BM No. 1209
BM No. 1209
July 1, 2003] PERJURY and that should be acted upon by your respectable office to
protect the integrity of our present lawyers who will be our future
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE BAR MATTER NO. 1209 Prosecutors, Judges, Justices or even High Ranking Cabinet or
LAWYER'S OATH Government Officials or even President of our country.
Gentlemen: The unethical act of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO when he took his oath as
a lawyer/member before a testimonial dinner tendered by the IBP-
Negros Occidental Chapter and witnessed not only by it's Officials,
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court present members and honored guests but by thousands of Television
dated JUL 1 2003. viewers not only in Bacolod City but the whole of Western Visayas if
not the whole country, despite also of his personal knowledge that he
RESOLUTION. B.M. No. 1209(In Re: Petition to Take the Bar Matter is not qualified to do so for the same reason above-stated, is
No. 1209 Lawyer's Oath, Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner.) tantamount to IMPERSONATION that should be properly acted upon
by the said body who will be furnished a copy of this information and
Before the court is a Petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign in the to also protect their integrity and to avoid similar incident that may
Roll of Attorneys dated April 22, 2002 filed by Caesar Z. Distrito, a happen in the future for lack of proper screening.
successful 2001 Bar Examinee.
Mr. Montinola attached to his letter copies of the complaint as well as
The petitioner is a former Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman of a copy of the decision in Civil Case No. 26837.
Barangay Singcang Airport, Bacolod City.On September 18, 1999, an
Information for Usurpation of Authority or Official Function under On August 15, 2002, the OBC received another letter from a certain
Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against him which Ms. Christine Angelie M. Espinosa, then SK Federation President
read: of Bacolod City, which read:
That on or about the 18th day of September, 1999, in the City of Your Honor:
Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the herein accused, not being the President of the Bacolod City May I inquire from your good office, whether a bar passer who has not
Sangguniang Kabataan Federation, a government agency, did then and taken his oath in view of the pending criminal case filed against him
there under pretense of official position and without being lawfully can attached (sic) to his name the nomenclature atty.?Such is the case
entitled to do so, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously preside over the of Mr. Caesar Z. Distrito , SK Federation, Bacolod City Vice-President
special session of the said Federation, in violation of the aforestated whopassed the bar last May 2002, but has not taken his oath due to the
law. pending criminal case lodged in MTCC branch 4, Bacolod City for
Usurpation of Power charge against him by the undersigned.
The petitioner was conditionally allowed to take the 2001 Bar
Examinations and passed the same.He could not, however, take the Ms. Espinosa attached a copy of an attendance sheet of a Sangguniang
Lawyer's Oath nor sign in the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution Panglungsod committee hearing dated June 21, 2002 where the
of the above-mentioned case. petitioner's name appeared to have been signed, along with the word
"Atty."
On August 2, 2002, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a
letter from a certain Mr. Benjie Montinola informing the said office On April 23, 2003, the petitioner filed his Petition to take the Lawyer's
that there were other cases filed against the petitioner which were not Oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys alleging that on April 4, 2003,
duly disclosed in the latter's petition to take the bar examinations, to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod, rendered a
wit: decision acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 99609. Attached thereto
was a certified true copy of the decision in the said criminal case and a
1. Two counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P.) 22 filed certificate of finality of judgment. The OBC informed the petitioner of
sometime in 1999, docketed as B.C.I.S. 99-6735 and 99-6736, before the above-mentioned charges and required him to comment on the
the City Prosecutor's Office of Bacolod; same.
2. Civil Case No. 27447 for "Sum of Money" filed on July 26, 2001, In his Comment dated May 12, 2003, the petitioner avers that when he
before the MTCC, Bacolod, in which an adverse decision dated April filed his petition to take the 2001 bar exams, the criminal case for
1, 2002 was rendered; usurpation of authority or official function was the only pending case
against him at the time. He did not mention I.S.B.C. Case Nos. 99-
3. Civil Case No. 27447 for "Sum of Money" filed on March 15, 2002, 6735 and 6736 for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in his petition because he
before MTCC, Bacolod. was of the honest belief that it was no longer necessary for him to do
so, considering that the cases had long been settled and dismissed
without even reaching the arraignment stage. The said criminal cases
Mr. Montinola also alleged in his letter that the petitioner took his oath apparently stemmed from the debts of some 50 fish vendors
as an Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) member, knowing fully at Magsungay Village. The petitioner's father, as the punong
well that he had not yet taken his oath as a lawyer before the Supreme barangay, had guaranteed the same in order to help the fishermen. But
Court nor signed in the Roll of Attorneys Mr. Montinola further as the drawer of the two checks, the complainant filed the action
averred: against the petitioner when the debts remained unpaid.
The fact that CAESAR Z. DISTRITO have (sic)not disclosed the As regards the civil cases, the petitioner avers that the same stemmed
above-mentioned criminal and civil case filed against him in his from salary loans that he, along with other barangay officials and
application form despite his personal knowledge of the same when he employees, obtained from Fil-Global Credit and Asset Management
applied for the Bar Exams sometime in 2001, is tantamount to Inc. and SWIP Lending Corporation on January 13, 2000 and August
22, 2000, respectively, when he was Barangay SK Chairman. There are thus three important matters raised before this
The barangay treasurer regularly deducted from his salary the Court, the determination of which would materially affect the fate of
payment for the said loans until such time when he completed the the present petition:
payment to Fil-Global on January 31, 2001 and for SWIUP Lending
on April 30, 2001.The barangay treasurer thereafter issued a First. The petitioner's non-disclosure of a criminal case for violation of
certification of complete payment. When the petitioner came back to B.P. 22 and of two other civil cases filed against him, albeit already
Bacolod after the bar exams, he was surprised to learn that dismissed at the time of the filing of his petition to take the 2001 bar
their barangay officials and employees were facing cases for sum of examinations.
money filed by Fil-Global and SWIP Lending because apparently,
their payments were not duly remitted. He received summons only
on October 22, 2001 and April 4, 2002 from the MTCC, Bacolod City. Second. The petitioner's attendance and participation in an IBP
The finance officer and the treasurer promised to settle everything, but testimonial dinner for new lawyers, when he had not yet taken his oath
they failed to do so until their term expired on August 15, 2002.After as a lawyer nor signed in the Roll of Attorneys.
the decision was rendered by the MTCC, the petitioner paid the
plaintiffs in the said cases, as evidenced by official receipt nos. 8169 Third. The petitioner's admitted use of the appellation "Atty." When he
and 9019 issued by Fil-Global and SWIP Lending respectively had no authority to do so as yet.
dated May 7, 2003.Thereafter, an order of satisfaction of judgment
was correspondingly issued by the court in civil cases 26837 and The Court sees fit to discuss each one, to serve as reminder to law
27447. students and prospective applicants to the bar.
Anent the IBP incident, the petitioner stated that an invitation was sent The petitioner's non-disclosure of Criminal case for violation of B.P.
to him by the IBP Negros Occidental Chapter to attend the testimonial Blg. 22 and two other civil cases filed against him, albeit already
dinner and the annual judicial excellence awarding ceremonies, but dismissed at the time of the filing of his petition to take the 2001 bar
that there was no mention of any induction ceremony. Considering the examinations.
he in fact successfully passed the bar examinations and was being
recognized therefore he was inspired to attend the occasion. He
admitted that during the occasion, all those who just passed the bar The petitioner insists that he had not read any requirement in the
exams were called for the induction of new members, and that he was petition to include cases that had already been dismissed. This, the
left with no choice but to join the others onstage when his name was Court cannot quite fathom. As stated by Deputy Clerk of Court and
called. However, the petitioner did not intend to deceive or to keep the Bar Confidant, Ma. Cristina B. Layusa
IBP in the dark, as he in fact informed them of his status. To prove the
absence of malice on his part, he did not sign any document that night. The petitioner's contention is quite hard to accept.In the ready-made
petition form to take the Bar Examination, the following is written
The petitioner also stated that after some verification as to the identity clearly:
of the complainant in the Letter-complaint dated August 22, 2002, he
found out that Benjie Montinola was a non-existing person who cannot "Note: Indicate any pending or dismissed civil, criminal or
claim to be a "guardian of proper civi[c] responsibility" considering administrative case against you and attach pertinent
that he is not even a registered voter of Bacolod City and that he could documents:____________________________."
not be located in the address given, as indicated in a Certification
issued by the Commission on Elections, Bacolod City and the Office
If petitioner had not read the notation, as what he claimed, why did he
of the Barangay Council of Barangay Singcang Airport.
disclose his pending case for Usurpation of authority or Official
Function. Moreover, the said instruction is written in the middle of the
Regarding the use of the appellation "Atty.", The petitioner admitted form, so if petitioner had not really read the same, he was not mindful
writing the same in the attendance sheet in a committee hearing of of what he was doing which should not be the case of a Bar applicant.
the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Bacolod City. He reasoned that he
was of the notion that a bar passer can be called "Attorney," and that
Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates the
what is only prohibited is to practice law, such as appearing in court
requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar, to wit:
and notarizing documents without the requisite oath-taking before the
Supreme Court and signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen
of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
The petitioner averred that the complainant in this case, Ms. Matus
character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before
Espinosa, had in fact executed an affidavit of desistance to attest that
the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and
there was indeed no misrepresentation on his part.
that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed
or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
The petitioner manifested his sincere apology to the Court for any
mistake he may have committed.
Whether or not the petitioner shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar
rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An
On May 22, 2003, the OBC made the following recommendation: applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral
character, fit and proper to practice law. The practice of law is not a
Considering that there is no more pending civil, criminal or natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who
administrative cases against herein petitioner, he may now be admitted demands it. Rather, it is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of
as a member of the Bar. good moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly
ascertained and certified.
Foregoing considered, it is respectfully recommended that Mr.
CAESAR Z. DISTRITO be now allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath It has been held that moral character is what a person really is, as
and sign the Roll of Attorneys upon payment of the required fees. distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally
entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the one of the new members of the Bar. Please come in formal
place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but attire.
one which corresponds to objective reality. The standard of personal
and professional integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it merely Your presence on this occasion will be highly appreciated.
enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral
character includes at least common honesty.
The Court can only conclude that the petitioner did not take his
petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
Admittedly, the petitioner was less than honest when he failed to seriously. He would have us believe that he attended an affair,
disclose the two other cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and the civil believing in good faith that it was meant for those who recently passed
cases involving sums of money which were filed against him, in his the bar, when the invitation he himself attached to his petition states
petition to take the bar examinations. He should have known that the otherwise.The petitioner's forthrightness and candor with the Court
said petitionis not to be taken lightly as it is made under oath. The leave much to be desired.
petitioner, in so doing, violated Rule 7.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires of every applicant candor and
truthfulness. Every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all The petitioner's admitted use of the Appellation "Atty." When he
his involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, had no Authority to do so as yet.
to enable the Court to fully ascertain or determine the applicant's moral
character. The petitioner should have realized the implication of any The petitioner's erroneous belief that a person who passed the bar
omission on his part, even if inadvertently made. examinations may allow himself to be called an attorney should be
corrected. An applicant who has passed the required examination or
In the case of People v. Tuanda, the Court held that "violation of B.P. has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall
Blg. 22 is a serious criminal offense which deleteriously affects public take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of
interest and public order," and considered the same an offense office. The Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member of
involving moral turpitude. The erring lawyer was consequently the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to
suspended from the practice of law. be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such
record be given to him by the clerk of court, which certificates shall be
his authority to practice. The clerk of the Supreme Court shall keep a
In this case, the fact that the criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Roll of Attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by
Blg. 22 did not even reach the arraignment stage is of no moment; it the person admitted when he receives his certificate.
was the petitioner's duty to disclose the same as it was a material
fact which could affect his application for admission to the bar.
The Oath is thus a prerequisite to the admission to the practice of law,
while the signing in the Roll is the last act that finally signifies
It has also been held that an applicant for the admission to the bar who membership in the bar, giving the applicant the right to call himself
made a false statement in his application is not of good moral "attorney". Continued membership in the IBP and regular payment of
character. The concealment or withholding from the court of the fact membership dues and other lawful assessments that it may levy are
that an applicant has been charged with or indicated for an alleged conditions sine qua non to the privilege to practice law and to the
crime is a ground for disqualification of the applicant to take the bar retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys.
examination, or for revocation of the license to practice, if he has
already been admitted to the bar. If what the applicant concealed is a
crime which does not involve moral turpitude, it is the fact of The unauthorized use of the said appellation may render a person
concealment and not the commission of the crime itself that makes liable for indirect contempt of court. The Court may deny the
him morally unfit to become a lawyer. It should be noted that the applicant's petition to take the Lawyer's Oath for grave misconduct,
application was made under oath, which he lightly took when he made such as calling himself and "attorney" and appearing as counsel for
the concealment. clients in courts even before being admitted to the bar. Although the
evidence in this case does not include that the petitioner actually
engaged in the practice of law, the fact is that he signed in an
The petitioner's attendance and participation in an IBP testimonial attendance sheet as "Atty. Caesar Distrito."
dinner for new lawyers, when he had not yet taken his oath as a lawyer
nor signed in the Roll of Attorneys.
He called himself "attorney" knowing fully well that he was not yet
admitted to the bar.
As to the IBP incident, the petitioner claims that he though the
occasion was just a plain and simple testimonial dinner for successful
bar examinees that included an awarding ceremony for judges. It was Thus, we disagree with the findings of the OBC, and find that the
only later when he discovered that the program was actually a petitioner is unfit to become a member of the bar. The petitioner must
testimonial for new lawyers. However, a perusal of the invitation sent show this Court that he has satisfied the moral requirements before he
by the IBP to the petitioner reveals that there was an express mention can be admitted to the practice of law.
that the affair was for new lawyers, to wit:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition of CAESAR Z. DISTRITO to be
Dear Atty. Distrito: allowed to take the oath as member of the Philippine Bar and to sign
the Roll of Attorneys in accordance with Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court is hereby DENIED.
The IBP-Negros Occidental Chapter will hold its Chapter's
Judicial Award of Excellence to Outstanding Judges and
Proscutors and Testimonial Dinner for new lawyers on June 28, Very truly yours,
2002, 7:00 P.M., at the Ballroom-A, Business Inn, Lacson
Street, Bacolod City. (Sgd.)LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
In behalf of the Officers and members of the IBP-Negros
Occidental Chapter, I am inviting you to attend said after being