Case Summary (B.M. No. 3288)
Key Dates
- May 19, 2017: OBC received So’s letter alleging Lee’s pending Civil Case No. 740.
- October 9, 2017 and March 15, 2019: Lee filed Petitions to retake the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.
- April 6, 2020: En Banc Resolution issued.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution: Basis for admission to the practice of law post-1990.
- Rule 138, Section 2 of the Rules of Court: Requirements for admission to the Bar, including good moral character and absence of charges involving moral turpitude.
- Jurisprudential definitions of moral turpitude and standards for continuing moral fitness.
Factual Background
- So alleged that Lee is defendant in Civil Case No. 740 for failure to settle a ₱200,000 loan; attached copy of the complaint.
- Lee admitted the loan, declared P140,000 paid over ten months, and cited business losses for subsequent defaults; claimed unawareness of Case No. 740 until oath registration.
- OBC report noted Lee’s prior disclosure in her 2016 Bar application of another civil case, Civil Case No. 1436, involving ₱1,450,000 in loans from Joseph “Nonoy” Bolos.
- August 1, 2017 Resolution held Lee’s oath and roll signing in abeyance pending resolution of both civil cases.
- October 2017 and March 2019 petitions showed dismissal of Civil Case No. 740 via compromise and a 2019 Judgment by Compromise dismissing Civil Case No. 1436, under which Lee agreed to monthly payments of at least ₱15,000 after signing the Roll of Attorneys.
- OBC recommended conditional approval, requiring Lee to notify the Court within one month of her first ₱15,000 payment to Bolos and upon full satisfaction of the debt.
Issue
Whether Ma. Lucille P. Lee should be allowed to retake the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys in view of her prior civil actions for collection of money.
Legal Standards on Moral Character
- Admission to the practice of law is a privilege contingent on continuing possession of qualifications, including good moral character (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, sec. 5[1]; Rule 138, sec. 2).
- Moral turpitude: conduct contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals; determination depends on facts and circumstances and is ultimately for the Court to resolve.
- Not every criminal or civil case involves moral turpitude; mere pendency of a civil action does not, per se, bar admission.
Application of Law to Facts
- The pendency of Civil Case Nos. 740 and 1436 did not demonstrate conduct tainted with moral turpitude.
- Both cases were dismissed upon compromise agreements, eliminating legal barriers to oath‐taking and roll signing.
- Lee’s unfulfilled debt to Bolos, however, raises concerns under disciplinary rules: deliberate failure to pay just debts may constitute gross misconduct and warrant suspension.
- After admission, Lee would be fully subject to the Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction and bound by continuing moral character requirements.
Court’s Holdings
- Civil cases alone, without fi
Case Syllabus (B.M. No. 3288)
Factual Antecedents
- On May 19, 2017, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from Mercuria D. So alleging that Ma. Lucille P. Lee was a defendant in Civil Case No. 740 and therefore unfit for admission to the Bar due to an “irresponsible attitude” toward monetary obligations.
- The letter included So’s Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money, showing a P200,000.00 loan to Lee, of which she had paid P140,000.00 over ten months but defaulted thereafter due to business losses.
- Lee, in her Comment, asserted she was unaware of Civil Case No. 740 until she registered for oath-taking, acknowledged the loan and partial payments, and maintained she never intended to evade her obligation, having asked for additional time to settle.
- The OBC’s July 11, 2017 Report noted Lee’s 2016 Bar Examination application disclosed a separate Civil Case No. 1436 (Nonoy Bolos v. Ma. Lucille Lee Jao) for collection of P1,450,000.00 in loans from Joseph “Nonoy” Bolos.
- In its August 1, 2017 Resolution, the Court held Lee’s request to sign the Roll of Attorneys in abeyance pending the status of Civil Case Nos. 740 and 1436, and required her to manifest their current state.
Procedural History
- October 2017 Petition: Lee manifested that Civil Case No. 740 was dismissed pursuant to a Compromise Agreement with So, and affirmed full compliance with its terms.
- March 15, 2019 Petition: Lee reiterated the dismissal of Civil Case No. 740 and reported that Civil Case No. 1436 was also dismissed by Judgment of Compromise with Bolos, under which she agreed to pay P15,000.00 monthly starting one month after sh