G.R. No. 188655 - Next Mobile, Inc. vs. National Telecommunications Commission~~National Telecommunications Commission vs. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc.~~Multi-Media Telephony, Inc. vs. Pacific Wireless, Inc. et al.

Respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres filed a Petition for Reinstatement to the Philippine Bar following his disbarment.
The administrative case arose from allegations made by his sister-in-law, complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali.
The charges involved ethical and professional misconduct, including presentation of false testimony, participation in forgery, and gross misrepresentation for personal gain.

On November 11, 1986, a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement was executed by his wife, Felicisima, and his sister-in-law, Miriam.

The document falsely represented that Felicisima and Miriam were the sole heirs of Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting.
Respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against the perjury, thereafter presenting the document for the transfer of title over Lot No. 1586 to be registered in their names.
The lot was eventually sold to Antel Holdings, Inc. for P1,195,400, with payments made directly to Felicisima and Miriam.

On March 17, 1995, a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement relating to Lot 1603 was executed.

Respondent was alleged to have participated in, consented to, and neglected to oppose the forgery of complainant’s signature, knowing she was in Italy as an overseas contract worker.
The falsified document was used to transfer the title of Lot 1603 in favor of his wife Felicisima and sister-in-law Marcelina, facilitating its sale to Antel Holdings, Inc.
Payment was received and misappropriated by Felicisima and Marcelina.

In connection with a separate administrative matter involving Lot 1605 (as seen in LRC Rec. No. 5964 in a petition filed by complainant’s sisters on October 24, 1995):

The respondent made gross misrepresentations and offered false testimony asserting that Marcelina and Felicisima were the only children and legal heirs of the late spouses.
This false representation was instrumental in obtaining a new title, which in turn enabled the sale of Lot 1605 to Antel Holdings, Inc. for P2,213,100, with partial payment being received.

The respondent made gross and false misrepresentations by promising a buyer—through a designated intermediary—to secure the release of full payment for Lot 1605 under false pretenses.
He misused the stationery of the Philippine National Bank, where he was employed, to support his deceptive representations in the reconstitution proceedings.

In a Resolution dated April 14, 2004, the court found Atty. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and in violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The ruling resulted in his disbarment and order for his name to be struck off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

On May 20, 2004, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed and later denied in a Resolution dated June 29, 2004.
On September 15, 2004, a second motion for reconsideration (Motion for Leave to File and Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration) was filed and denied on November 9, 2004, with the determination that no further pleadings would be entertained.
Additional attempts included an Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment filed on January 26, 2006, which was expunged in a Resolution dated June 13, 2006, as well as subsequent letters addressed to former high-ranking judicial officials, all of which were not favorably considered.
More than ten years following the disbarment, on June 23, 2015, the respondent ultimately filed the instant Petition for judicial clemency seeking reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys.

Whether the petition for reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer should be granted despite the serious allegations and findings of gross misconduct.

The primary inquiry is whether the respondent has sufficiently demonstrated moral reformation and rehabilitation through clear and convincing evidence.
Whether the evidence presented by the respondent adequately satisfies the judicial guidelines for reinstatement, specifically in regard to remorse, reformation, potential for public service, and consistency in demonstrating improved conduct after disbarment.
The tension between compassion for a disbarred lawyer’s plight (including possible financial or reputational hardships) versus the need to preserve the integrity and public confidence in the legal profession.