying the issue or issues involved,

organizing his thoughts, constructing his arguments, and persuading his

readers to his point of view. The essays will not be bar subject specific.

5.1. One such essay examination shall require the candidate to

prepare a trial memorandum or a decision based on a

documented legal dispute. (60% of essays)

5.2 Another essay shall require him to prepare a written opinion

sought by a client concerning a potential legal dispute facing him.(40% of essays)

6. The essays shall not be graded for technically right or wrong aswers,

but for the quality of the candidates legal advocacy. The passing standardfor correction shall be work expected of a beginning practitioner, not a

seasoned lawyer.

7. The examiners in a ll eight bar subjects shall, apart from preparing theMCQs for their respective subjects, be divided into two panels of four

members each. One panel will grade the memorandum or decision essay

while the other will grade the legal opinion essay. Each member shall readand grade the examination answer of a bar candidate independently of the

other members in his panel. The final grade of a candidate for each essay

shall be the average of the grades given by the four members of the panel

for that essay.

8. The results of the a) MCQ and b) essay-type examinations shall be givenweights of 60% and 40%, respectively, in the computation of the

candidates final grade.

9. For want of historical data needed for computing the passing grade in

MCQ kind of examinations, the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar

Examinations shall, with the assistance of experts in computing MCQexamination grades, recommend to the Court the appropriate conversion

table or standard that it might adopt for arriving at a reasonable passing

grade for MCQs in bar examinations.

10. In the interest of establishing needed data, the answers of all

candidates in the essay-type examinations in the year 2011 shall be

corrected irrespective of the results of their MCQ examinations, which are

sooner known because they are electronically corrected. In future bar

examinations, however, the Bar Chairperson shall recommend to the

Court the disqualification of those whose grades in the MCQ are so low


6/15

that it would serve no useful purpose to correct their answers in the

essay-type examinations.

11. Using the data and experience obtained from the 2011 Bar

Examinations, future Chairpersons of Bar Examination are directed to

study the feasibility of:

11.1. Holding in the interest of convenience and economy bar

examinations simultaneously in Luzon, the Visayas, andMindanao; and

11.2. Allowing those who pass the MCQ examinations but fail the

essay-type examinations to take removal examinations in the

immediately following year.

12. All existing rules, regulations, and instructions that are inconsistent

with the above are repealed.

This Bar Matter shall take effect immediately, and shall be published in two

newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

January 18, 2011.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice


7/15

EN BANC

RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS B.M. No. 1222

x ---------------------------------------- x

ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN,Petitioner,

April 24, 2009x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:

This treats the Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated

November 10, 2008 filed by petitioner Danilo de Guzman. He prays that this

Honorable Court in the exercise of equity and compassion, grant petitioners plea

for judicial clemency, and thereupon, order his reinstatement as a member in good

standing of the Philippine Bar.1[1]

To recall, on February 4, 2004, the Court promulgated a Resolution, in

B.M. No. 1222, the dispositive portion of which reads in part:

WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of the Investigating

Committee, hereby resolves to

(1) DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of law effective upon

his receipt of this RESOLUTION;

x x x x

The subject of the Resolution is the leakage of questions in Mercantile Law during

the 2003 Bar Examinations. Petitioner at that time was employed as an assistant

lawyer in the law firm of Balgos & Perez, one of whose partners, Marcial Balgos,

was the examiner for Mercantile Law during the said bar examinations. The Court

had adopted the findings of the Investigating Committee, which identified

petitioner as the person who had downloaded the test questions from the

computer of Balgos and faxed them to other persons.

The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) has favorably recommended the

reinstatement of petitioner in the Philippine Bar. In a Report dated January 6,

2009, the OBC rendered its assessment of the petition, the relevant portions of

which we quote hereunder:

Petitioner narrated that he had labored to become a lawyer to fulfill his fathers

childhood dream to become one. This task was not particularly easy for him and

his family but he willed to endure the same in order to pay tribute to his parents.

Petitioner added that even at a very young age, he already imposed upon himself

the duty of rendering service to his fellowmen. At 19 years, he started his exposure

to public service when he was elected Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)

of Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig City. During this time, he initiated several projects

benefiting the youth in their barangay.

Thereafter, petitioner focused on his studies, taking up Bachelor of Arts in Political

Science and eventually pursuing Bachelor of Laws. In his second year in law

school, he was elected as the President of the Student Council of the Institute of

Law of the Far Eastern University (FEU). Here, he spearheaded various activities

including the conduct of seminars for law students as well as the holding of bar

operations for bar examinees.


8/15

Despite his many extra-curricular activities as a youth and student leader,

petitioner still managed to excel in his studies. Thus, he was conferred an

Academic Excellence Award upon his graduation in Bachelor of Laws.

Upon admission to the bar in April 1999, petitioner immediately entered

government service as a Legal Officer assigned at the Sangguniang Bayan of

Taguig. Simultaneously, he also rendered free legal services to less fortunate

residents of Taguig City who were then in need of legal assistance.

In March 2000, petitioner was hired as one of the Associate Lawyers at the Balgos

and Perez Law Offices. It was during his stay with this firm when his craft as a

lawyer was polished and developed. Despite having entered private practice, he

continued to render free legal services to his fellow Taguigeos.

Then in February 2004, by a sudden twist of fate, petitioners flourishing career

was cut short as he was stripped of his license to practice law for his alleged

involvement in the leakage in the 2003 Bar Examinations.

Devastated, petitioner then practically locked himself inside his house to avoid the

rather unavoidable consequences of his disbarment.

On March 2004, however, petitioner was given a new lease in life w hen he was

taken as a consultant by the City Government of Taguig. Later, he was designated

as a member of the Secretariat of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). For

the next five (5) years, petitioner concentrated mainly on rendering public service.

Petitioner humbly acknowledged the damaging impact of his act which

unfortunately, compromised the integrity of the bar examinations. As could be

borne from the records of the investigation, he cooperated fully in the

investigation conducted and took personal responsibility for his actions. Also, he

has offered his sincerest apologies to Atty. Balgos, to the Court as well as to all the

2003 bar examinees for the unforeseen and unintended effects of his actions.

Petitioner averred that he has since learned from his mistakes and has taken the

said humbling experience to make him a better person.

Meanwhile, as part of his Petition, petitioner submitted the following testimonials

and endorsements of various individuals and entities all attesting to his good

moral character:

1) Resolution No. 101, Series of 2007, Resolution Expressing Full Support

to Danilo G. De Guzman in his Application for Judicial Clemency, Endorsing his

Competence and Fitness to be Reinstated as a Member of the Philippine Bar and

for Other Purposes dated 4 June 2007 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, City ofTaguig;

2) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-Taasang

Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Southeast Peoples

Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA) kay Danilo G. De Guzman sa

Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-

susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng

Isang Abogado dated 1 June 2007 of the Southeast Peoples Village Homeowners

Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA), Ibayo-Tipas, City of Taguig;


Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahang Residente

ng Mauling Creek, Inc. (SAREMAC) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang

Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa

Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang

Abogado dated 1 June 2007 of the Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc.

(SAREMAC), Lower Bicutan, City of Taguig;


9/15


Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahan ng mga

Maralita (PULONG KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA) kay G.

Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang

Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang

mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado dated 1 June 2007 of the Samahan ng mga

Maralita (PULONG KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA), Sta. Ana,

City of Taguig;

5) An Open Letter Attesting Personally to the Competence and Fitness of

Danilo G. De Guzman as to Warrant the Grant of Judicial Clemency and his

Reinstatement as Member of the Philippine Bar dated 8 June 2007 of Miguelito

Nazareno V. Llantino, Laogan, Trespeses and Llantino Law Offices;

6) Testimonial to the Moral and Spiritual Competence of Danilo G. De

Guzman to be Truly Deserving of Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated 5 July

2007 of Rev. Fr. Paul G. Balagtas, Parish Priest, Archdiocesan Shrine of St. Anne;

7) Testimonial Letter dated 18 February 2008 of Atty. Loreto C. Ata,

President, Far Eastern University Law Alumni Association (FEULAA), Far Eastern

University (FEU);

8) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa Kataas-TaasangHukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahang Bisig

Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (SABISKA) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang

Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa

Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang

Abogado dated 8 July 2008 of the Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc.

(SABISKA);

9) Board Resolution No. 02, Series of 2008, A Resolution Recognizing the

Contributions of Danilo G. De Guzman to the Peoples Law Enforcement Board

(PLEB) Taguig City, Attesting to his Utmost Dedication and Commitment to the Call

of Civic and Social Duty and for Other Purposes dated 11 July 2008 of the Peoples

Law Enforcement Board (PLEB);

10) A Personal Appeal for the Grant of Judicial Forgiveness and Compassion

in Favor of Danilo G. De Guzman dated 14 July 2008 of Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval,

Professor, College of Law, San Sebastian College Recoletos;

11) An Open Letter Personally Attesting to the Moral competence and

Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman dated 5 September 2008 of Mr. Nixon F. Faderog,

Deputy Grand [Kn]ight, Knights of Columbus and President, General Parent-

Teacher Association, Taguig National High School, Lower Bicutan, Taguig City;

12) Testimonial Letter dated 5 September 2008 of Atty. Primitivo C. Cruz,President, Taguig Lawyers League, Inc., Tuktukan, Taguig City;

13) Testimonial Letter dated 21 October 2008 of Judge Hilario L. Laqui,

Presiding Judge, Regional Trail Court (RTC), Branch 218, Quezon City; and

14) Testimonial Letter dated 28 October 2008 of Justice Oscar M. Herrera,

former Justice, Court of Appeals and former Dean, Institute of Law, Far Eastern

University (FEU).

Citing the case of In Re: Carlos S. Basa, petitioner pleaded that he be afforded the

same kindness and compassion in order that, like Atty. Basa, his promising future

may not be perpetually foreclosed. In the said case, the Court had the occasion to

say:


10/15

Carlos S. Basa is a young man about 29 years of age, admitted to the bars of

California and the Philippine Islands. Recently, he was charged in the Court of F irst

Instance of the City of Manila with the crime of abduction with consent, was found

guilty in a decision rendered by the Honorable M.V. De Rosario, Judge of First

Instance, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two years, eleven

months and eleven days of prision correccional. On appeal, this decision was

affirmed in a judgment handed down by the second division of the Supreme Court.

x x x x

When come next, as we must, to determine the exact action which should be taken

by the court, we do so regretfully and reluctantly. On the one hand, the violation of

the criminal law by the respondent attorney cannot be lightly passed over. On the

other hand, we are willing to strain the limits of our compassion to the uttermost

in order that so promising a career may not be utterly ruined.

Petitioner promised to commit himself to be more circumspect in his actions and

solemnly pledged to exert all efforts to atone for his misdeeds.

There may be a reasonable ground to consider the herein Petition.

In the case of Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyers Oath (Bar

Matter 712), which may be applied in the instant case, the Court said:

After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al

Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and

practice the legal profession with the following admonition:

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyers oath, the Court recognizes that Mr.

Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various

certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic

duties and public service.

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts, to atone for the

death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt,

taking judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and

uncalculating.

x x x x

Meanwhile, in the case of Rodolfo M. Bernardo vs. Atty. Ismael F. Mejia

(Administrative Case No. 2984), the Court [in] deciding whether or not toreinstate Atty. Mejia to the practice of law stated:

The Court will take into consideration the applicants character and standing prior

to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he was

disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment and the time that has elapsed

in between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.

Petitioner was barely thirty (30) years old and had only been in the

practice of law for five (5) years when he was disbarred from the practice of law. It

is of no doubt that petitioner had a promising future ahead of him where it not for

the decision of the Court stripping off his license.

Petitioner is also of good moral repute, not only before but likewise, after

his disbarment, as attested to overwhelmingly by his constituents, colleagues as

well as people of known probity in the community and society.


11/15

Way before the petitioner was even admitted to the bar, he had already

manifested his intense desire to render public service as evidenced by his active

involvement and participation in several social and civic projects and activities.

Likewise, even during and after his disbarment, which could be perceived by some

as a debilitating circumstance, petitioner still managed to continue extending his

assistance to others in whatever means possible. This only proves petitioners

strength of character and positive moral fiber.

However, still, it is of no question that petitioners act in copying the

examination questions from Atty. Balgos computer without the latters knowledge

and consent, and which questions later turned out to be the bar examinations

questions in Mercantile Law in the 2003 Bar Examinations, is not at all

commendable. While we do believe that petitioner sincerely did not intend to

cause the damage that his action ensued, still, he must be sanctioned for unduly

compromising the integrity of the bar examinations as well as of this Court.

We are convinced, however, that petitioner has since reformed and has

sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in view of the circumstances and

likewise for humanitarian considerations, the penalty of disbarment may now be

commuted to suspension. Considering the fact, however, that petitioner had

already been disbarred for more than five (5) years, the same may be considered

as proper service of said commuted penalty and thus, may now be allowed to

resume practice of law.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended

that the instant Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated 10 November

2008 of petitioner DANILO G. DE GUZMAN be GRANTED. Petitioners disbarment is

now commuted to suspension, which suspension is considered as served in view

of the petitioners five (5) year disbarment. Hence, petitioner may now be allowed

to resume practice of law.

The recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant is well-taken in part. We

deem petitioner worthy of clemency to the extent of commuting his penalty to

seven (7) years suspension from the practice of law, inclusive of the five (5) years

he has already served his disbarment.

Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct

offenders.2[2] While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring

officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has

already served its purpose.3[3]

In cases where we have deigned to lift or commute the supreme penalty of

disbarment imposed on the lawyer, we have taken into account the remorse of the

disbarred lawyer4[4] and the conduct of his public life during his years outside of

the bar.5[5] For example, in Valencia v. Antiniw, we held:

However, the record shows that the long period of respondent's disbarment gavehim the chance to purge himself of his misconduct, to show his remorse and

repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again

to the exacting standards of conduct demanded of every member of the bar and

officer of the court. During respondent's disbarment for more than fifteen (15)

years to date for his professional infraction, he has been persistent in reiterating

his apologies and pleas for reinstatement to the practice of law and unrelenting in

his efforts to show that he has regained his worthiness to practice law, by his civic

and humanitarian activities and unblemished record as an elected public servant,

as attested to by numerous civic and professional organizations, government

institutions, public officials and members of the judiciary.6[6]


12/15

And in Bernardo v. Atty. Mejia,7[7] we noted:

Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias disbarment, it also

cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced years. While the

age of the petitioner and the length of time during which he has endured the

ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for

reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his

disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has

shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his

punishment has lasted long enough. x x x

Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse expected of him

considering the gravity of his transgressions. Even more to his favor, petitioner

has redirected focus since his disbarment towards public service, particularly with

the Peoples Law Enforcement Board. The attestations submitted by his peers in

the community and other esteemed members of the legal profession, such as

retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui,

Professor Edwin Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata, and the ecclesiastical community

such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtas testify to his positive impact on society at large sincethe unfortunate events of 2003.

Petitioners subsequent track record in public service affords the Court

some hope that if he were to reacquire membership in the Philippine bar, his

achievements as a lawyer would redound to the general good and more than

mitigate the stain on his record. Compassion to the petitioner is warranted.

Nonetheless, we wish to impart to him the following stern warning:

Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the

laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate

and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bands of

society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example

to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.8[8]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Judicial Clemency

and Compassion is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The disbarment of DANILO G. DE

GUZMAN from the practice of law is hereby COMMUTED to SEVEN (7) YEARS

SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW, reckoned from February 4, 2004.

SO ORDERED.


13/15

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING

FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES.

Section 1.Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of

1993."

Section 2.Declaration of Policies.- It is hereby declared the policy of the State to

uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for

advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the

ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the importance, nobility and

dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench

in the administration of justice and to develop social competence.

Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal

education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain qualityamong law schools, and require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal

education.

Section 3.General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education

in the Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives:

(1) to prepare students for the practice of law;

(2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of

the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society;

(3) to train persons for leadership;

(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the

improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the

light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and

in other countries.

(b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives:

(1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various fields

and of legal institutions;

(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate

and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a holistic approach to

legal problems and issues;

(3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and

decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal

problems of the present and the future;

(4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful

employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic

professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for continuing

study and self-improvement;

(5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession; and

(6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their

profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.

Section 4.Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the

purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafterreferred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and

administrative support to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former

justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular

members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a

representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a

representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a representative

from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of Education,

Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex officiomember of the

Board.

With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman

and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines

and members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10)

years in the practice of law, as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or

recognized law school.

Section 5.Term of Office; Compensation.- The Chairman and regular members of

the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term of five (5) years without

reappointment from a list of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with priorauthorization from the Supreme Court, by the Judicial and Bar Council, for every


14/15

position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need confirmation by the

Commission on Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the

representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the representatives of

the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the representative from the ranks

of active law practitioners and the representative of the law students' sector, for

one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only

for the unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor.

The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary and

rank as the Chairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional

Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be diminished during their

term of office.

Section 6.Office and Staff Support.- The Department of Education, Culture and

Sports shall provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a

principal office to be located in Metropolitan Manila.

The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary

in the performanceof its powers and functions.

Section 7.Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of

this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and functions:

(a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent

with the provisions of this Act;

(b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and

functions as herein enumerated;

(c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among

others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the

library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of

institutions of higher learning;

(d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;

(e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum

qualifications and compensation of faculty members;

(f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the

requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and

such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges

under the different levels of accreditation status;

(g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which

a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office

or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific

period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months.

For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such

accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the

actual work of a new member of the Bar.

(h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board

may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses

and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and

(i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations

necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act.

Section 8.Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate

a law school unless accredited by the Board. Accreditation of law schools may be

granted only to educational institutions recognized by the Government.

Section 9.Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may

withdraw or downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if it fails to

maintain the standards set for its accreditation status.

Section 10.Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The

withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive after the lapse

ofthe semester or trimester following the receipt by the school of the notice of

withdrawal or downgrading unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or

upgrades the standards or corrects the deficiencies upon which the withdrawal or

downgrading of the accreditation status is based.

Section 11.Legal Education Fund.- There is hereby created a special endowment

fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of

the Board, and administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS)

which shall invest the same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety

and liquidity.

The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained from, the

amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixtypercent (60%) of the privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994;


15/15

and from such donations, legacies, grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions

received by the Board for the purposes of this Act.

Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education

Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for

faculty development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar

programs for the advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law

schools.

The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an

amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be

utilized.

The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and

regulations for the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund.

Section 12.Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and

colleges of law which are presently under the supervision of the Department of

Education, Culture and Sports. Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to

the Board. Law schools and colleges which shall be established following the

approval of this Act shall likewise be covered.

Section 13.Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is

hereby authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the

Contingent Fund for the initial expenses of the Board.

To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually,

under the budget of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the amount

of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective

Fiscal Year 1994.

Section 14.Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared

unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person, circumstance or

transaction is held invalid, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act and

the applicability of such provisions to other persons, circumstances and

transactions shall not be affected thereby.

Section 15.Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and

regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby

repealed or amended accordingly.

Section 16.Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following

the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2)

newspapers of general circulation.

[Legprof] Bar Matters

Documents

Transcript of [Legprof] Bar Matters