Case Summary (A.C. No. 244)
Key Dates
- Bar Examination Passed: 1953
- Disbarment Petition Filed: c. 1955
- Decision Date: March 27, 1963
Applicable Law
- 1935 Philippine Constitution (granting the Supreme Court inherent power to regulate the practice of law)
- Rules for Admission to the Bar: requirement of completion of prescribed pre-legal education prior to study of law
Factual Background
- Diao’s 1953 bar application asserted completion of required pre-legal education, specifically:
a. High school diploma
b. Associate in Arts (A.A.) degree from Quisumbing College (1940–1941) - Martinez charged that Diao had never completed high school nor obtained an A.A. from Quisumbing College.
- The Solicitor-General’s investigation confirmed Diao lacked both credentials.
Respondent’s Explanation
- Admitted leaving high school in third year and claimed U.S. Army service test equivalency for 3rd and 4th year high school without documentary proof.
- Acknowledged receiving an A.A. degree from Arellano University in April 1949, but attributed the Quisumbing College reference to clerical “confusion.”
Issues
- Whether Diao falsely represented completion of required pre-legal education to qualify for the bar examination.
- Whether such misrepresentation warrants disbarment despite passing the bar and being admitted.
Analysis
- Pre-legal education must be fully completed before commencing law studies and before applying for the bar.
- If Diao had correctly disclosed his A.A. from Arellano University (April 1949), it would have demonstrated he began law studies before obtaining the degree, violating the rule requiring prior completion.
- Lack of documentary proof for claimed high school equivalency undermines his defense.
- False statements in the bar application go to the core qualifications for admission and constitute obtaining admission under false pretens
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 244)
Facts of the Case
- Telesforo A. Diao passed the Bar examinations in 1953 and was admitted to the Philippine Bar.
- Approximately two years later, Severino Martinez filed a petition charging that Diao had falsely represented in his Bar application that he possessed the requisite academic qualifications.
- The petition was assigned Adm. Case No. 244 and was referred to the Solicitor-General for investigation.
Petition and Referral
- Severino Martinez, as petitioner, asserted that Diao misrepresented his educational background in his sworn Bar application.
- The Supreme Court referred the charge to the Solicitor-General, who undertook an inquiry into Diao’s academic credentials.
- Upon completion of the investigation, the Solicitor-General submitted a report recommending disbarment.
Solicitor-General’s Report and Recommendation
- The report concluded that Diao did not satisfy the pre-legal education requirements prescribed by the Department of Private Education prior to commencing law studies.
- Two specific deficiencies were identified:
- Diao did not complete his high school training.
- He never attended Quisumbing College nor obtained an Associate in Arts (A.A.) diploma from that institution.
- Accordingly, the Solicitor-General recommended erasure of Diao’s name from the roll of attorneys.
Respondent’s Answer
- On the first charge (incomplete high school), Diao admitted leaving high school in his third