BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO

A. DIAO
v. SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ
A.C. No. 244
March 29, 1963

FACTS:
Two years following his admission to the Philippine Bar, lawyer
Telesforo A. Diao was charged by private complainant Severino G. Martinez
for allegedly falsifying his application to take the Bar Examinations
specifically his scholastic qualifications. The Solicitor General, having
established in the course of its investigation that at the time Diao filed his
application to take the Bar Examinations did not complete the required prelegal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education,
recommended the omission of his name from the roll of attorneys. Diao
averred that he had entered military service, took and passed the General
Classification Test which is equivalent to a high school diploma, and that he
completed his Associate in Arts degree at the Arellano University in 1949 and
due to confusion, was erroneously certified in his school records as a
graduate of Quisumbing College.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Telesforo A. Diao should be disbarred from the
practice of law.
HELD:
Yes, Atty. Telesforo A. Diao should be disbarred from the practice of law.
His application disclosed that he began his law studies six months before he
obtained his pre-law degree thereby disqualifying him from taking the bar
tests under the rules, but with the aid of false pretenses, was allowed to take
it, passed it and thereafter admitted to the bar. The fact that he hurdled the
bar examinations is immaterial. The High Tribunal, through Chief Justice
Bengzon, enunciated that passing such examinations is not the
only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Taking the prescribed
courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.