OLID, JOHN MARVIN R.

September 8,

2016
1D

Atty. Marian Joanne

Co-Pua
PATRICK A. CARONAN V. RICHARD A. CARONAN
a.k.a. ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN
A.C. No. 113116, Promulgated: July 12, 2016
FACTS:
The complainant Patrick A. Caronan and respondent Richard
A. Caronan are siblings born to Porferio R. Caronan Jr. and Norma
A. Caronan. Respondent is two years older than complainant
being born on 1975. Both finished their secondary education at
the Makati High School. Respondent enrolled at Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) in 1991 where he stayed for a year
before transferring to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA)
before being discharged in 1993. Complainant obtained degree in
Business Administration in 1997 at the University of Makati. Also
in 1997, Respondent moved to Nueva Vizcaya with wife Rosana
and their 3 children. He never went back to earn a college
degree.
In 1999, respondent told complainant that he enrolled in a
law school in Nueva Vizcaya. In 2004, their mother informed
complainant

that

respondent

enrolled

at

the

St.

Marys

Universitys College of Law in Bayombong, Nueva Ecija using the

complainants name and college records from the University of
Makati. Complainant brushed these aside for he did not anticipate
the consequences to him.
In 2009, after complainant was promoted as a Store
Manager of the 7-11 store in Muntinlupa, he was ordered to
report to the head office of Philippine Seven Corporation (PSC)
and was then requested at the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) in relation to an investigation involving respondent, who at
that points, was using the name Atty. Patrick A. Caronan. He
was asked to identify documents showing respondents use of the

Patrick A. Caronan. It was then complainant was informed in a

case of qualified theft and estafa in which respondent was
involved.
Respondents use of the name Atty. Patrick A. Caronan
continues to perpetuate crimes and commit unlawful activities
such as; almost victimizing fellow church-members relatives,
tricking someone into believing that he was authorized to sell a
parcel of land in Taguig City when in fact, he was not. Further, he
learned that respondent was arrested for gun-running activities,
illegal possession of explosives and violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang (BP) 22. With this, complainant was eventually forced to
resign from PSC, hence, complainant filed the present ComplaintAffidavit to stop respondents alleged use of the formers name
and identity, and illegal practice of law.
On March 9, 2015, the IBP-CDB conducted the scheduled
mandatory conference where both parties failed to appear. IBP
Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera issued his
Report and

Recommendation, finding

respondent guilty

of

illegally and falsely assuming complainants name, identity and

academic records.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name
Patrick A. Caronan be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b)
the name Richard A. Caronan be barred from being admitted to
the Bar.
HELD:
The IBP is correct in ordering that the name Patrick A.
Caronan be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. The respondent,
Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. Atty. Patrick A. Caronan, has failed to
present any proof to prove his identify. The respondent admitted,
upon his arrest on August 31, 2012 that he is married to Rosana
Halili-Caronan. This diverges to the official NSO records showing
that Patrick A. Caronan is married to Myrna G. Tagpis, not to
Rosana Halili-Caronan. In addition, the photograph of the

respondent when he was arrested as Richard A. Caronan on

August 16, 2012, shows the same person as the one in the
photograph in the IBP records of Atty. Patrick A. Caronan.
The IBP also did not err in ordering that the name Richard
A. Coronan be barred from being admitted in the Bar. Under
Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of the Court, no applicant for
admission to the Bar Examinations shall be admitted unless he
had pursued and satisfactorily completed a bachelors degree in
arts or sciences. The respondent never completed his college
degree. He did enrol at the PLM in 1991, but left a year later and
entered the PMA where he was discharged in 1993 without
graduating. Clearly, respondent has not completed the requisite
pre-law degree.
The

Court

does

not

discount

the

possibility

of

the

respondent finishing his college degree and earn a law degree

under his real name. However, his false assumption of his
brothers name, identity, and educational records renders him fit
for admission to the Bar. Respondent exhibited his dishonesty and
utter lack of moral fitness. The acts of the respondent do not
have a place in the legal profession where one of the primary
duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and dignity.