B.M. No. 44, 59, SBC No. 624 - Tan vs. El Sabandal

Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath due to pending administrative complaints.
In response, he filed a Petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
The petition was opposed by several complainants: Eufrosina Y. Tan, Benjamin Cabigon, Cornelio Agnis, and Diomedes D. Agnis, who raised multiple grounds against his admission.

The Court’s Resolution dated November 29, 1983, noted that evidence showed respondent engaged in unauthorized practice by holding himself out as a lawyer in various cases (agrarian, civil, and criminal).
Specific occurrences included:

His representation of parties in CAR Cases Nos. 347 and 326, where he clarified his position only after objection by opposing counsel.
The use of appellative designations such as “Atty. Nicolas Sabandal” despite not being admitted to the Bar.

Testimonies and documentary exhibits (e.g., Exhibit ‘A-1’, Exhibits ‘D-8’ and ‘D-9’) corroborated that respondent acted as a lawyer and received compensation for his services.

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 23, 1984, which was opposed by the complainants, citing an insufficient period to determine whether he had reformed.
On May 23, 1985, he filed an Ex-parte Motion for Reconsideration reiterating his prayer to take the lawyer’s oath, which was denied on July 16, 1985, with the Court declaring no further similar motions would be entertained.
Further, on December 2, 1985, a Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal for Mercy and Forgiveness was filed and only noted in the Court’s Resolution of January 7, 1986.
A letter from his children dated December 4, 1986 reiterated his appeal; however, the Court noted it without taking action on July 7, 1987.
Ultimately, on June 28, 1988, he filed a second Petition to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath, with the complainants not providing any comment to date.

The Court underscored that an applicant’s reinstatement into the legal profession depends largely on demonstrating good moral character, rehabilitation, and an assurance of adherence to the lawyer’s oath.
The decision referenced several prior cases which considered factors such as:

The appreciation of the significance of one’s dereliction and assurance of possessing probity and integrity (Magat vs. Santiago).
The elapsed time since disbarment, subsequent good conduct, and active involvement in civic and religious organizations (In Re: Juan T. Publico).
Favorable endorsements from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and local community stakeholders (In Re: Quinciano D. Vailoces).
The pleas of family members highlighting the need for a restorative second chance (Andres vs. Cabrera).

Respondent’s submissions, including testimonials from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte, attested to his reformed character and civic consciousness after ten years since his passing of the 1978 Bar Examination.

Taking into account his contrition, the demonstration of reformation, and the criteria established in previous reinstatement cases, the Court allowed respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal to take the lawyer’s oath.
The Court imposed a binding assurance on the respondent to strictly adhere to the language, meaning, and spirit of the lawyer’s oath and to maintain the highest standards of the legal profession.

Whether the respondent, despite his past practice of unauthorized law and pending administrative complaints, possesses the requisite good moral character and reformation to be admitted to the Philippine Bar.
Whether the evidence of his previous unauthorized acts, including holding himself out as a lawyer and receiving compensation for legal services, can be sufficiently mitigated by his later expressions of contrition and the passage of time.
Whether the repeated motions and pleas for reconsideration and reinstatement, including familial appeals and testimonial evidence, sufficiently affirm his fitness to practice law and warrant a discretionary granting of his petition.