IN RE: Lanuevo

Facts:

The proceedings arose from a confidential letter dated March 29, 1972 by Oscar Landicho calling the Court's attention to alleged post‑correction alterations in the 1971 Bar Examination grades. On checking the records the Court discovered that the grades of an examinee bearing Office Code No. 954 had been changed in five major subjects; the Court identified the examinee as Ramon E. Galang (alias Roman E. Galang) and the Bar Confidant and deputy clerk custodian who had returned examination notebooks for re-evaluation as Victorio D. Lanuevo. The Court directed the Chairman of the 1971 Bar Examination Committee to secure sworn statements from Lanuevo and the examiners; Lanuevo and five examiners (Pamatian, Pardo, Tomacruz, Montecillo, Manalo) admitted re‑evaluation or re‑checking of Galang's notebooks after Lanuevo represented to each that the examinee was borderline or had failed only in that subject.

By resolution dated March 5, 1973 the Court required Lanuevo to show cause why his name should not be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys (Adm. Case No. 1162), required Galang to show cause why his name should not be stricken (Adm. Case No. 1163), and required the five examiners to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them (Adm. Case No. 1164). Answers and sworn statements were filed in March–May 1973; a joint investigation was conducted from July 17 to October 2, 1973, during which testimony, affidavits and documentary exhibits were received and an NBI inquiry disclosed that Galang had a prior charge for slight physical injuries (1959) that he had not disclosed in his bar applications.

The investigation established that Lanuevo systematically took certain notebooks (including those of Office Code No. 954) back to individual examiners, representing that the owner was borderline or had failed only in that subject; each examiner, believing Lanuevo's representations and/or acting in good faith, re‑evaluated and, in some instances, increased the grades. The re‑evaluations raised Galang's general weighted average from 66.25% to 74.15% (rounded to the Court’s adopted 74% passing mark) and led to his oath as an attorney. The Court also found that Galang had willfully concealed the pending 1959 charge from his bar applications.

After memoranda were filed (respondents filed memoranda November 14, 1973), the Court rendered its administrati...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did Victorio D. Lanuevo breach his duties as Bar Confidant so as to warrant disbarment?
• Should Ramon E. Galang be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys for having been irregularly admitted and for concealing a prior criminal charge?
• Do the five examiners (Pamatian, Pardo, Tomacruz, Montecillo, Manalo) merit disciplinary sanctions for having re‑evaluated papers upon Lanuevo’s representations?
• Were the re‑evaluations and resulting adjustments to other examinees’ grades (e.g., Quitaleg, Ty dela Cruz)...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)