Reinstatement to the Bar of a disbarred lawyer; when allowed.

"x x x.
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.20 It is not a natural,
absolute or constitutional right granted to everyone who demands it, but rather, a
special privilege granted and continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness
inintellectual attainment and in moral character.21 The same reasoning applies to
reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When exercising its inherent power to grant
reinstatement, the Court should see to it that only those who establish their present
moral fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar. Thus, though the
doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the
Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public to ensure that if
the doors are opened,it is done so only as a matter of justice.22

The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatementto the practice of law is whether the
lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated himself or herself in conduct and
character.23 Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a
great extent on the sound discretion of the Court.24 The lawyer has to demonstrate and
prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is again worthy of membership in
the Bar. The Court will take into consideration his or her character and standing prior to
the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he or she was
disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has
elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.25

In the present case, we note that before his admission to the Bar, the respondent had
demonstrated an active involvement and participation in community and church
activities by joining Youth For Christ, Catechism, and Bible Study and Sharing.
Likewise, upon admission to the Bar, the respondent worked as Municipal Attorney in
Sta. Cruz, Marinduque rendering free legal assistance to his townmates who were
inneed of legal service. Thereafter, the respondentwas appointed as a Municipal
Administrator and had continued extending assistance to the indigent residents.

The respondent also actively engaged and participated in various community projects,
through the Marinduque Jaycees, where he served as President from 1980 to 1981, and
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Marinduque Chapter, where he served as a
member, Director, and President from 1982 to 1987.

In his present appeal for judicial clemency, the respondent acknowledged his
indiscretions and claimed to have taken full responsibility for his misdemeanor. Unlike
in his previous petitions/appeal for judicial clemency, the respondent no
longerquestioned the Court’s decision. According to him, he has long expressed deep
remorse and genuine repentance.

The respondent also claimed that the long period of his disbarment gave him sufficient
time to reflect on his professional conduct, to show remorse and repentance, and to
realize the gravity of his mistakes. After his disbarment, the respondent continued
lending assistance, and deviated his time and effort in pursuing civic and religious work
that significantly contributed to his character reformation.He professed that during his
almost five (5) years of disbarment, he has been an active member of the Couples for
Christ, Marriage Encounter, and Knights of Columbus; and through his affiliations with
these groups, he had served in the ecclesial affairs in his parish as an Extraordinary
Minister for Holy Communion and a lecturer on Legal Aspect of Marriage Pre-Cana and
Marriage Preparation Seminar at the Parish Church of St. Peter in Commonwealth
Avenue, Quezon City.

Although the Court believes that the respondent is

not inherently lacking in moral fiber as shown by
his conduct prior to his disbarment, we are not
convinced that he had sufficiently achieved moral
reformation.
In Rodolfo M. Bernardo v. Atty. Ismael F. Mejia,26 the Court, in deciding whether or not
to reinstate Atty. Mejia, considered that 15 years had already elapsed from the time
hewas disbarred, which gave him sufficient time to acknowledge his infractions and to
repent. The Court also took into account the fact that Atty. Mejiais already of advanced
years, has long repented, and suffered enough. The Court also notedthat he had made a
significant contribution by putting up the Mejia Law Journal containing his religious
and social writings; and the religious organization named "El Cristo Movement and
Crusade on Miracle of the Heart and Mind." Furthermore, the Court considered that
Atty. Mejia committed no other transgressions since he was disbarred.

Similarly in Adez Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,27 the Court granted the reinstatement
of 
the disbarred lawyer (found to be guilty of intercalating a material fact in a CA decision)
and considered the period of three (3) years as sufficient time to do soul-searching and
to prove that he is worthy to practice law. In that case, the Court took into consideration
the disbarred lawyer’s sincere admission of guilt and repeated pleas for compassion.

Also in Valencia v. Antiniw,28 the Court reinstated Atty. Antiniw (who was found guilty
of malpractice in falsifying a notarized deed of sale and subsequently introducing the
document in court) after considering the long period of his disbarment (almost 15
years). 

The Court considered that during Atty. Antiniw’s disbarment, he has been persistent in
reiterating his apologies to the Court, has engaged in humanitarian and civic services,
and retained an unblemished record as an elected public servant, as shown by the
testimonials of the numerous civic and professional organizations, government
institutions, and members of the judiciary.

In all these cases, the Court considered the conduct of the disbarred attorney before and
after his disbarment, the time that had elapsed from the disbarment and the application
for reinstatement, and more importantly, the disbarred attorneys’ sincere realization
and acknowledgement of guilt.

In the present case, we are not fully convinced that

the passage of more than four (4) years is
sufficient to enable the respondent to reflect and
to realize his professional transgressions.
We emphasize that this is the second time that the respondent was accused and was
found guilty of gross misconduct. The respondent, in an earlier case of Plus Builders,
Inc. v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla,Jr.,29was likewise found guilty of gross misconduct for
committing willful and intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure
and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; and collaborating with nonlawyers
in the illegal practice of law – mostly the same grounds on which the Decision dated
December 4, 2009 (2nd disbarment) was based. In Plus Builders, we granted the
respondent’s motion for reconsideration and reduced the penalty of suspension from
the practice of law from two (2) years to six (6) months out of compassion to the
respondent.

Considering the respondent’s earlier disbarment

case(and subsequent reduction of the penalty
imposed as an act of clemency), and another
disbarment case against him still pending review
by the Court, we are not fully and convincingly
satisfied that the respondent has already
reformed. The period of five (5) years is likewise
not considerably long considering the nature and
perversityof the respondent’s misdeeds. We
believe that it is still early for the Court to
consider the respondent’s reinstatement.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the
respondent's sincerity in acknowledging his
guilt.While he  expressly stated in his appeal that
he had taken full responsibility of his
misdemeanor, his previous inclination to pass the
blame to other individuals, to invoke self-denial,
and to make alibis for his wrongdoings,
contradicted his assertion. The respondent also
failed to submit proof satisfactorily showing his
contrition. He failed to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that he is again worthy of
membership in the legal profession. We thus
entertain serious doubts that the respondent had
completely reformed.
As a final word, while the Court sympathizes with
the respondent's unfortunate physical condition,
we stress that in considering his application for
reinstatement to the practice of law, the duty of
the Court is to determine whether he has
established moral reformation and rehabilitation,
disregarding its feeling of sympathy or pity. Surely
at this point, this requirement was not met. Until
such time when the respondent can demonstrate
to the Court that he has completely rehabilitated
himself and deserves to resume his membership
in the Bar, Our decision to disbar him from the
practice of law stands.
x x x."

Read - 
EN BANC
A.C. No.7054, November 11, 2014
CONRADO N. QUE, Complainant, 
vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.
RESOLUTION

Reinstatement After Suspension or Disbarment

a. In Re: Petition to Take the Lawyer’s Oath of Arthur Cuevas, Jr., January 27,
1988

A new lawyer was allowed to take his oath after his discharge from probation without any
infraction of the conditions. He was given the benefit of the doubt.

b. Fernandez vs. Grecia, June 17, 1993

The act of stealing the exhibits can be treated as an unlawful and dishonest act of a lawyer, a
violation of his bounden duty to uphold the Code of Professional responsibility.

Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316

A lawyer who was suspended was reinstated after cleansing himself. He used intemperate and
unfair criticism against the Supreme Court in gross violation of the duty of respect to the courts.

Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December
17, 2007. He was allowed subject to compliance with requirements of the Rules, especially so
that he became a Canadian citizen later. He has to reacquire his Filipino citizenship and apply for
a permit to practice law.

Can You Practice Again if You Are Disbarred?

Fear of disbarment is instilled during law school, and all attorneys, no matter how ethical, fear it. Law
students must take a professional responsibility course, which addresses ethics and sanctions for
unethical behavior. Moreover, the rules of professional responsibility are tested on the bar exam. Before
a law-school graduate can sit for the bar exam, she must give her state bar association permission to
perform a thorough background check. If the bar association finds a criminal history involving crimes of
"moral turpitude," such as crimes involving dishonesty, fraud and deceit, the applicant likely won't be
permitted to take the bar exam.

Disbarment Overview

When an attorney is disbarred, the bar association in the state where she practices rescinds her
license. Rescission of a license is due to unethical and/or illegal conduct. Commencement of
disbarment proceedings typically occurs due to complaints -- received by a state bar association
-- concerning an attorney's conduct. Generally, clients file complaints. However, because the
legal profession is largely self-regulating, fellow attorneys may file complaints as well. State bar
associations take complaints alleging conduct involving misrepresentation, dishonesty, deceit
and fraud very seriously. The reason being, attorneys are charged with protecting and preserving
the integrity of the legal profession.

Suspension vs. Disbarment

Because disbarment is a penalty of last resort, state bar associations often impose other
disciplinary actions -- unless an infraction involves a felony conviction. Disciplinary actions
include fines, counseling and suspension, or "temporary disbarment." Suspension and temporary
disbarment mean the same thing. In some states, if a suspension lasts for more than six months,
the suspended attorney must take, and pass, the professional responsibility portion of the bar
exam before returning to practice. Sometimes, suspension is limited to certain courts. For
example, an attorney might only be suspended from arguing in front of her state's supreme court.
Disbarment and Sanctions

A felony conviction, or an attorney's lack of fitness to practice -- due to drug or alcohol abuse,
for example -- may lead to disbarment. Typically, a state bar association conducts an
investigation before permanently disbarring an attorney. However, if the crime is serious enough,
disbarment may be automatic and effective immediately, eliminating the need for a preliminary
investigation. Furthermore, if a state bar association catches a disbarred attorney practicing law,
the attorney may face serious sanctions, including jail time.

Practicing in Other States

It's not unusual for attorneys to hold licenses to practice in more than one state. When an attorney
is disbarred in her home state, it doesn't necessarily mean she's automatically disbarred in every
state. It's not uncommon, however, for disbarment in one state to lead to disbarment in others.
Many lawyers who have been disbarred in one state continue practicing in other states, unless or
until disbarment is also imposed in those states. Moreover, a disbarred attorney is free to ask for
a hearing, during which a panel of judges may consider whether to reinstate her license. If a
disbarred attorney is successful in convincing a panel of judges that disbarment isn't deserved,
she may return to practicing law.

Disbarred lawyers who seek reinstatement have a rough

road to redemption
Kenneth L. Lawson sits in his office at the University of Hawaii’s law school and gazes out the
window at a view of Diamond Head.

“Does God have a sense of humor, or what?” he muses.

Hawaii may feel like heaven, but for Lawson it carries a touch of purgatory.

Lawson was a Cincinnati attorney who built a notable criminal defense practice after receiving
his Ohio license in 1989.

In 2008 Lawson’s wife, Marva, moved to Hawaii with their three children to join the medical
staff at a Honolulu hospital. But that September Lawson was indicted in federal court in Ohio on
felony charges of conspiracy to obtain controlled substances, primarily prescription drugs like
Percodan and OxyContin.

His schemes to obtain the prescriptions involved his physician, who wrote an estimated 700 to
800 prescriptions between 2004 and 2007, many of which were written in other people’s names.

Lawson agreed to plead guilty. In April 2009, he was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison,
one year of supervised release and 1,000 hours of community service. By the time Lawson was
indicted, the Ohio Supreme Court had already decided to suspend his license to practice law. The
court cited a list of wrongdoings, including failing to properly represent 15 clients, not returning
unearned fees, stealing settlement funds from half a dozen clients, misusing his IOLTA account,
and failing to cooperate with the investigation into his disciplinary case.

Ruling in Cincinnati Bar Association v. Lawson, on July 9, 2008, the court described his
“pervasive pattern of professional misconduct.” But the court also noted his efforts to address his
chemical dependence and left the door open to an eventual return to law practice.

In September 2011, however, the guillotine fell on Lawson’s legal career in Ohio. It turns out
that a second disciplinary complaint had been filed against him that finally brought the full scope
of his criminal wrongdoing to the supreme court’s attention.

This time, the court said “an indefinite suspension would fall short of protecting the public,
which this court has articulated is the primary goal of the attorney disciplinary system. …
Although respondent attempts to minimize his criminal acts and illegal conduct involving moral
turpitude by arguing that he did not distribute medications to others, the cumulative nature of
respondent’s misconduct … merits disbarment.”

But while Lawson was in Hawaii waiting to be sentenced, the head of the state bar’s lawyer
assistance program introduced him to Randall W. Roth, a law professor at the University of
Hawaii’s William S. Richardson School of Law. Roth talked to him at length about the toll taken
by his addiction. He asked Lawson to speak to students in his professional responsibility class.

“I was sitting in the front of the room across from Ken, so I was looking at the 100 or so students
and just watching how riveted they were. It was so obviously difficult for Ken. He hadn’t had the
opportunity to stand up in front of a group like that and share his darkest moments,” Roth says.
The students gave him a standing ovation; and one of them, Roth later learned, sought help from
the Hawaii lawyer assistance program that day.

“That was the first time I’d ever spoken to a group outside of treatment or recovery,” recalls
Lawson. “While I was there to speak, Randy introduced me around at the university. That’s how
I met the director of the Hawaii Innocence Project, and she offered me a job. Giving without
expecting anything in return has actually turned out to be a better way of life for me.”

Lawson now speaks openly about his fall—actually, speaking might be what he does most. His
job as associate director of the law school’s Hawaii Innocence Project has evolved into a
nontenured faculty position. (He eventually rejoined his family in Honolulu after his release from
prison in March 2010.)

Yet despite Lawson’s turnaround since leaving prison, what he plans to do next amounts to
throwing a Hail Mary pass. He says he will apply for admission to the Hawaii bar and sit for the
February bar exam. Regaining his law license isn’t necessary for Lawson to continue his career;
he says he doesn’t want to practice law again. He admits, however, that he would like to be able
to go into court to guide students working with the project and to teach trial practice courses.

“I’ll have to go through the character and fitness review, and I don’t know how they’d treat my
disbarment,” he says. “All I’m going to do is what I can do, which is apply.”

Jonathan Coughlan: “In Ohio, there’s no such thing as reinstatement after disbarment—which
includes being disbarred, resigning with discipline pending, or asking to retire and having that
request accepted. Zero. Period. Do you know the definition of disbarment? It means you’re gone.
It doesn’t allow you to come back. I tell my colleagues all the time: ‘If you want to allow the
possibility of return, fine. But don’t call it disbarment.’” Photo by Peter Coe.
LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS

While it’s not impossible for a disbarred lawyer to gain reinstatement, the odds are not in the
lawyer’s favor, and few even try. Data collected for the most recent ABA Survey on Lawyer
Disciplinary Systems indicates that 674 petitions, motions or requests for reinstatement or
readmission (which adds retaking the bar exam to other requirements for reinstatement) were
filed during 2011 in the jurisdictions that responded. But only 67 applications for reinstatement
after disbarment were successful, according to the survey. (The survey does not have results
from Connecticut, Hawaii and Oklahoma, and has only partial results from New York.)

Nevertheless, even minuscule numbers of successful applications for reinstatement suggest there
is hope, and most states offer at least the possibility of reinstatement. “The process has been
changing,” says Dennis A. Rendleman, counsel to the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and
Professional Responsibility. “In the past, disbarment was frequently the death penalty, so there
really was no return. It’s also evolved from when disbarment was the only penalty other than
some type of censure, and there were very few in-betweens.”

However, he adds, “over the past 30 years, states and disciplinary bodies have developed a range
of sanctions, including different levels of suspension. But at the same time, in many places,
disbarment has again become the death penalty. It’s become very difficult to come back from
disbarment because that’s saved for the most serious offenses.”

Lawson’s native Ohio is one of the death penalty states. “In Ohio, there’s no such thing as
reinstatement after disbarment—which includes being disbarred, resigning with discipline
pending, or asking to retire and having that request accepted,” says Jonathan E. Coughlan, the
disciplinary counsel for the Ohio Supreme Court in Columbus. “Zero. Period. End of story.”

Coughlan doesn’t even like to speak of “reinstatement after disbarment.” He says, “Do you know
the definition of disbarment? It means you’re gone. It doesn’t allow you to come back. I tell my
colleagues all the time: ‘If you want to allow the possibility of return, fine. But don’t call it
disbarment.’ It’s an oxymoron.”

Data from the Survey on Lawyer Disciplinary Systems, which was published in May, supports
the notion that disbarment is the ultimate sanction. In 2011, according to the survey, 652 lawyers
were involuntarily disbarred nationwide, up from 503 in 2010. An additional 394 consented to
disbarment, up from 290 in 2010. Those disbarment totals accounted for just over 0.08 percent of
the U.S. population of 1.27 million active practicing attorneys at the end of 2012, a number
based on headcounts collected from the states and territories by the ABA Market Research
Department.

Nor is there consensus among state supreme courts and disciplinary agencies over which
disbarred lawyers should be reinstated. Some consider financial impropriety unforgivable, while
others are more tolerant when a lawyer misuses funds to pay the bills, as opposed to pocketing
the money for personal gain. Some favor reinstatement after effective treatment of substance
abuse or mental health issues. Others worry, however, that even if these conditions are treated,
it’s often too risky to allow reinstatement.

John Gleason, who in March became disciplinary counsel and director of regulatory services at
the Oregon State Bar, says that even non-“death penalty” states require disbarred lawyers to wait
a number of years before seeking reinstatement. In Colorado, where he previously served as
attorney regulation counsel, the waiting period can be up to eight years.

“My experience is that lawyers who are disbarred are generally unhappy with their work as a
lawyer. They’ve probably found a position they’re happy in and have no interest in coming
back,” says Gleason. “It’s a fairly low percentage of lawyers who seek reinstatement.”

In some states, disbarred lawyers may have to take the bar exam again in addition to applying for
readmission—and agree to a full character and fitness review, as well as a hearing. Since
California added a bar exam requirement in 2010, the number of lawyers seeking readmission
has dropped. In 2009, 22 lawyers petitioned for readmission, says Kristin L. Ritsema, senior trial
 counsel at the State Bar of California in Los Angeles. Since the bar exam requirement was
added, only 29 lawyers have filed to be reinstated, an average of about nine per year.

And the process is not cheap. The filing fee in California is about $1,500, in addition to the bar
exam fee, says Murray B. Greenberg, a senior trial counsel at the state bar and the president of
the National Organization of Bar Counsel. Most applicants are represented by counsel, which
adds to their costs. Warren Lupel, special counsel at Much Shelist in Chicago, has represented
lawyers and judges in professional responsibility cases for the past 30 years. His charges range
from $20,000 to $25,000. And he says that amount isn’t even the high end for fees in such cases.

“Overall, the reinstatement process is very humbling, almost humiliating, and it’s onerous and
very expensive,” Lupel says. “You have to denude yourself and your family of everything—
everybody’s health records, financial records, including every debt you’ve incurred—and you go
through all that when you’re paying the lawyer a substantial amount of money.”

And yet some lawyers are willing to put themselves through the wringer. Lupel once represented
a real estate lawyer who had gone to prison for fraud. Lupel advised the 75-year-old against
seeking reinstatement, but the client insisted. He lost. The client came back four years later after
a heart transplant; but this time, Lupel refused to represent him.

“I told him I didn’t get it,” says Lupel: “ ‘You’re 80, you know you don’t have much time left.
You’re going to pay me $20,000 to $25,000, and you’re not going to win. Why?’ He said, ‘I
want on my tombstone that I was a lawyer.’ I think that’s in the mind of a lot of people. They
confuse their career with their life.”

1. Home
2. In-Depth Reporting

3. Disbarred lawyers who seek reinstatement…

Features

Disbarred lawyers who seek reinstatement have a rough

road to redemption
By G.M. Filisko

August 2013

  
  
 inShare  

  


Kenneth Lawson: "I was thinking 'You'll never be happy again.' But I'm feeling useful again. I
don't make nearly as much money as I used to, and it's not about being happy. It's about being at
peace. Giving is the only way I can receive that. I think my actions speak for where I'm at. If I'm
not admitted, so be it." Photograph by Marco Garcia.

Kenneth L. Lawson sits in his office at the University of Hawaii’s law school and gazes out the
window at a view of Diamond Head.

“Does God have a sense of humor, or what?” he muses.

Hawaii may feel like heaven, but for Lawson it carries a touch of purgatory.

Lawson was a Cincinnati attorney who built a notable criminal defense practice after receiving
his Ohio license in 1989.

In 2008 Lawson’s wife, Marva, moved to Hawaii with their three children to join the medical
staff at a Honolulu hospital. But that September Lawson was indicted in federal court in Ohio on
felony charges of conspiracy to obtain controlled substances, primarily prescription drugs like
Percodan and OxyContin.

His schemes to obtain the prescriptions involved his physician, who wrote an estimated 700 to
800 prescriptions between 2004 and 2007, many of which were written in other people’s names.

Lawson agreed to plead guilty. In April 2009, he was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison,
one year of supervised release and 1,000 hours of community service. By the time Lawson was
indicted, the Ohio Supreme Court had already decided to suspend his license to practice law. The
court cited a list of wrongdoings, including failing to properly represent 15 clients, not returning
unearned fees, stealing settlement funds from half a dozen clients, misusing his IOLTA account,
and failing to cooperate with the investigation into his disciplinary case.

Ruling in Cincinnati Bar Association v. Lawson, on July 9, 2008, the court described his
“pervasive pattern of professional misconduct.” But the court also noted his efforts to address his
chemical dependence and left the door open to an eventual return to law practice.

In September 2011, however, the guillotine fell on Lawson’s legal career in Ohio. It turns out
that a second disciplinary complaint had been filed against him that finally brought the full scope
of his criminal wrongdoing to the supreme court’s attention.

This time, the court said “an indefinite suspension would fall short of protecting the public,
which this court has articulated is the primary goal of the attorney disciplinary system. …
Although respondent attempts to minimize his criminal acts and illegal conduct involving moral
turpitude by arguing that he did not distribute medications to others, the cumulative nature of
respondent’s misconduct … merits disbarment.”
But while Lawson was in Hawaii waiting to be sentenced, the head of the state bar’s lawyer
assistance program introduced him to Randall W. Roth, a law professor at the University of
Hawaii’s William S. Richardson School of Law. Roth talked to him at length about the toll taken
by his addiction. He asked Lawson to speak to students in his professional responsibility class.

“I was sitting in the front of the room across from Ken, so I was looking at the 100 or so students
and just watching how riveted they were. It was so obviously difficult for Ken. He hadn’t had the
opportunity to stand up in front of a group like that and share his darkest moments,” Roth says.
The students gave him a standing ovation; and one of them, Roth later learned, sought help from
the Hawaii lawyer assistance program that day.

“That was the first time I’d ever spoken to a group outside of treatment or recovery,” recalls
Lawson. “While I was there to speak, Randy introduced me around at the university. That’s how
I met the director of the Hawaii Innocence Project, and she offered me a job. Giving without
expecting anything in return has actually turned out to be a better way of life for me.”

Lawson now speaks openly about his fall—actually, speaking might be what he does most. His
job as associate director of the law school’s Hawaii Innocence Project has evolved into a
nontenured faculty position. (He eventually rejoined his family in Honolulu after his release from
prison in March 2010.)

Yet despite Lawson’s turnaround since leaving prison, what he plans to do next amounts to
throwing a Hail Mary pass. He says he will apply for admission to the Hawaii bar and sit for the
February bar exam. Regaining his law license isn’t necessary for Lawson to continue his career;
he says he doesn’t want to practice law again. He admits, however, that he would like to be able
to go into court to guide students working with the project and to teach trial practice courses.

“I’ll have to go through the character and fitness review, and I don’t know how they’d treat my
disbarment,” he says. “All I’m going to do is what I can do, which is apply.”

Jonathan Coughlan: “In Ohio, there’s no such thing as reinstatement after disbarment—which
includes being disbarred, resigning with discipline pending, or asking to retire and having that
request accepted. Zero. Period. Do you know the definition of disbarment? It means you’re gone.
It doesn’t allow you to come back. I tell my colleagues all the time: ‘If you want to allow the
possibility of return, fine. But don’t call it disbarment.’” Photo by Peter Coe.
LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS

While it’s not impossible for a disbarred lawyer to gain reinstatement, the odds are not in the
lawyer’s favor, and few even try. Data collected for the most recent ABA Survey on Lawyer
Disciplinary Systems indicates that 674 petitions, motions or requests for reinstatement or
readmission (which adds retaking the bar exam to other requirements for reinstatement) were
filed during 2011 in the jurisdictions that responded. But only 67 applications for reinstatement
after disbarment were successful, according to the survey. (The survey does not have results
from Connecticut, Hawaii and Oklahoma, and has only partial results from New York.)

Nevertheless, even minuscule numbers of successful applications for reinstatement suggest there
is hope, and most states offer at least the possibility of reinstatement. “The process has been
changing,” says Dennis A. Rendleman, counsel to the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and
Professional Responsibility. “In the past, disbarment was frequently the death penalty, so there
really was no return. It’s also evolved from when disbarment was the only penalty other than
some type of censure, and there were very few in-betweens.”

However, he adds, “over the past 30 years, states and disciplinary bodies have developed a range
of sanctions, including different levels of suspension. But at the same time, in many places,
disbarment has again become the death penalty. It’s become very difficult to come back from
disbarment because that’s saved for the most serious offenses.”

Lawson’s native Ohio is one of the death penalty states. “In Ohio, there’s no such thing as
reinstatement after disbarment—which includes being disbarred, resigning with discipline
pending, or asking to retire and having that request accepted,” says Jonathan E. Coughlan, the
disciplinary counsel for the Ohio Supreme Court in Columbus. “Zero. Period. End of story.”

Coughlan doesn’t even like to speak of “reinstatement after disbarment.” He says, “Do you know
the definition of disbarment? It means you’re gone. It doesn’t allow you to come back. I tell my
colleagues all the time: ‘If you want to allow the possibility of return, fine. But don’t call it
disbarment.’ It’s an oxymoron.”

Data from the Survey on Lawyer Disciplinary Systems, which was published in May, supports
the notion that disbarment is the ultimate sanction. In 2011, according to the survey, 652 lawyers
were involuntarily disbarred nationwide, up from 503 in 2010. An additional 394 consented to
disbarment, up from 290 in 2010. Those disbarment totals accounted for just over 0.08 percent of
the U.S. population of 1.27 million active practicing attorneys at the end of 2012, a number
based on headcounts collected from the states and territories by the ABA Market Research
Department.

Nor is there consensus among state supreme courts and disciplinary agencies over which
disbarred lawyers should be reinstated. Some consider financial impropriety unforgivable, while
others are more tolerant when a lawyer misuses funds to pay the bills, as opposed to pocketing
the money for personal gain. Some favor reinstatement after effective treatment of substance
abuse or mental health issues. Others worry, however, that even if these conditions are treated,
it’s often too risky to allow reinstatement.

John Gleason, who in March became disciplinary counsel and director of regulatory services at
the Oregon State Bar, says that even non-“death penalty” states require disbarred lawyers to wait
a number of years before seeking reinstatement. In Colorado, where he previously served as
attorney regulation counsel, the waiting period can be up to eight years.

“My experience is that lawyers who are disbarred are generally unhappy with their work as a
lawyer. They’ve probably found a position they’re happy in and have no interest in coming
back,” says Gleason. “It’s a fairly low percentage of lawyers who seek reinstatement.”

In some states, disbarred lawyers may have to take the bar exam again in addition to applying for
readmission—and agree to a full character and fitness review, as well as a hearing. Since
California added a bar exam requirement in 2010, the number of lawyers seeking readmission
has dropped. In 2009, 22 lawyers petitioned for readmission, says Kristin L. Ritsema, senior trial
counsel at the State Bar of California in Los Angeles. Since the bar exam requirement was
added, only 29 lawyers have filed to be reinstated, an average of about nine per year.

And the process is not cheap. The filing fee in California is about $1,500, in addition to the bar
exam fee, says Murray B. Greenberg, a senior trial counsel at the state bar and the president of
the National Organization of Bar Counsel. Most applicants are represented by counsel, which
adds to their costs. Warren Lupel, special counsel at Much Shelist in Chicago, has represented
lawyers and judges in professional responsibility cases for the past 30 years. His charges range
from $20,000 to $25,000. And he says that amount isn’t even the high end for fees in such cases.

“Overall, the reinstatement process is very humbling, almost humiliating, and it’s onerous and
very expensive,” Lupel says. “You have to denude yourself and your family of everything—
everybody’s health records, financial records, including every debt you’ve incurred—and you go
through all that when you’re paying the lawyer a substantial amount of money.”

And yet some lawyers are willing to put themselves through the wringer. Lupel once represented
a real estate lawyer who had gone to prison for fraud. Lupel advised the 75-year-old against
seeking reinstatement, but the client insisted. He lost. The client came back four years later after
a heart transplant; but this time, Lupel refused to represent him.

“I told him I didn’t get it,” says Lupel: “ ‘You’re 80, you know you don’t have much time left.
You’re going to pay me $20,000 to $25,000, and you’re not going to win. Why?’ He said, ‘I
want on my tombstone that I was a lawyer.’ I think that’s in the mind of a lot of people. They
confuse their career with their life.”

Dennis Rendleman: “In the past, disbarment was frequently the death penalty, so there really was
no return.” But, “over the past 30 years, states and disciplinary bodies have developed a range of
sanctions, including different levels of suspension. But at the same time, in many places,
disbarment has again become the death penalty. It’s become very difficult to come back from
disbarment because that’s saved for the most serious offenses.” Photo by Katarina Wittkamp.

CHANGING ATTITUDES

The relationship between lawyer misconduct and substance abuse or mental health issues is a key
area where disciplinary agencies have revised their thinking, Rendleman says. “Many of the
disciplinary agencies have done a very good job of identifying where there are substance abuse
issues so that probation or mentorship and oversight have come into play,” he says. “They’ve
done a very good job in many states of diverting cases where there’s a legitimate medical issue
so it doesn’t go the disbarment route.”

That change in approach is crucial to the way that many disciplinary cases are handled, says
Sarah L. Krauss, a retired judge in New York City who chairs the ABA Commission on Lawyer
Assistance Programs. She estimates that mental health or substance abuse issues are a factor in at
least half of lawyer disciplinary cases. “Work around the United States through LAP programs
has brought everybody’s consciousness up a bit,” she says. “We’ve been at this for more than 25
years, and we’ve seen more interaction between LAPs and not only disciplinary counsel, but also
character and fitness committees on who should be admitted in the first place.”

The thinking on when to reinstate lawyers whose disbarments were linked to mental health or
substance abuse issues is evolving, Krauss says. “Most states have a time rule before they’ll
allow reinstatement, and the generally accepted time is seven years,” she says. Some states look
to the regulatory practices of other professions—physicians, for instance.

“What we know about the physicians’ recovery process—we often work with them and share
information—is that medical professionals usually monitor physicians for five years. That’s the
minimum amount of time before they can apply for reinstatement.”

Some states focus on lawyers’ efforts after disbarment to atone for their wrongdoing. That
involves such steps as acknowledging the wrongdoing, making restitution and taking concrete
steps toward rehabilitation, especially in cases involving addiction.

Still, some actions are hard to overcome, even in states with a fairly high tolerance level. The
most obvious, says Gleason, is a failure to pay fees imposed as a result of the disbarment,
including court costs, restitution or reimbursement of the state client protection fund. Also
damaging is a failure to seek counseling or treatment for underlying addiction or mental health
issues. Another fairly easy call would be any post-disbarment criminal convictions.

Disciplinary authorities also may review the underlying offense; some are considered too
damning to overcome. “People who’ve been convicted of a felony and served time in prison for a
crime related to the profession—maybe they defrauded someone—I’d tell them not to bother,”
Lupel says. “I’d also tell a person convicted of crimes related to sexual dysfunction not to bother,
including sexual assault, something with a child or pornography. Those kinds of crimes, even
though they don’t directly relate to the profession, are so appalling that the persons who hear
reinstatements simply aren’t going to permit that person to rejoin the profession. People who’ve
been guilty of converting clients’ funds, even if it’s in a single matter, are also highly unlikely to
regain their license.”

Samuel Bellicini: “Getting disbarred is horrendous, and you really have to try hard to get
disbarred in any jurisdiction. I perfectly understand some jurisdictions’ decision to refuse to
consider any reinstatement. There comes a point where you say enough’s enough. I’m lucky to
be alive. My law license is a very distant second to the fact that I’m vertical and breathing now.
I’m 11 years clean and sober, and that’s a miracle. I never lose sight of that.” Photo by Eric
Millette.
GOING TO EXTREMES

But courts in some states are willing to let disbarred lawyers make their pitch for reinstatement
even in extreme cases.

Ritsema says California does not specify any acts that preclude reinstatement; and a 2000 case
on admission, which she says also applies to reinstatement, shows that California courts won’t
summarily dismiss reinstatement petitions even after seemingly heinous acts. In the case In re
Gossage, the California Supreme Court denied admission to an applicant who had been
convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Eben Gossage “killed his sister in a drug-induced rage,
and he didn’t get in,” Ritsema says. But, she adds, “even in that case, the court left the door open
to the idea that even someone who kills another human being is worthy of admission or
reinstatement given the right circumstances.”

The court described the ugly details of Gossage’s fatal bludgeoning of his sister, and
acknowledged his contention that she attacked him first with a hammer and scissors. The court
went on to note that he failed to render assistance and later concealed his involvement. It also
noted that Gossage had been convicted of several counts of theft and forgery. Even so, it found
that he could be admitted “if the evidence shows that he is no longer the same person who
behaved so poorly in the past, and only if he has since behaved in exemplary fashion over a
meaningful period of time.”

Yet the court ruled that he failed to meet what it termed that “heavy burden.” In the six years
before entering law school and completing the bar exam, the court said, Gossage “repeatedly
violated state traffic laws and sustained several misdemeanor convictions for mishandling these
matters in court.” He also failed to make full disclosure of those and other issues on his
application for admission.

Five years ago, the Tennessee Supreme Court also issued a ruling asserting that sometimes
disbarred lawyers have burned too many bridges to gain reinstatement.

“We don’t have permanent disbarment,” says Lucian T. Pera, a partner at Adams and Reese in
Memphis, Tenn., a past president of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers and
current ABA treasurer. “However, in 2008, despite a remarkable amount of evidence, a lawyer
was denied reinstatement because the court found the underlying offense too grave.”

In 1997, Dennis Hughes was convicted of bribing a witness and conspiracy to bribe a witness in
a criminal trial. He had previously been sanctioned for misconduct many times and consented to
disbarment after the bribery convictions. In 2004, Hughes petitioned for reinstatement after
seeking treatment for alcoholism. Fifteen witnesses, including judges and attorneys, testified in
support of his reinstatement; more than 60 others submitted letters in support.

But in Hughes v. Board of Professional Responsibility (PDF), the Tennessee Supreme Court
found that his prior misconduct, combined with his felony convictions, demonstrated “a pattern
of behavior over a period of years that conflicts with the standards of the bar, the sanctity of our
judicial system and the public trust. His reinstatement to the practice of law at this time would be
detrimental to the standing of the bar, the administration of justice and the public interest.”

Justice Janice M. Holder, then serving as chief justice, dissented. Citing the court rules governing
the reinstatement process, she wrote: “We have chosen, however, not to make disbarment
permanent for even the most serious offenses, opting instead to allow all disbarred attorneys to
seek readmission and have the merits of their petitions judged on a case-by-case basis. … The
majority’s opinion in this case effectively shuts the door on the ability of certain petitioners to be
readmitted. … I do not believe it is consistent with the rules governing readmission.”

The case leaves Tennessee lawyers with conflicting guidance on the possibility of reinstatement
after disbarment, says Pera. “It would be nice if we could have some framework for decision-
making that would be more predictable, but I’m not sure it’s possible,” he says. “A lot of times,
it’s just based on gut—and sometimes that’s good.”
Photo by Marco Garcia.

COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD

So what is Lawson up against if he pursues his plan to seek admission in Hawaii? He has
performed good works, made strong efforts to change his personal behavior and address his
addictions, and acknowledged his past wrongdoing. People like law professor Roth are ready to
go to bat for him. But will that be enough?

A primary roadblock is likely to be that Lawson’s legal career is over in Ohio, a death penalty
state, no matter what he does to change his ways.

“If an attorney has been disbarred in one state, it’s highly unlikely another state will admit that
attorney,” says Rendleman. “Many states’ admission rules also say you can’t have been
disbarred in another state.” Hawaii is one of those states. But Hawaii is also not a death penalty
state. The state supreme court rules require a disbarred lawyer to wait five years before applying
for reinstatement, but it’s unclear whether that rule would apply to a lawyer seeking admission in
Hawaii after being disbarred in another state.

It’s also unlikely that Ohio disciplinary authorities will intrude on Hawaii’s admission process.
“They don’t have to ask us for anything,” Coughlan says. “But they’re going to make him fill out
a very lengthy application, and that will include a question like: ‘Have you ever been disciplined
in another jurisdiction?’ He has to prove to Hawaii his present fitness, and that’s not stuff I can
comment on.”

And it’s unlikely that Hawaii’s lawyer disciplinary agency would play a direct role in
considering an application for admission from Lawson, says Charlene Norris, deputy chief
disciplinary counsel in the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the Hawaii Supreme Court. “The
Board of Bar Examiners handles admission; we don’t,” she says. “However, a lawyer seeking
reinstatement in Hawaii who’s been disbarred in another state would have to be reinstated in
their own state first.” Rochelle R. Hasuko, secretary to the board of examiners, confirms that
applicants for admission must be in good standing in any foreign jurisdiction in which they’ve
been licensed.

Other states generally have the same rule. Colorado authorities, for instance, would “have to
decide what to do with someone who’s done everything right and wants to come to Colorado but
is from a death penalty state,” Gleason says. Would one state’s supreme court “essentially ignore
the decision of a sister state on disbarment?” he says. “It’s another issue when our court has to
look at another state and overturn what that state has done. That’s a huge hurdle.”

That’s also why Gleason is not a fan of permanent disbarment. “I’ve never understood it, and
that’s going to piss off my colleagues throughout the country,” he says. “I’m a huge proponent of
lateral entry. I believe all these artificial barriers to lawyers moving around the country are
ridiculous, and here’s yet another barrier placed in the line of people who’ve done everything
right after they’ve done something wrong, and we’re going to continue to punish them. I don’t
understand that—and I’m ready for all the phone calls from my colleagues.”
Gleason adds, “Their position is there are certain violations of trust that are so sacred to the
practice of law that you’re never going to get back in again. I think a lot of my colleagues around
the country miss the boat. I don’t believe our position is to punish lawyers but to protect the
public and regulate lawyers.”

Samuel C. Bellicini, however, sees the reasoning behind permanent bans. Alcohol and gambling
problems led to his resignation from the California bar in 1993. He was reinstated in 2008 and is
now an associate at Fishkin & Slatter in Walnut Creek, Calif., which advises lawyers on a variety
of professional conduct matters, including defense representation in state bar disciplinary
investigations and proceedings.

“Getting disbarred is horrendous, and you really have to try hard to get disbarred in any
jurisdiction,” Bellicini says. “I perfectly understand some jurisdictions’ decision to refuse to
consider any reinstatement. There comes a point where you say enough’s enough.” For him,
being reinstated was almost beside the point. “I’m lucky to be alive,” he says. “My law license is
a very distant second to the fact that I’m vertical and breathing now. I’m 11 years clean and
sober, and that’s a miracle. I never lose sight of that.”

Lawson expresses a similar view. “I was thinking ‘You’ll never be happy again,’ ” he says. “But
I’m feeling useful again. I don’t make nearly as much money as I used to, and it’s not about
being happy. It’s about being at peace. Giving is the only way I can receive that. I think my
actions speak for where I’m at. If I’m not admitted, so be it.”

Roth—who says he doesn’t view himself as a particularly trusting person—believes Lawson

deserves another chance to practice law. But even if that doesn’t happen, Roth is confident that
Lawson has turned the corner in his life.

“I think he’s truly a transformed person,” Roth says. “I just happen to believe this guy is ready,
and the message that would send to other lawyers who’ve fallen and to society at large would be
huge. It’s so important that people always have hope, no matter how far they’ve fallen and how
bleak things may be. But the beauty is, if the decision-makers don’t agree, I’m convinced he’ll
work just as hard for others as he would as a lawyer. It’s not that he’ll do just fine. He’ll be an
inspiration.”

Correction
Print and initial Web versions of "The Rough Road to Redemption," August, should have calculated the
disbarment totals for 2011 at just over 0.08 percent of the 1.27 million practicing U.S. attorneys at the
end of 2012.

EN BANC

A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015

RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S.

TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

For resolution is the Petition1 filed by respondent Rolando S. Torres (respondent) who seeks
judicial clemency in order to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.

Records show that respondent was administratively charged by his sister-in-law, complainant
Isidra Ting-Dumali (complainant), for "presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent
to, and failure to advise against, the forgery of complainant's signature in a purported Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from
such forgery."2 The particular charges are: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
According to the complainant, the respondent took advantage of his relationship with her and her
brothers and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if it
involved the commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act. She attributes to the respondent
the following acts or omissions:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

1. The respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the perjury
committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam when they executed a Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated 11 November 1986, wherein the two made it appear that
they were the sole heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting, knowing fully well
that the same was false. He presented that document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite for the
transfer of the title over Lot No. 1586 in the names of his wife and Miriam. The lot was later sold
to Antel Holdings[,] Inc. for P1,195,400. Payment was already made to, and received by,
Felicisima and Miriam.

2. The respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the forgery of
complainant's signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated 17 March 1995
involving Lot 1603 when he knew that she was in Italy at that time working as an overseas
contract worker. He even presented the falsified document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite to
transfer the title over the property in favor of his wife Felicisima and sister-in law Marcelina.
The forgery or falsification was made to enable them to sell Lot 1603 to Antel Holdings, Inc.
Payment was received and misappropriated by Felicisima and Marcelina.

3. In LRC Rec. No. 5964 entitled In Re: Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the Original
Copy. and Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-1869 Covering Lot No. 1605 of the Registry
of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, filed by complainant's sisters Marcelina and Felicisima on
24, October 1995, the respondent made gross misrepresentation and offered false testimony to
the effect that Marcelina and Felicisima are the only children and legal heirs of the late spouses
Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante for the purpose of obtaining a new title in their names. With
the reconstituted title, and with the express conformity of the respondent, Felicisima and
Marcelina were able to sell Lot 1605 to Antel Holdings, Inc., for P2,213,100 and profited from
the sale to the exclusion of their other siblings. Partial payment was even received pending the
reconstitution proceedings.

4. On 20 November 1996, the respondent made gross and false misrepresentations for the
purpose of profiting therefrom when he requested the buyer through a certain Mrs. Ong to
release the full payment for Lot 1605 under the pretense that the order of reconstitution would be
released within a month when he knew that it would be impossible because he presented
evidence in the reconstitution case only on 12 August 1997. To facilitate the release of the
money, he even used the stationery of the Philippine National Bank, of which he was an
employee.3

In a Resolution4 dated April 14, 2004, the Court found merit in the complaint and, thus, held
respondent guilty of gross misconduct and of violating the lawyer's oath, as well as Canons 1 and
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, resulting in his disbarment from the practice of
law:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres guilty of
gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer's oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the
legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is
ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

x x x x5

Aggrieved, respondent filed on May 20, 2004 a Motion for Reconsideration6 of the aforesaid
Resolution, which the Court denied with finality in the Resolution7 dated June 29, 2004.

Unperturbed, he filed on September 15, 2004 a Motion for Leave to File and Admit Second
Motion for Reconsideration,8 which the Court denied for lack of merit in the Resolution9 dated
November 9, 2004, stating that "[n]o further pleadings will be entertained."
On January 26, 2006, respondent filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment10 begging that
compassion, mercy, and understanding be bestowed upon him by the Court in that his disbarment
be lifted. The same was, however, expunged from the records in a Resolution11 dated June 13,
2006.

Still insistent, respondent wrote letters addressed to former Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga12
and former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban,13 reiterating his pleas for compassion and
mercy. However, these letters were similarly expunged from the records in a Resolution14 dated
September 5, 2006, considering the previous directive that no further pleadings will be further
entertained in this case. These were followed by numerous submissions either seeking his
reinstatement to the bar15 or the reduction of his penalty of disbarment to suspension, 16 all of
which were either expunged from the records17 or denied18 by the Court.

More than ten (10) years from his disbarment, or on June 23, 2015, respondent filed the instant
Petition once more seeking judicial clemency from the Court to reinstate him in the Roll of
Attorneys.

The Court's Ruling

"Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is not a natural, absolute or
constitutional right granted to everyone who demands it, but rather, a special privilege granted
and continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and in
moral character. The same reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When
exercising its inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court should see to it that only those
who establish their present moral fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar.
Thus, though the doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred
attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public to ensure
that if the doors are opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice."19
redarclaw

"The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law is whether the Iawver
has sufficiently rehabilitated himself or herself in conduct and character. Whether the
applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound
discretion of the Court. The lawyer has to demonstrate and prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he or she is again worthy of membership in the Bar. The Court will take into
consideration his or her character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character
of the charge/s for which he or she was disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent to the
disbarment, and the time that has elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for
reinstatement."20
redarclaw

In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37,
Appealing for Judicial Clemency21 the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving
requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw

1. There 'must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not
be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the
community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an
administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong
presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive
years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem
himself.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal

acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system
or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
 5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.22
(emphases and underscoring supplied)

Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds that the instant petition is not
meritorious.

While more than ten (10) years had already passed since his disbarment on April 14, 2004,
respondent's present petition has failed to show substantial proof of his reformation as required
in the first guideline above.

The principle which should hold true not only for judges but also for lawyers, being officers of
the court, is that judicial "[c]lemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should
be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. Thus the Court will grant it
only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential
and promise are indispensable."23 redarclaw

In this case, the only ostensible proof of reformation that respondent has presented is a
Certification24 dated June 5, 2015 signed by Reverend Nelson D. Feranil, Administrative Pastor
of the Buenavista Evangelical Church in General Trias, Cavite, which generally states that
respondent, "before and after his disbarment," has been "assisting the poor and indigent litigants
in our community," and that "he has been very active in spreading the [w]ords and gospel of the
Almighty God[,] being an active member of the Couples of Christ FFL." Aside from these bare
statements, no other proof was presented to specify the actual engagements or activities by which
respondent had rendered free legal services to indigents or had ministered to the members of his
community or church, hence, insufficient to demonstrate any form of consistency in his supposed
desire to reform.

The other testimonials which respondent submits, particularly that of Atty. Teofilo Pugeda Jr.,
who stated that "[a]s a former law practitioner, [respondent] is humble, simple, and respectful
to fellow lawyers, Court Personnel, and the Presiding Judge," and that "[h]e used to give free
legal advice and assisted indigent litigants in their court cases,"25 and that of Atty. Manuel
Medina, retired City Prosecutor of Cavite, who stated that "[d]uring my years as Prosecutor x x x
I always met him in the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City where I can say in all honesty and
candor that he was an exemplary officer of the court, punctual[,] and always prepared in
handling his court cases,"26 all relate to conduct or attributions prior to respondent's disbarment;
hence, these are incompetent evidence to prove his reformation which connotes consistent
improvement subsequent to his disbarment.

In similar vein, the testimonials attached to his previous Motion for Reconsideration27 filed on
May 20, 2004 which he now incorporates in support of his present petition,28 is equally
insufficient to conclude that he has already reformed. This is because all these testimonials were
executed in May 2004.29 Thus, they can only attest to respondent's conduct or attributions a mere
month removed from his disbarment on April 14, 2004.

More significantly, it should be discerned that the root cause of respondent's disbarment was his
fraudulent acts against his sister-in-law, the complainant herein. However, no proof was
presented to show that he had reconciled or even attempted to reconcile with her so as to show
remorse for his previous faults. The dismissal of the criminal complaint against him for Estafa
Through Falsification of Public Documents, filed by complainant is no proof of remorse since
the same was based on lack of probable cause.30  Likewise, its dismissal,' could not prove that he
was actually innocent of the administrative charges against him, since the parameters and
considerations of an administrative case are evidently different from that in a criminal case.  As
in this case, the lack of probable cause against respondent as found by the prosecutor does not
negate his administrative liability already adjudged by this Court. That the prosecutor found that
respondent "merely rendered legal services to the Ting siblings"31 does not mean that he rendered
the same in accordance with the lawyer's oath and ethical canons.

To add, no other evidence was presented in his Petition to demonstrate his potential for public
service, or that he - now being 68 years of age32 - still has productive years ahead of him that can
be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself. Thus, the third and fourth
guidelines were neither complied with.

While the Court sympathizes with the predicaments of disbarred lawyers - may it be financial or
reputational in cause - it stands firm in its commitment to the public to preserve the integrity and
esteem of the Bar. As held in a previous case, "in considering [a lawyer's] application for
reinstatement to the practice of law, the duty of the Court is to determine whether he has
established moral reformation and rehabilitation, disregarding its feeling of sympathy or pity."33
Ultimately, with the above discussed guidelines not complied with, the Court has to be objective
and, therefore, denies the petition.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez,
Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Brion, and Reyes, JJ. on leave.
Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave.
Mendoza, J., no part.

A.C. No. 5161

RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S.

TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.

ROLANDO S. TORRES, Petitioner

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

For resolution is the Petition1 dated March 10, 2017 filed by Rolando S. Torres (Torres) who
seeks judicial clemency in order to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.

Records show that in a Resolution2 dated April 14, 2004 in Ting-Dumali v. Torres,3 the Court
meted the supreme penalty of disbarment on Torres for "presentation of false testimony;
participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the forgery of complainant's signature
in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the
purpose of profiting from such forgery,"4 thereby committing gross misconduct and violating
Canons 1 and 10 the Code of Professional Responsibility. The dispositive portion of the said
Resolution reads:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres guilty of
gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer's oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the
legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is
ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

x x x x5

Aggrieved, Torres twice moved for reconsideration,6 both of which were denied with finality by
the Court,7 which then stated that "[n]o further pleadings will be entertained."8 This
notwithstanding, Torres: (a) filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment9 dated January 26,
2006 begging for compassion, mercy, and understanding;10 and (b) wrote letters to former Chief
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban11 and former Associate Justice Dante 0. Tinga12 reiterating his
pleas for compassion and mercy. However, these were ordered expunged through the Court's
Resolutions dated June 13, 200613 and September 5, 2006,14 considering the previous directive
that no further pleadings will be further entertained in this case. Still undaunted, Torres
continued to file numerous submissions either seeking his reinstatement to the bar15 or the
reduction of his penalty of disbarment to suspension,16 all of which were either expunged from
the records17 or denied18 by the Court.
More than ten (10) years from his disbarment, Torres filed a Petition19 dated June 11, 2015
seeking judicial clemency from the Court to reinstate him in the Roll of Attomeys.20 In a
Resolution21 dated August 25, 2015 (August 25, 2015 Resolution), the Court denied the petition,
holding that Torres had failed to provide substantial proof that he had reformed himself,
especially considering the absence of showing that he had reconciled or attempted to reconcile
with his sister-in-law, the original complainant in the disbarment case against him; nor was it
demonstrated that he was remorseful over the fraudulent acts he had committed against her.22

Despite the foregoing, Torres filed the instant petition, again seeking judicial clemency from the
Court to reinstate him in the Roll of Attorneys.1âwphi1

The Court's Ruling

The petition is not meritorious.

The principle which should hold true for lawyers, being officers of the court, is that judicial
clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the
preservation of public confidence in the courts. Thus, the Court will grant it only if there is a
showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are
indispensable.23 In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as a
member of the Philippine Bar,24 the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving
requests for judicial clemency, to wit:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited
to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with
proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same
or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead
of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.1âwphi1

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or
contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and
other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.25

In support of the instant petition for reinstatement, Torres merely rehashed all the several
testimonials and endorsements which he had already attached to his previous petitions, in
addition to another endorsement, this time coming from the incumbent Secretary of Justice,
stating that Torres "is a person of good moral character and a law abiding citizen."26 However,
these testimonials and endorsements do not prove whatsoever that Torres had already
successfully reformed himself subsequent to his disbarment. Neither do they exhibit remorse
towards the actions which caused his delisting from the Roll of Attorneys, i.e., the fraudulent
acts he committed against his sister-in-law. In this regard, it is noteworthy to point out that since
the promulgation of the Court's August 25, 2015 Resolution, there was still no showing that
Torres had reconciled or even attempted to reconcile with his sister-in-law so as to show remorse
for his previous faults.

Moreover, Torres also failed to present any evidence to demonstrate his potential for public
service or that he - now being 70 years of age27 - still has productive years ahead of him that can
be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.

In sum, Torres failed to comply with the guidelines for the grant of judicial clemency; hence, the
instant petition must necessarily be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

On official Leave
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO*
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

No part
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA**
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

On official leave
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA***
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

ALFREDO BENJAMIN S.
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
CAGUIOA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

NOEL G. TIJAM
Associate Justice

Footnotes

* On official leave.

** No part.

*** On official leave.

1 Rollo, pp. 492-500.

2 Id. at 241-252.

3 471 Phil. I (2004).

4 Id. at 4; see also rollo, pp. 241-242.

5 Id. at 15; see also rollo, p. 251.

6 See Motion for Reconsideration (Court's En Banc Resolution Dated April 14, 2004)
dated May 17, 2004 and Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Second Motion for
Reconsideration dated September 14, 2004 with attached Second Motion for
Reconsideration dated September 13, 2004; rollo, pp. 254- 281 and 303-326,
respectively.
7 See Resolutions dated June 29, 2004 and November 9, 2004; id. at 296 and 345,
respectively.

8 Id. at 345.

9 Id. at 346-349.

10 Id. at 348.

11 Dated August I, 2006. Id. at 366-367.

12 Dated August I, 2006. Id. at 356-357.

13 Id. at 355.

14 Id. at 362.

15 See letter dated April 28, 2007 addressed to former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (id.
at 376); and Petition for Reinstatement filed on October 30, 2009 (see envelope, id. at
386).

16 See Petition for Reduction of Penalty from Disbarment to Suspension filed on January
14, 2011; id. at 389-394.

17 See Resolutions dated June 12, 2007 and December 8, 2009; id. at 383 and 388,
respectively.

18 See Resolution dated February 8, 2011; id. at 417.

19 Id. at 437-442.

20 See id. at 441.

21 Re: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as a Member
of the Philippine Bar, A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015, 768 SCRA 149. See also rollo,
pp. 469-476.

22 See id. at 158-160. See also rollo, pp. 473-475.

23 Id. at 158, citing Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 37, 560 Phil. 1, 5. (2007)

24 Id.

25 Id. at 157, citing Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 37, id. at 5-6.

26 See Letter dated March 3, 2017 signed by Secretary of Justice Vitaliano N. Aguirre II;
rollo, p. 562.

27 See id. at 492.

Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

 
 

DISBARMENT & DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS

Rule 139-B
   Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment,
suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme
Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall
state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be
supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of
the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantiate said facts. chanrobles virtua law library
.   

The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by

the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the
instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges
against erring attorneys including those in the government
service; Provided, however, that all charges against Justices of
the Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the
Court of Tax Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are
jointly charged with them, shall be filed with the Supreme Court;
Provided, further, that charges filed against Justices and Judges
before the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment
in the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme
Court for disposition and adjudication.

 Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed

with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its
chapters who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP
Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator. (As
amended by Bar Matter No. 1960).

A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sec. 2. National Grievance Investigator. - The Board of Governors

shall appoint from among IBP members an Investigator or, when
special circumstances so warrant, a panel of three(3)
investigators to investigate the complaint All Investigators
shall take an oath of office in the form prescribed by the Board
of Governors. A copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of
relationship within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
affinity to any of the parties or their counsel, pecuniary
interest, personal bias, or his having acted as counsel for
either party, unless the parties sign and enter upon the
record their written consent to his acting as such
Investigator. Where the Investigator does not disqualify
himself, a party may appeal to the IBP Board of Governors,
which by majority vote of the members present, there being a
quorum, may order his disqualification.
Any Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due
hearing, by the vote of at least six (6) members of the IBP
Board Governors. The decision of the Board of Governors in
all cases of disqualification or removal shall be final.
Sec. 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. - The
National Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaint against
members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors.

Sec. 4. Chapter assistance to complainant. - The proper IBP Chapter may

assist the complainant(s) in the preparation and filing of his complaint(s).
chanrobles virtua law library

Sec. 5. Service or dismissal. - If the complaint appears to be

meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon
the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from
the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer
shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not
meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his
recommendation. A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the
complainant and the Supreme Court which may review the case motu proprio or
upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the
dismissal of the complainant.

No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the

desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or
failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.

Sec. 6. Verification and service of answer. - The answer shall be

verified. The original and five (5) legible copies of the answer shall be
filed with the Investigator, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the
complainant or his counsel.

Sec. 7. Administrative counsel. - The IBP Board of Governors shall

appoint a suitable member of the Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the
complainant or the respondent during the investigation in case of need for
such assistance.

Sec. 8. Investigation. - Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the

respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed
with the investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas
and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend
himself, to present witnesses on his behalf and be heard by himself and
counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear,
the investigation shall proceed ex parte.

The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months
from the date of its commencement unless extended for good cause by the Board
of Governors upon prior application.

Willfull failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order

issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of
court.  The corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the
IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause
within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter
conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in
this Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall, as far as
practicable, be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement.
Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within like period fifteen (15)
days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which
`shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if
warranted, the imposition of penalty.

Sec. 9. Depositions. - Depositions may be taken in accordance with the

Rules of Court with leave of the investigator(s). chanrobles virtua law library

Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before  any member of the
Board of Governors, the President of any Chapter, or any officer authorized by
law to administer oaths.

Depositions may be taken outside the Philippines before a diplomatic or

consular representative of the Philippine Government or before any person
agreed upon by the parties or designated by the Board of Governors.

Any suitable members of the Integrated Bar in the place where a deposition
shall be taken may be designated by the Investigator to assist the complainant
or the respondent in taking a deposition.

Sec. 10. Report of Investigator. - Not later than thirty (30) days from
the termination of the investigation, the Investigator shall submit a report
containing his findings of fact and recommendations to the IBP Board of
Governors, together with the stenographic notes and the transcripts thereof
and all the evidence presented during the investigation.  The submission of
the report need not await the transcription of the stenographic notes, it
being sufficient that the report reproduce substantially from the
Investigator's personal notes any relevant and pertinent testimonies.

Sec. 11. Defects. - No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the

proceeding or the Investigator's Report shall be considered as substantial
unless the Board of Governors, upon considering the whole record, finds that
such defect has resulted or may result in a miscarriage of justice, in which
event the Board shall take such remedial action as the circumstance may
warrant, including invalidation of the entire proceedings. chanrobles virtua law
library

Sec. 12. View and decision by the Board of Governors. -

(a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by

the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence
transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The
decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing
and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the
reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated within
a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next
meeting of the Board following the submittal of the
Investigator's Report

(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total

membership, determines that the respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the
case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court
for final action.

(c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the

disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension
or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it
shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing
such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless
upon petition of the complainant or other interested party
filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the Board’s resolution, the Supreme Court orders
otherwise.

(d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall

be given to all parties through their counsel. A copy of the
same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.

B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Sec. 13. Supreme Court Investigators. - In proceedings initiated

motu proprio by the Supreme Court in other proceedings when the
interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the
case for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer
of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case,
the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in
Sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review report of the
investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.
virtualawlibrary
chanrobles

Sec. 14.Report of the Solicitor General or other Court designated

investigator. - Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the
Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall
submit to the Supreme Court a resolution containing his findings of fact and
recommendations together the record and all the evidence presented in the
investigation for the final action of the Supreme Court.

C. COMMON PROVISIONS

Sec. 15. Suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court. - After receipt

of respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor, the
Supreme Court, motu proprio, or at the instance of the IBP Board
of Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigator, may
suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any
of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the
pendency of the investigation until such suspension is lifted by
the Supreme Court. chanrobles virtua law library

Sec. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or

16.
Regional Trial Court. - The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may
suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in Rule 138,
Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

Sec. 17.Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial

Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court. - Upon such suspension,
the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to the
Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement
of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon receipt of such certified
copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the
case and may revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney
as the facts may warrant.

Sec. 18. Confidentiality. - Proceedings against attorneys shall be private

and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be
published like its decisions in other cases.

Sec. 19. Expenses. - All reasonable and necessary expenses

incurred in relation to disciplinary and disbarment proceedings
are lawful charges forthwith the parties may be taxed as costs.
chanrobles virtua law library

Sec. 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision. - This Rule shall

take effect on June 1, 1988 and shall supersede the present Rule
139 entitled "DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEYS".  All cases
pending investigation by the Office of the Solicitor General
shall be transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Board of Governors for investigation and disposition as provided
in this Rule except those cases where the investigation has been
substantially completed. (Bar Matter No. 356, Resolution dated April 13,
1988).

PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

Background on the Philippine

 Judicial System

Philippine Judicial Hierarchy

Regular Courts

Special Courts

Collegiate Courts

Lower Courts

The Supreme Court

The Court of Appeals

Sandiganbayan

Court of Tax Appeals

Regional Trial Courts

Shari'a District Courts

Shari'a Circuit Courts

Municipal Trial Courts

Metropolitan Trial Courts

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

Constitutional Provisions on the

Judiciary

Rules of Court of the Philippines

Supreme Court Decisions

Supreme Court Circulars

Philippine Law Update:  The

Supreme Court & the Judiciary

2006 DIRECTORY OF JUSTICES

AND JUDGES 

of the following courts:

PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

DIRECTORY OF JUSTICES AND

JUDGES
 

Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

Sandiganbayan

Court of Tax Appeals

Regional Trial Courts
Metropolitan Trial Courts in Cities

Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal

 Circuit Courts
Shari'a District Courts
Shari'a Circuit Courts

Can a disbarred lawyer be re-admitted to the Philippine bar?

Yes. Re-admission, however, would depend greatly on the discretion of the Supreme Court, who would
first evaluate whether the applicant's re-entry as counselor-at-law would preserve public interest in the
orderly and impartial administration of justice.

This was the ruling in Julieta Narag vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag, A.C. No. 3405, 18 March 2014,
where, in denying Atty. Narag's Petition for Re-admission to the Philippine Bar, the Supreme Court
explained -

"Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the
sound discretion of the Court. The action will depend on whether or not the Court decides that
the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will continue to be
preserved even with the applicant's reentry as a counselor at law. The applicant must, like a
candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral
character, a fit and proper person to practice law. The Court will take into consideration
the applicant's 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 between the disbarment and the application for
reinstatement.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In Julieta Narag, Atty. Narag was disbarred in the year 1998 after being found guilty of gross immorality
when he abandoned his family in order to live with a 17-year old paramour. 

On 29 November 2013, Atty. Narag filed a Petition for Re-admission alleging that he has already
expressed extreme repentance and remorse to his wife and their children for his misgivings. Atty. Narag
further claimed that his wife and his six children had already forgiven him on 10 June 2010 and
presented an undated affidavit of his son, Dominador, Jr., attesting to the truth of Atty. Narag's claim.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Supreme Court still DENIED Atty. Narag's petition for re-
admission to the Philippine Bar.

In denying his petition, the Supreme Court found that Atty. Narag has not really reformed, contrary to
his claim of repentance. In fact, the Supreme Court found that Atty. Narag still lives with his paramour
and that he has not rid himself of the grossly immoral act which made him inept to practice law.

As to the supposed forgiveness extended by his wife and children, the Supreme Court found the same to
be mere hearsay, considering that only Dominador, Jr. submitted an affidavit to this effect. Nevertheless,
the fact of forgiveness is immaterial to his re-admission as Atty. Narag is still committing a grossly
immoral conduct (still living with a woman other than his wife).

Because of the foregoing, and despite the fact that Atty. Narag had engaged himself in various civic,
social, and community activities, as well as bequeathed all his properties to his legal wife and children,
the Supreme Court chose to uphold the disbarment of Atty. Narag and still deny him the privilege of
practicing law in the country.
Just goes to show the high standards of moral integrity expected of those who practice law in the
country, which, according to Supreme Court, should be "enjoyed only by those who continue to display
unassailable character."

High court clears disbarred lawyer

posted November 14, 2016 at 12:01 am by  PNA

The Supreme Court has reinstated a lawyer in the Roll of Attorneys and allowed him to continue his legal
practice after he showed remorse for more than a decade after being disbarred for violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

In a  resolution  promulgated on Oct. 18, 2016, the Court en banc  however gave lawyer Mosib Ali
Bubong a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Bubong, then the Register of Deeds of Marawi, was disbarred in 2005 for violating Rule 6.02 of the CPR
when he took advantage of his position as Register of Deeds and employed his knowledge of the rules
governing land registration for the benefit of his relatives.

The Court agreed with the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to reinstate Bubong,
stressing that “[p]enalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders,”
adding that “[t]he goal of disciplinary proceedings is restoration and not retribution.”

The Court found that Bubong had established by clear and convincing evidence that he is worthy to be
reinstated as a member of the Bar. It held that sufficient time had elapsed from the imposition of the
penalty to ensure a period of reformation, adding that Bubong’s claim of remorse and reformation was
supported by various certifications, letters, and resolutions attesting to his good moral character and his
fitness to be reinstated as a member of the Bar.

The Court noted that during his disbarment, Bubong has committed himself to public service in his
community as he continued to be active in his IBP Chapter by providing financial assistance to the
bereaved family of its deceased members. It also noted that he is the corporate secretary of a non-
stock, non-government organization  which manages and operates a non-formal Arabic school in his
community.

Ads by AdAsia

You can close Ad in 6 s

In 2011, he filed an ex-parte motion for judicial mercy and compassion and his reinstatement as a
member of the bar. PNA

Subsequently, the Court referred the matter to the IBP. The following year, the IBP recommended
Bubong’s reinstatement saying that the former has been remorseful of the grave misconduct he had
done which was a violation of the CPR and that he has been completely reformed and was worthy to
practice as proven by certifications, testimonial letters and resolutions from various individuals and
groups, legal and non-legal.

Bubong admitted to the Court his guilt and said he deserved the penalty of disbarment but added that
he believed that he had reformed himself and reflected on his shortcomings as a lawyer after more than
a decade following his disbarment.

Even during his disbarment, he claimed to have continued to join fellow lawyers in visiting and
extending monetary assistance to the bereaved family of any member of his IBP chapter who died.
Likewise, he said that he was only 64 and has still more productive years ahead of him.
Editors' Picks

 1,036

shares

SC forgives lawyer who had 3 wives

By: Christine O. Avendaño - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 01:06 AM February 08, 2013

He must have seemed like the honey bee in the 1956 Hollywood film “The King and I,” floating
from blossom to blossom. Yet he found “extraordinary mercy” before the justices of the
Supreme Court.

For showing deep remorse for what he did by illegally marrying three women, a lawyer disbarred
for immorality in 2004 was reinstated by the high court “in the rolls of attorneys.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Editors' Picks

 1,036

shares

SC forgives lawyer who had 3 wives

By: Christine O. Avendaño - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 01:06 AM February 08, 2013

He must have seemed like the honey bee in the 1956 Hollywood film “The King and I,” floating
from blossom to blossom. Yet he found “extraordinary mercy” before the justices of the
Supreme Court.

For showing deep remorse for what he did by illegally marrying three women, a lawyer disbarred
for immorality in 2004 was reinstated by the high court “in the rolls of attorneys.”
ADVERTISEMENT

Now 58 years old, Edmundo L. Macarubbo “still has productive years ahead of him that could
significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of society,”
according to a Jan. 22 resolution by the court.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Immoral conduct

In a statement released Thursay, the high court’s public information office said Macarubbo had
been granted his petition for “extraordinary mercy” almost 10 years after he was ordered
disbarred for immorality. It said the high tribunal found that the lawyer has “sufficiently atoned
for his transgressions.”

The lawyer was ordered disbarred after it was found that he had “contracted a bigamous
marriage with complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with one Josephine Constantino
while his first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting.”

His offense constituted gross immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7,
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

But the fountain of mercy is ever flowing.

Need for compassion

In a six-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, the court en banc
said that while it had a duty to discipline and remove erring officers, it also had a duty to show
compassion to those who had changed their ways, like Macarrubo.

According to the high court, the lawyer had “sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged
his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his personal life.”

ADVERTISEMENT

He had also asked forgiveness from his children with Teves and, as shown in his photo evidence,
was maintaining cordial ties with them.

Backed by priest

Following his disbarment, the court noted that Macarrubo had gone back to his hometown in
Enrile, Cagayan province, and spent his time working in an orchard and taking care of his ailing
mother until her death in 2008.

Macarrubo worked for the local government there, became a part-time instructor at the
University of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College and was also active in socio-civic
activities.

The court noted that Macarrubo’s petition for reinstatement was backed by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines’ Cagayan chapter and his parish priest, Father Camilo Castillejos Jr.

Records also show that he was sending regular support to his children and had settled his marital
squabbles.

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;

xxxx

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.

1
  

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.

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 when 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 of Taguig;

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;

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

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;

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

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-Taasang

Hukuman 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:

 
 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
First 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.

xxxx

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.

xxxx

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

(Administrative Case No. 2984), the Court [in] deciding whether or not to reinstate 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.

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
gave him 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]

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

7
 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 since the 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.