Professional Documents
Culture Documents
53-In Re Vailoces
53-In Re Vailoces
VAILOCES
117 SCRA 1 September 30, 1982
FACTS: Petitioner Quinciano D. Vailoces filed for readmission to the practice of law
and the inclusion of his name in the roll of attorneys. On September 30, 1955, the
Court of First Instance- Negros Occidental found him guilty of falsification of public
document hence, penalized him under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. Thereafter complainant Ledesma de Jesus-
Paras, complainant in the criminal case, instituted before this Court disbarment
proceedings against petitioner. The President of the Philippines then granted the
petitioner "absolute and unconditional pardon" and restored him "to full civil and
political rights. The Petitioner had repeatedly sought readmission to the practice of
law, the first of which was denied by this Court in a minute resolution. Complainant
de Jesus-Paras in the original disbarment proceedings, filed an opposition to the
petitions for reinstatement and readmission to the bar "on grounds of his non-
reformation, immoral conduct and pretensions of being a licensed lawyer."
ISSUE/S: Whether or not petitioner Quinciano D. Vailoces should be reinstated in
the roll of attorneys.
RULING: The Court ruled that petitioner Vailoces has regained the respect and
confidence of his fellow attorneys as well as of the citizens of his community. It also
sustained the conclusion of the Solicitor General that petitioner has sufficiently
proven himself fit to be readmitted to the practice of law. True it is that the plenary
pardon extended to him by the President does not of itself warrant his reinstatement.
The favorable indorsements of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and its Negros
Oriental Chapter, the testimonials expressed in his behalf by the provincial governor
of Negros Oriental as well as the municipal and barrio officials of Bindoy, Negros
Oriental, his active participation in civic and social undertakings in the community
attest to his moral reform and rehabilitation and justify his reinstatement. Petitioner,
now 69 years old, has reached the twilight of his life. He has been barred from the
practice of his profession for a period of 21 years which is an adequate punishment.
Chastened by his painful and humiliating experience, he pledges with all his honor
that if reinstated he will surely and consistently conduct himself honestly, uprightly
and worthily. The Court ordered the reinstatement of Petitioner Vailoces in the roll of
attorneys.
53