Case Summary (B.M. No. 979, 986)
Background and Issue at Hand
Petitioner was permitted to take the Bar Examinations under the condition that he would submit a certificate of completion of a pre-bar review course within sixty days from the last day of the examinations. After passing the examinations, he was disqualified by a resolution dated April 13, 2000, by the Supreme Court, citing two primary grounds: (1) his failure to provide the required certification under oath, and (2) an act of dishonesty concerning his attendance at the pre-bar review course.
Initial Disqualification
The court's disqualification noted that Purisima had falsely stated that he attended the pre-bar review course at the Philippine Law School when, in fact, the institution had not offered such a course since 1967. The absence of the required certificate and the alleged dishonesty concerning where he completed his review course led to the court's decision to nullify his examination results.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
Following the court's decision, Purisima filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, his father, retired Judge Amante P. Purisima, submitted a petition to reopen Bar Matter 986, but this was not acted upon by the court.
Clarification and Explanation
In July 2002, Purisima submitted a motion seeking to explain the discrepancies in his original petition. He argued that the mention of the Philippine Law School as his review institution was a clerical error made by a friend who notarized and filed the petition on his behalf. To support his claim, he provided various documents including certifications, receipts, and affidavits from classmates and faculty attesting to his enrollment and attendance at the University of Santo Tomas, where he completed his pre-bar review course.
Hearings and Recommendations
The Office of the Bar Confidant conducted a summary hearing that elucidated the authenticity of the documents presented by Purisima. The Office recommended that he should be given the benefit of the doubt, citing previous similar cases where candidates had been allowed to take their oaths despite comparable issues. The recommendation also highlighted the need for compassion in the face of apparent oversight rather than malicious intent.
Court's Final Decision
In its final ruling, the court acknowledged Purisima's explanations and the supporting documents, accepting that while there were procedur
...continue readingCase Syllabus (B.M. No. 979, 986)
Background of the Case
- Petitioner Mark Anthony A. Purisima was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Examinations.
- He was required to submit a certification of completion of the pre-bar review course within sixty days after the last day of the examinations.
Initial Resolution and Grounds for Disqualification
- Petitioner successfully passed the 1999 Bar Examinations.
- On April 13, 2000, the Court disqualified him from membership in the Philippine Bar, declaring his examinations null and void.
- The disqualification was based on two primary grounds:
- Failure to submit the required certificate of completion of the pre-bar review course under oath.
- Commission of a serious act of dishonesty by indicating in his petition that he attended the pre-bar review course at the Philippine Law School (PLS), while it was certified that PLS had not offered such a course since 1967.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the April 13, 2000 Resolution, but it was denied.
Subsequent Petitions and Claims
- On October 29, 2001, retired Judge Amante P. Purisima, the petitioner’s father, filed a Petition to Reopen Bar Matter 986; however, it was noted without action by the Court.
- On July 2, 2002, the petitioner filed a Motion for Due Process, arguing the entry regarding his pre-bar review