Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tan vs. Sabandal, BM No. 44

    Uploaded by

    Britt John Ballentes
    871 views2 pages
    The Court denied Nicolas Sabandal's petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar after finding he engaged in dishonest conduct while working as a Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Specifically, Sabandal secured a free patent title for land he knew was public land, which demonstrated gross dishonesty in public service. While some testimonials attested to his good moral character, they were made without awareness of the facts in the government's case against him regarding the land title. The Court ultimately ruled that Sabandal's past dishonest acts outweighed the testimonials and showed he lacked the good moral character required to be admitted to the Bar.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    (14) Tan vs. Sabandal, BM No. 44

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court denied Nicolas Sabandal's petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar after finding he engaged in dishonest conduct while working as a Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Specifically, Sabandal secured a free patent title for land he knew was public land, which demonstrated gross dishonesty in public service. While some testimonials attested to his good moral character, they were made without awareness of the facts in the government's case against him regarding the land title. The Court ultimately ruled that Sabandal's past dishonest acts outweighed the testimonials and showed he lacked the good moral character required to be admitted to the Bar.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    871 views2 pages

    Tan vs. Sabandal, BM No. 44

    Uploaded by

    Britt John Ballentes
    The Court denied Nicolas Sabandal's petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar after finding he engaged in dishonest conduct while working as a Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Specifically, Sabandal secured a free patent title for land he knew was public land, which demonstrated gross dishonesty in public service. While some testimonials attested to his good moral character, they were made without awareness of the facts in the government's case against him regarding the land title. The Court ultimately ruled that Sabandal's past dishonest acts outweighed the testimonials and showed he lacked the good moral character required to be admitted to the Bar.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EUFROSINA Y. TAN, MOISES B.

    BOQUIA, HERVE DAGPIN complainant,


    vs.
    NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, respondent.

    B.M. No. 44, SBC No. 609, SBC No. 616 February 24, 1992

    FACTS:
    The Court sustained the charge of unauthorized practice of law filed against respondent Sabandal
    and accordingly denied the latter's petition to be allowed to take the oath as member of the
    Philippine Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

    Sabandal filed Motions for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution, all of which were either
    denied or "Noted without action." The Court, however, after considering his plea for mercy and
    forgiveness, his willingness to reform and testimonial from IBP Zamboanga del Norte Chapter
    attesting to his good moral character, reconsidered its earlier Resolution and finally allowed him
    to take the lawyer's oath.

    However, before a date could be set for Sabandal's oath-taking, complainants Tan, Dagpin and
    Boquia each filed separate motions for reconsideration.

    Complainant Tan maintains that said IBP testimonial was signed only by the then President of the
    IBP, Zamboanga del Norte Chapter, Atty. Senen O. Angeles, without authorization from the Board of
    Officers of said Chapter and that Atty. Angeles was respondent's own counsel.

    Under the circumstances, the Court has deemed it best to require the present Board of Officers of
    the IBP, Zamboanga del Norte Chapter and the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
    Zamboanga del Norte to manifest whether or not they are willing to give a testimonial certifying to
    respondent's good moral character as to entitle him to take the lawyer's oath, and if not, the reason
    therefor.

    Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte, filed his Comment that he is
    not aware of any acts that would disqualify respondent from admission to the bar but mentioned that
    there is a pending case in Court which involves respondent. Per complaint filed by the Office of the
    Solicitor General, the respondent is alleged to have secured a free patent and later a certificate of
    title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible
    of acquisition under a free patent.

    A copy of the "Judgment," which involves the respondent, according to him, was already
    considered closed and terminated and reveals that an amicable settlement between the principal
    parties.

    The IBP Zamboanga del Norte Chapter also submitted a Certification that respondent has not been
    convicted of any crime, nor is there any pending derogatory criminal case against him. The Board
    does not find any acts committed by the petitioner to disqualify him from admission to the Philippine
    Bar.
    ISSUE:

    Whether respondent can take his oath and sign the roll of attorneys and be admitted to Philippine
    Bar.

    HELD:

    No. It should be recalled that Sabandal worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said
    employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over property which he could not but
    have known was public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his
    moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot
    be erased by the termination of the case filed by the Republic against him where no determination of
    his guilt or innocence was made because the suit had been compromised.

    There are testimonials attesting to his good moral character, yes. But these were confined to lack of
    knowledge of the pendency of any criminal case against him and were obviously made without
    awareness of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case instituted by the Government
    against him. Those testimonials cannot, therefore, outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonesty and
    lack of good moral character.

    Although the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as
    "including at least common honesty."

    You might also like