Adm. Case No. 533 - IN RE: Florencio Mallare

On April 29, 1968, the Court declared that respondent Florencio Mallare, admitted to the practice of law in 1962, was not a Filipino citizen based on the evidence presented during the investigation.
Consequently, the Court ordered the revocation of his admission to the Philippine bar and directed him to return his lawyer’s diploma immediately.
Copies of the decision were to be forwarded to the Secretary of Justice for appropriate action and to the Local Civil Registrar of Macalelon, Quezon for record purposes.

Respondent Mallare sought to reopen and retry the case by presenting additional evidence that was not considered in the original investigation.
The newly introduced evidence included:

An entry in the Register of Baptisms at the Parish of the Immaculate Conception of Macalelon, Tayabas (now Quezon). The record (No. 5 at page 147) testified that his late father, Esteban Mallare, was baptized as the natural son of Ana Mallare, described as “india soltera de este pueblo”, with an unknown father.
An affidavit from Damiana Cabangon, the “hilot” who attended Ana Mallare, asserting that Ana Mallare did not have a husband when she gave birth to Esteban Mallare.
An affidavit from Florencio Mallare’s mother, Te Na, claiming an error in the 1960 registration, wherein her son was erroneously recorded as an alien.

The Commissioner of Immigration opposed the reopening on the ground that the evidence offered was not newly discovered, but rather forgotten evidence.
The argument centered on whether such evidence should suffice to contest and overturn the established ruling regarding Mallare’s citizenship and his eligibility to practice law.

The Court underscored the importance of affording the respondent, a duly admitted lawyer since 1962, every opportunity to establish the true facts about his citizenship.
The need to reexamine the decision was predicated on the principle that no effort should be spared in ascertaining the truth before permanently depriving a person of the professional privilege already granted by the Court.
The original proofs from the investigation were to be preserved and deemed part of the evidence in the new trial, indicating a comprehensive reassessment of all presented materials.

Whether the additional evidence presented by respondent Mallare—comprising the baptismal register entry and affidavits—qualifies as newly discovered evidence capable of calling into question the earlier determination of his citizenship.
Whether the new evidence supports the claim that Mallare, by virtue of being born in the Philippines to a Filipino father (despite his father’s questionable registration), should be reinstated as a Filipino citizen eligible to practice law.
Whether the error in the registration of Mallare as an alien in 1960 is sufficient to reconsider the ruling that led to the revocation of his admission to the bar.