You are on page 1of 38

EN BANC

[B.M. No. 1222. February 4, 2004]


Re: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS

RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:

On 22 September 2003, the day following the bar examination


in Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman of the 2003 Bar
Examinations Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in
the examination on the subject. After making his own inquiries,
Justice Vitug reported the matter to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr., and to the other members of the Court, recommending that the
bar examination on the subject be nullified and that an investigation
be conducted forthwith. On 23 September 2003, the Court adopted
the recommendation of Justice Vitug, and resolved to nullify the
examination in Mercantile Law and to hold another examination
on 04 October 2003 at eight oclock in the evening (being the
earliest available time and date) at the De La Salle University, Taft
Avenue, Manila. The resolution was issued without prejudice to any
action that the Court would further take on the matter.
Following the issuance of the resolution, the Court received
numerous petitions and motions from the Philippine Association of
Law Schools and various other groups and persons, expressing
agreement to the nullification of the bar examinations in Mercantile
Law but voicing strong reservations against the holding of another
examination on the subject. Several reasons were advanced by
petitioners or movants, among these reasons being the physical,
emotional and financial difficulties that would be encountered by
the examinees, if another examination on the subject were to be
held anew. Alternative proposals submitted to the Court included
the spreading out of the weight of Mercantile Law among the
remaining seven bar subjects, i.e., to determine and gauge the

1
results of the examinations on the basis only of the performance of
the examinees in the seven bar subjects. In a resolution, dated 29
September 2003, the Court, finding merit in the
submissions, resolved to cancel the scheduled examination in
Mercantile Law on 04 October 2003 and to allocate the fifteen
percentage points among the seven bar examination subjects. In
the same resolution, the Court further resolved to create a
Committee composed of three retired members of the Court that
would conduct a thorough investigation of the incident subject of
the 23 September 2003 resolution.
In a resolution, dated 07 October 2003, the Court adopted the
computation in the allocation of the fifteen percentage points for
Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar examination
subjects, to wit:
Subject Original Adjusted Relative Adjusted
Percentage Percentage Weight Relative
Weight Weight Weight
Political and International Law 15% 17.647% 3 3.53%
Labor and Social Legislation 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%

Civil law 15% 17.647% 3 3.53%

Taxation 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%

Criminal law 10% 11.765% 2 2.35%

Remedial Law 20% 23.529% 4 4.71%


Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises 5% 5.882% 1 1.18%
100% 20%

In another resolution, dated 14 October 2003, the Court


designated the following retired Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court to compose the Investigating Committee:
2
Chairman: Justice Carolina C. Grio-Aquino

Members: Justice Jose A.R. Melo

Justice Vicente V. Mendoza

The Investigating Committee was tasked to determine and identify


the source of leakage, the parties responsible therefor or who might
have benefited therefrom, recommend sanctions against all those
found to have been responsible for, or who would have benefited
from, the incident in question and to recommend measures to the
Court to safeguard the integrity of the bar examinations.
On 15 January 2004, the Investigating Committee submitted its
report and recommendation to the Court, herein reproduced in full;
thus -

In the morning of September 21, 2003, the third Sunday of the 2003
bar examinations, the examination in commercial law was held in
De la Salle University on Taft Avenue, Manila, the venue of the bar
examinations since 1995. The next day, the newspapers carried
news of an alleged leakage in the said examination.[1]

Upon hearing the news and making preliminary inquiries of his


own, Justice Jose C. Vitug, chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations
Committee, reported the matter to the Chief Justice and
recommended that the examination in mercantile law be cancelled
and that a formal investigation of the leakage be undertaken.

Acting on the report and recommendation of Justice Vitug, the


Court, in a resolution dated September 23, 2003, nullified the
examination in mercantile law and resolved to hold another
examination in that subject on Saturday, October 4, 2003 at eight
oclock in the evening (being the earliest available time and date) at
the same venue. However, because numerous petitions, protests,
and motions for reconsideration were filed against the retaking of
the examination in mercantile law, the Court cancelled the holding
3
of such examination. On the recommendation of the Office of the
Bar Confidant, the Court instead decided to allocate the fifteen (15)
percentage points for mercantile law among the seven (7) other bar
examination subjects (Resolution dated October 7, 2003).

In a Resolution dated September 29, 2003, the Supreme Court


created an Investigating Committee composed of three (3) retired
Members of the Court to conduct an investigation of the leakage
and to submit its findings and recommendations on or
before December 15, 2003.

The Court designated the following retired Associate Justices of the


Supreme Court to compose the Committee:

Chairman: Justice CAROLINA GRIO-AQUINO

Members: Justice JOSE A. R. MELO

Justice VICENTE V. MENDOZA

The Investigating Committee was directed to determine and


identify the source of the leakage, the parties responsible therefor
and those who benefited therefrom, and to recommend measures
to safeguard the integrity of the bar examinations.

The investigation commenced on October 21, 2003 and continued


up to November 7, 2003. The following witnesses appeared and
testified at the investigation:

1. Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug, chairman of the 2003 Bar


Examinations Committee;

2. Atty. Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, law clerk in the office of


Justice Vitug

3. Atty. Marcial O. T. Balgos, examiner in mercantile law;

4
4. Cheryl Palma, private secretary of Atty. Balgos;

5. Atty. Danilo De Guzman, assistant lawyer in the firm of


Balgos & Perez;

6. Atty. Enrico G. Velasco, managing partner of Balgos &


Perez;

7. Eduardo J. F. Abella, reviewer in commercial law at


the Lex Review Center;

8. Silvestre T. Atienza, office manager of Balgos & Perez;

9. Reynita Villasis, private secretary of Atty. De Guzman;

10. Ronan Garvida, fraternity brother of Atty. De Guzman;

11. Ronald F. Collado, most illustrious brother of the Beta


Sigma Lambda Fraternity;

12. Jovito M. Salonga, Asst. Division Chief of Systems


Development for Judicial Application, MlSO;

The Committee held nine (9) meetings - six times to conduct


the investigation and three times to deliberate on its report.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOSE C. VITUG, chairman of the Bar


Examinations Committee, testified that on Monday morning,
September 22, 2003, the day after the Bar examination in
mercantile or commercial law, upon arriving in his office in the
Supreme Court, his secretary,[2] Rose Kawada, informed him that
one of the law clerks, Atty. Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, told her that a
friend of hers named Ma. Cecilia Delgado-Carbajosa, a bar
examinee from Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City, who was
staying at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Paco, confided to her that
something was wrong with the examination in mercantile law,
because previous to the examination, i.e., on Saturday afternoon,

5
the eve of the examination, she received a copy of the test
questions in that subject. She did not pay attention to the test
questions because no answers were provided, and she was hard-
pressed to finish her review of that subject, using other available
bar review materials, of which there were plenty coming from
various bar review centers.

However, upon perusing the questions after the examinations,


Cecilia noticed that many of them were the same questions that
were asked in the just-concluded-examination.

Justice Vitug requested Marlo to invite her friend to his office in the
Supreme Court, but Carbajosa declined the invitation. So, Justice
Vitug suggested that Marlo and Rose invite Carbajosa to meet
them at Robinsons Place, Ermita. She agreed to do that.

Cecilia Carbajosa arrived at Robinsons Place at the appointed time


and showed the test questions to Rose and Marlo. Rose obtained
a xerox copy of the leaked questions and compared them with the
bar questions in mercantile law. On the back of the pages, she
wrote, in her own hand, the differences she noted between the
leaked questions and the bar examination questions.

Rose and Marlo delivered the copy of the leaked questions to


Justice Vitug who compared them with the bar examination
questions in mercantile law. He found the leaked questions to be
the exact same questions which the examiner in mercantile law,
Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos, had prepared and submitted to him
as chairman of the Bar Examinations Committee. However, not all
of those questions were asked in the bar examination. According
to Justice Vitug, only 75% of the final bar questions were questions
prepared by Atty. Balgos; 25% prepared by Justice Vitug himself,
were included in the final bar examination. The questions prepared
by Justice Vitug were not among the leaked test questions.

6
Apart from the published news stories about the leakage, Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Justice Vitug received, by
telephone and mail, reports of the leakage from Dean Mariano F.
Magsalin, Jr. of the Arellano Law Foundation (Exh. H) and a certain
Dale Philip R. De los Reyes (Exh. B -B-3), attaching copies of the
leaked questions and the fax transmittal sheet showing that the
source of the questions was Danny De Guzman who faxed them to
Ronan Garvida on September 17, 2003, four days before the
examination in mercantile law on September 21, 2003 (Exh. B-1).

ATTORNEY MARLO MAGDOZA-MALAGAR was subpoenaed by


the Committee. She identified the copy of the leaked questions that
came from Cecilia Carbajosa (Exh. A). She testified that, according
to Carbajosa, the latter received the test questions from one of her
co-bar reviewees staying, like her, at the Garden Plaza Hotel in
Paco, and also enrolled in the review classes at the Lex Review
Center at the corner of P. Faura Street and Roxas Boulevard,
Ermita. She did not pay for the hand-out because
the Lex Review Center gives them away for free to its bar
reviewees.

ATTORNEY MARCIAL O. T. BALGOS, 71 years of age, senior


partner in the law firm of BALGOS AND PEREZ with offices in Rm.
1009 West Tektite Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig
City, testified that in November 2002, Justice Jose C. Vitug, as
chair of the Committee on the 2003 Bar Examinations, invited him
to be the examiner in commercial law. He accepted the assignment
and almost immediately began the preparation of test questions on
the subject. Using his personal computer in the law office, he
prepared for three consecutive days, three (3) sets of test
questions which covered the entire subject of Mercantile Law (pp.
3-5, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003). As he did not know how to prepare the
questionnaire in final form, he asked his private secretary, Cheryl
Palma, to format the questions (p. 13, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003). And, as
he did not know how to print the questionnaire, he likewise asked

7
Cheryl Palma to make a print-out (Id., pp. 14-15). All of this was
done inside his office with only him and his secretary there. His
secretary printed only one copy (Id., p. 15). He then placed the
printed copy of the test questions, consisting of three sets, in an
envelope which he sealed, and called up Justice Vitug to inform
him that he was bringing the questions to the latters office that
afternoon. However, as Justice Vitug was leaving his office shortly,
he advised Atty. Balgos to give the sealed envelope to his
confidential assistant who had been instructed to keep it. When
Atty. Balgos arrived in the office of Justice Vitug, he was met by
Justice Vitugs confidential assistant to whom he entrusted the
sealed envelope containing the test questions (pp. 19-26, tsn, Oct.
24, 2003).

Atty. Balgos admitted that he does not know how to operate a


computer except to type on it. He does not know how to open and
close his own computer which has a password for that purpose. In
fact, he did not know, as he still does, the password. It is his
secretary, Cheryl Palma, who opened and closed his computer for
him (p. 45, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).

Atty. Balgos testified that he did not devise the password himself.
It was Cheryl Palma who devised it (Id., p. 71).

His computer is exclusively for his own use. It is located inside his
room which is locked when he is not in the office. He comes to the
office every other day only.

He thought that his computer was safely insulated from third


parties, and that he alone had access to it. He was surprised to
discover, when reports of the bar leakage broke out, that his
computer was in fact interconnected with the computers of his nine
(9) assistant attorneys (tsn, pp. 30,45). As a matter of fact, the
employees - Jovito M. Salonga and Benjamin R. Katly - of the
Courts Management Information Systems Office (MISO) who, upon
the request of Atty. Balgos, were directed by the Investigating
8
Committee to inspect the computer system in his office, reported
that there were 16, not 9, computers connected to each
other via Local Area Network (LAN) and one (1) stand-alone
computer connected to the internet (Exh. M). Atty. Balgos law
partner, former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez, also had a
computer, but Perez took it away when he became the Secretary
of Justice.

The nine (9) assistant attorneys with computers, connected to


Attorney Balgos computer, are:

1. Zorayda Zosobrado (she resigned in July 2003)

2. Claravel Javier

3. Rolynne Torio

4. Mark Warner Rosal

5. Charlynne Subia

6. Danilo De Guzman (resigned on October 22, 2003 [Exh. D])

7. Enrico G. Velasco, managing partner

8. Concepcion De los Santos

9. Pamela June Jalandoni

Upon learning from Justice Vitug of the leakage of the bar


questions prepared by him in mercantile law, Atty. Balgos
immediately called together and questioned his office staff. He
interrogated all of them except Atty. Danilo De Guzman who was
absent then. All of them professed to know nothing about the bar
leakage.

He questioned Silvestre Atienza, the office manager, Atienza is


only a second year law student at MLQU. But he is an expert in
9
installing and operating computers. It was he and/or his brother
Gregorio who interconnected the computers in the law office,
including Attorney Balgos computer, without the latters knowledge
and permission.

Atienza admitted to Attorney Balgos that he participated in the bar


operations or bar ops of the Beta Sigma Lambda law fraternity of
which he is a member, but he clarified that his participation
consisted only of bringing food to the MLQU bar examinees (Tsn,
pp. 46-47, Oct. 24, 2003).

The next day, Attorney Balgos questioned Attorney Danilo De


Guzman, also a member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity, FEU
chapter. De Guzman admitted to him that he downloaded the test
questions from Attorney Balgos computer and faxed a copy to a
fraternity brother. Attorney Balgos was convinced that De Guzman
was the source of the leakage of his test questions in mercantile
law (Tsn, p. 52, Oct. 24, 2003).

Attorney Balgos prepared a COMPARISON (Exh. E) of the


juxtaposed final bar questions and his proposed test questions,
with marginal markings made by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza
(Ret.), indicating whether the questions are similar: (S); or different:
(D), together with the percentage points corresponding to each
question. On the basis of this comparative table and Atty. Balgos
indications as to which questions were the same or different from
those given in the final questionnaire, Justice Mendoza computed
the credit points contained in the proposed leaked questions. The
proposed questions constituted 82% of the final bar questions.
Attached to this Report as Annex A is the comparative table and
the computation of credit points marked as Exh. E-1.

CHERYL PALMA, 34 years old, private secretary of Attorney


Balgos for the past six years, testified that she did not type the test
questions. She admitted, however, that it was she who formatted
the questions and printed one copy as directed by her employer.
10
She confirmed Atty. Balgos testimony regarding her participation in
the operation of his personal computer. She disclosed that what
appears in Atty. Balgos computer can be seen in the neighborhood
network if the other computers are open and not in use; that
Silvestre Atienza of the accounting section, can access Atty.
Balgos computer when the latter is open and not in use.

ATTORNEY ENRICO VELASCO, managing partner of the firm,


testified that on October 16, 2003, he sent De Guzman a memo
(Exh. C) giving him 72 hours to explain in writing why you should
not be terminated for causing the Firm an undeserved
condemnation and dishonor because of the leakage aforesaid.

On October 22, 2003, De Guzman handed in his resignation


effective immediately. He explained that:

Causing the firm, its partners and members to suffer from


undeserved condemnation and humiliation is not only farthest from,
but totally out of, my mind. It is just unfortunate that the incident
subject matter of your memorandum occurred. Rest assured,
though, that I have never been part of any deliberate scheme to
malign the good reputation and integrity of the firm, its partners and
members. (Exh. D)

DANILO DE GUZMAN testified that he joined Balgos & Perez in


April 2000. He obtained his LLB degree from FEU in 1998. As a
student, he was an awardee for academic excellence. He passed
the 1998 bar examinations with a grade of 86.4%. In FEU, he joined
the Beta Sigma Lambda law fraternity which has chapters in
MLQU, UE and MSU (Mindanao State University). As a member of
the fraternity, he was active during bar examinations and
participated in the fraternitys bar ops.

He testified that sometime in May 2003, when he was exploring


Atty. Balgos computer, (which he often did without the owners
knowledge or permission), to download materials which he thought
11
might be useful to save for future use, he found and downloaded
the test questions in mercantile law consisting of 12 pages. He
allegedly thought they were quizzers for a book that Atty. Balgos
might be preparing. He saved them in his hard disk.

He thought of faxing the test questions to one of his fraternity brods,


a certain Ronan Garvida who, De Guzman thought, was taking the
2003 bar examinations. Garvida is also a law graduate from FEU.
He had taken the 2002 bar examinations, but did not pass.

On September 17, 2003, four days before the mercantile law bar
examination, De Guzman faxed a copy of the 12-page-test
questions (Exhs. I, I-1, I-2, I-3) to Garvida because earlier he was
informed by Garvida that he was retaking the bar examinations. He
advised Garvida to share the questions with other Betan
examinees. He allegedly did not charge anything for the test
questions. Later, after the examination was over, Garvida texted
(sent a text message on his cell phone) him (De Guzman), that he
did not take the bar examination.

Besides Garvida, De Guzman faxed the mercantile law bar


questions to another fraternity brother named Arlan (surname
unknown), through Reynita (Nanette) Villasis, his secretary (Tsn,
pp. 20-28, Oct. 29, 2003). But he himself faxed the questions to still
another brod named Erwin Tan who had helped him during the bar
ops in 1998 when he (De Guzman) took the bar examinations (Id.,
p. 28). He obtained the cell phone numbers of Arlan and Erwin Tan
from Gabby Tanpiengco whom he informed by text message, that
they were guide questions, not tips, in the mercantile law
examination.

When he was confronted by Attorney Velasco on Wednesday after


the examination, (news of the leakage was already in all the
newspapers), De Guzman admitted to Attorney Velasco that he
faxed the questions to his fraternity brothers, but he did not reveal
where he got the test questions.
12
De Guzman received a text message from Erwin Tan
acknowledging that he received the test questions. However, Erwin
informed him that the questions were kalat na kalat (all over the
place) even if he did not share them with others (Tsn, pp. 54-55,
Oct. 29, 2003).

De Guzman also contacted Garvida who informed him that he gave


copies of the test questions to Betans Randy Iigo and James
Bugain.

Arlan also texted De Guzman that almost all the questions were
asked in the examination. Erwin Tan commented that many of the
leaked questions were asked in the examination, pero hindi exacto;
mi binago (they were not exactly the same; there were some
changes).

De Guzman tried to text Garvida, but he received no response.

De Guzman disclosed that he learned how to operate a computer


from Silvestre Atienza, the office manager, and through self-study,
by asking those who are knowledgeable on computers. He has
been using computers since 1997, and he bought his own
computer in 2001, a Pentium 3, which he uses at home.

REYNITA VILLASIS, the 36-year-old legal secretary of Attorney De


Guzman, submitted her affidavit (Exh. F) and orally affirmed her
participation in the reproduction and transmittal by fax of the leaked
test questions in mercantile law to Ronan Garvida and Arlan, as
testified by De Guzman.

RONAN GARVIDA, appeared before the Investigating Committee


in compliance with the subpoena that was issued to him. Garvida
graduated from FEU College of Law in 2000. He is about 32 years
of age. While still a student in 1998, he was afflicted with multiple
sclerosis or MS, a disease of the nervous system that attacks the
nerve sheaths of the brain and spinal cord. It is a chronic disabling

13
disease although it may have periods of remission. It causes its
victim to walk with erratic, stiff and staggering gait; the hands and
fingers may tremble in performing simple actions; the eyesight can
be impaired, and speech may be slow and slurred (p. 737, Vol. 2,
Readers Digest Medical Encyclopedia, 1971 Ed., compiled by
Benjamin F. Miller, M.D.). All these symptoms were present when
Garvida testified before the Committee on November 6, 2003 to
answer its questions regarding his involvement in the leakage of
the examiners test questions in mercantile law.

Garvida testified that when he was a freshman at FEU, he became


a member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity where he met and
was befriended by Attorney De Guzman who was his senior by one
and a half years. Although they had been out of touch since he
went home to the province on account of the recurrence of his
illness, De Guzman was able [to] get this cell phone number from
his compadre, Atty. Joseph Pajara. De Guzman told Garvida that
he was faxing him possible questions in the bar examination in
mercantile law. Because the test questions had no answers, De
Guzman stressed that they were not tips but only possible test
questions.

Garvida had intended to take the 2003 bar examinations. He


enrolled in the Consortium Review Center in FEU, paying
P10,000.00 as enrollment fee. However, on his way to the
Supreme Court to file his application to take the bar examination,
he suffered pains in his wrist - symptoms that his MS had recurred.
His physician advised him to go to
the National Orthopedic Hospital in Quezon City for treatment.
This he did.

He gave up his plan to take the 2003 bar examinations.


Nevertheless, he continued to attend the review classes at
the Consortium Review Center because he did not want to waste
completely the P10,000-enrollment fee that he paid for the review

14
course (Nahihinayang ako). That was presumably why De Guzman
thought that Garvida was taking the bar exams and sent him a copy
of the test questions in mercantile law.

Upon receipt of the test questions, Garvida faxed a copy to his brod
Randy Iigo who was reviewing at the Consortium Review Center.
Randy photocopied them for distribution to other fraternity brods.
Some of the brods doubted the usefulness of the test questions,
but Randy who has a high regard for De Guzman, believed that the
questions were tips. Garvida did not fax the questions to any other
person than Randy Iigo. He allegedly did not sell the questions to
Randy. I could not do that to a brod, he explained.

In view of the fact that one of the copies of the leaked test questions
(Exh. H) bore on the left margin a rubber stamp composed of the
Greek initials BEA-MLQU, indicating that the source of that copy
was the Beta Sigma Lambda chapter at MLQU, the Committee
subpoenaed Ronald Collado, the Most Illustrious Brother of the
Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity of MLQU.

RONALD COLLADO is a senior law student at the MLQU. He


admitted that his fraternity conducted Bar Ops for the 2003 bar
exams. Bar Ops are the biggest activity of the fraternity every year.
They start as soon as new officers of the fraternity are elected in
June, and they continue until the bar examinations are over. The
bar operations consist of soliciting funds from alumni brods and
friends to be spent in reproducing bar review materials for the use
of their barristers (bar candidates) in the various review centers,
providing meals for their brod-barristers on examination days; and
to rent a bar site or place near De la Salle University where the
examinees and the frat members can convene and take their meals
during the break time. The Betans bar site for the 2003 bar
examinations was located on Leon Guinto Street, Malate. On
September 19 and 21, before [the] start of the examination,
Collados fraternity distributed bar review materials for the

15
mercantile law examination to the examinees who came to the bar
site. The test questions (Exh. H) were received by Collado from a
brod, Alan Guiapal, who had received them from Randy Iigo.

Collado caused 30 copies of the test questions to be printed with


the logo and initials of the fraternity (BEA-MLQU) for distribution to
the 30 MLQU examinees taking the bar exams. Because of time
constraints, frat members were unable to answer the test questions
despite the clamor for answers, so, they were given out as is -
without answers.

DEAN EDUARDO J. F. ABELLA of the Jose Rizal University law


school in Mandaluyong City, was the reviewer in Mercantile Law
and Practical Exercises at the Lex Review Center which is
operated by the Lex Review & Seminars Inc., of which Dean Abella
is one of the incorporators. He learned about the leakage of test
questions in mercantile law when he was delivering the pre-week
lecture on Legal Forms at the Arellano University. The leaked
questions were shown to him by his secretary, Jenylyn Domingo,
after the mercantile law exam. He missed the Saturday lecture in
mercantile law because he was suffering from a touch of flu. He
gave his last lecture on the subject on Wednesday or Thursday
before the exam. He denied having bought or obtained and
distributed the leaked test questions in Mercantile Law to the bar
reviewees in the Lex Review Center.

FINDINGS

The Committee finds that the leaked test questions in Mercantile


Law were the questions which the examiner, Attorney Marcial O.
T. Balgos, had prepared and submitted to Justice Jose C. Vitug, as
chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee. The questions
constituted 82% of the questions asked in the examination in
Mercantile Law in the morning of September 21, 2003, Sunday, in
some cases with slight changes which were not substantial and in
other cases exactly as proposed by Atty. Balgos. Hence, any bar
16
examinee who was able to get hold of the leaked questions before
the mercantile law examination and answered them correctly,
would have been assured of passing the examination with at least
a grade of 82%!

The circumstance that the leaked test questions consisted entirely


of test questions prepared by Atty. Balgos, proves conclusively that
the leakage originated from his office, not from the Office of Justice
Vitug, the Bar Examinations Chairman.

Atty. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were prepared
by him on his computer. Without any doubt, the source of the
leaked test questions was Atty. Balgos computer. The culprit who
stole or downloaded them from Atty. Balgos computer without the
latters knowledge and consent, and who faxed them to other
persons, was Atty. Balgos legal assistant, Attorney Danilo De
Guzman, who voluntarily confessed the deed to the Investigating
Committee. De Guzman revealed that he faxed the test questions,
with the help of his secretary Reynita Villasis, to his fraternity brods,
namely, Ronan Garvida, Arlan (whose surname he could not
recall), and Erwin Tan.

In turn, Ronan Garvida faxed the test questions to Betans Randy


Iigo and James Bugain.

Randy Iigo passed a copy or copies of the same questions to


another Betan, Alan Guiapal, who gave a copy to the MLQU-Beta
Sigma [Lambdas] Most Illustrious Brother, Ronald F. Collado, who
ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies to the MLQUs 30
bar candidates.

Attorney Danilo De Guzmans act of downloading Attorney Balgos


test questions in mercantile law from the latters computer, without
his knowledge and permission, was a criminal act of larceny. It was
theft of intellectual property; the test questions were intellectual

17
property of Attorney Balgos, being the product of his intellect and
legal knowledge.

Besides theft, De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of


Attorney Balgos right to privacy of communication, and to security
of his papers and effects against unauthorized search and seizure
- rights zealously protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution
(Sections 2 and 3, Article III, 1987 Constitution).

He transgressed the very first canon of the lawyers Code of


Professional Responsibility which provides that [a] lawyer shall
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect for law and legal processes.

By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some


members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, possibly for
pecuniary profit and to given them undue advantage over the other
examiners in the mercantile law examination, De Guzman abetted
cheating or dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the examination,
which is violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar,
which provide:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,


immoral or deceitful conduct

Canon 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE


INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member


of the Bar. He violated the law instead of promoting respect for it
and degraded the noble profession of law instead of upholding its
dignity and integrity. His actuations impaired public respect for the
Court, and damaged the integrity of the bar examinations as the

18
final measure of a law graduates academic preparedness to
embark upon the practice of law.

However, the Investigating Committee does not believe that De


Guzman was solely responsible for the leakage of Atty. Balgos
proposed test questions in the mercantile law examination. The
Committee does not believe that he acted alone, or did not have
the assistance and cooperation of other persons, such as:

Cheryl Palma, Atty. Balgos private secretary, who, according to


Atty. Balgos himself, was the only person who knew the password,
who could open and close his computer; and who had the key to
his office where his computer was kept. Since a computer may not
be accessed or downloaded unless it is opened, someone must
have opened Atty. Balgos computer in order for De Guzman to
retrieve the test questions stored therein.

Silvestre Atienza, also a fraternity brod of De Guzman, who was


responsible for interconnecting Atty. Balgos computer with the
other computers outside Atty. Balgos room or office, and who was
the only other person, besides Cheryl Palma, who knew the
password of Atty. Balgos computer.

The following persons who received from De Guzman, and


distributed copies of the leaked test questions, appear to have
conspired with him to steal and profit from the sale of the test
questions. They could not have been motivated solely by a desire
to help the fraternity, for the leakage was widespread (kalat na
kalat) according to Erwin Tan. The possible co-conspirators were:

Ronan Garvida,
Arlan,
Erwin Tan,
Randy Iigo,
Ronald Collado, and
Allan Guiapal
19
The Committee does not believe that De Guzman recklessly broke
the law and risked his job and future as a lawyer, out of love for the
Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity. There must have been an ulterior
material consideration for his breaking the law and tearing the
shroud of secrecy that, he very well knows, covers the bar
examinations.

On the other hand, the Committee finds that the theft of the test
questions from Atty. Balgos computer could have been avoided if
Atty. Balgos had exercised due diligence in safeguarding the
secrecy of the test questions which he prepared. As the computer
is a powerful modern machine which he admittedly is not fairly
familiar with, he should not have trusted it to deep secret the test
questions that he stored in its hard disk. He admittedly did not know
the password of his computer. He relied on his secretary to use the
password to open and close his computer. He kept his computer in
a room to which other persons had access. Unfamiliar with the use
of the machine whose potential for mischief he could not have been
totally unaware of, he should have avoided its use for so sensitive
an undertaking as typing the questions in the bar examination. After
all he knew how to use the typewriter in the use of which he is quite
proficient. Atty. Balgos should therefore have prepared the test
questions in his trusty typewriter, in the privacy of his home,
(instead of his law office), where they would have been safe from
the prying eyes of secretaries and assistant attorneys. Atty. Balgos
negligence in the preparation and safekeeping of his proposed test
questions for the bar examination in mercantile law, was not the
proximate cause of the bar leakage; it was, in fact, the root cause.
For, if he had taken those simple precautions to protect the secrecy
of his papers, nobody could have stolen them and copied and
circulated them. The integrity of the bar examinations would not
have been sullied by the scandal. He admitted that Mali siguro ako,
but that was what happened (43 tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).

RECOMMENDATION

20
This Honorable court in the case of Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No.
5713, June 10, 2002, 383 SCRA 276, pronounced the following
reminder for lawyers: Members of the bar must do nothing that may
tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, the honesty and integrity of the profession. In another case,
it likewise intoned: We cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to at
all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He
can do this by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar,
to the courts, and to his clients. (Reyes v. Javier, A.C. No.
5574, February 2, 2002, 375 SCRA 538). It goes without saying
that a lawyer who violates this precept of the profession by
committing a gross misconduct which dishonors and diminishes the
publics respect for the legal profession, should be disciplined.

After careful deliberation, the Investigating Committee


recommends that:

1. Attorney Danilo De Guzman be DISBARRED for he had shown


that he is morally unfit to continue as a member of the legal
profession, for grave dishonesty, lack of integrity, and criminal
behavior. In addition, he should make a written PUBLIC APOLOGY
and pay DAMAGES to the Supreme Court for involving it in another
bar scandal, causing the cancellation of the mercantile law
examination, and wreaking havoc upon the image of this institution.

2. Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos should be REPRIMANDED by the


Court and likewise be required to make a written APOLOGY to the
Court for the public scandal he brought upon it as a result of his
negligence and lack of due care in preparing and safeguarding his
proposed test questions in mercantile law. As the Court had to
cancel the Mercantile Law examination on account of the leakage
of Attorney Balgos test questions, which comprised 82% of the bar
questions in that examination, Atty. Balgos is not entitled to receive
any honorarium as examiner for that subject.

21
3. FURTHER INVESTIGATION of Danilo De Guzman, Cheryl
Palma, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Arlan, Erwin Tan, Randy
Iigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado and Allan Guiapal by the
National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police,
with a view to their criminal prosecution as probable co-
conspirators in the theft and leakage of the test questions in
mercantile law.

With regard to recommending measures to safeguard the integrity


of the bar examinations and prevent a repetition of future leakage
in the said examinations, inasmuch as this matter is at present
under study by the Courts Committee on Legal Education and Bar
Matters, as an aspect of proposals for bar reforms, the
Investigating Committee believes it would be well-advised to refrain
from including in this report what may turn out to be duplicative, if
not contrary, recommendations on the matter.[3]

The Court adopts the report, including with some modifications


the recommendation, of the Investigating Committee. The Court,
certainly will not countenance any act or conduct that can impair
not only the integrity of the Bar Examinations but the trust reposed
on the Court.
The Court also takes note that Mr. Jovito M. Salonga and Mr.
Benjamin R. Katly, two of its employees assigned to the
Management Information Systems Office (MISO), who were tasked
by the Investigating Committee to inspect the computer system in
the office of Atty. Balgos, found that the Courts Computer-Assisted
Legal Research (CALR) database[4] was installed in the computer
used by Atty. Balgos. Mr. Salonga and Mr. Katly reported that the
system, which was developed by the MISO, was intended for the
exclusive use of the Court. The installation thereof to any external
computer would be unauthorized without the permission of the
Court. Atty. Velasco informed the two Court employees that the
CALR database was installed by Atty. De Guzman on the computer
being used by Atty. Balgos. The matter would also need further
22
investigation to determine how Atty. De Guzman was able to obtain
a copy of the Courts CALR database.
WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of
the Investigating Committee, hereby resolves to -
(1) DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of
law effective upon his receipt of this RESOLUTION;
(2) REPRIMAND Atty. MARCIAL O.T. BALGOS and
DISENTITLE him from receiving any honorarium as an
Examiner in Mercantile Law;
(3) Direct the National Bureau of Investigation (a) to
undertake further investigation of Danilo De Guzman,
Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Erwin
Tan, Randy Iigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado and Allan
Guiapal with a view to determining their participation and
respective accountabilities in the bar examination leakage
and to conduct an investigation on how Danilo De Guzman
was able to secure a copy of the Supreme Courts CALR
database.
Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of the records of
Danilo De Guzman in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme
Court of the Philippines, and copies to be furnished the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and circulated by the Office of the Court
Administrator to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., on official leave.
Tinga, J., No part. Close to family of one of the parties involved
in bar scandal.

23
[1]
The leakage was reported on the newspapers on Tuesday, 23
September 2003.
[2]
A Law clerk in his office, Atty. Rosalinda E. Beltran-Kawada.
[3]
Report of the Investigating Committee on the Leakage of the
Examiners Bar Examination Questions in Mercantile Law.
[4]
The CALR database contains Supreme Court decisions from
May 1996 to May 2002. It also has a proprietary search
engine.

24
EN BANC

B.M. No. 1222 April 24, 2009

RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner,

RESOLUTION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This treats the Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion


dated November 10, 2008 filed by petitioner Danilo de Guzman. He
prays that this Honorable Court "in the exercise of equity and
compassion, grant petitioner’s plea for judicial clemency, and
thereupon, order his reinstatement as a member in good standing
of the Philippine Bar."1

To recall, on February 4, 2004, the Court promulgated a


Resolution, in B.M. No. 1222, the dispositive portion of which reads
in part:

WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of the


Investigating Committee, hereby resolves to —

(1) DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of law


effective upon his receipt of this RESOLUTION;

xxxx

The subject of the Resolution is the leakage of questions in


Mercantile Law during the 2003 Bar Examinations. Petitioner at
that time was employed as an assistant lawyer in the law firm of
Balgos & Perez, one of whose partners, Marcial Balgos, was the
examiner for Mercantile Law during the said bar examinations. The
25
Court had adopted the findings of the Investigating Committee,
which identified petitioner as the person who had downloaded the
test questions from the computer of Balgos and faxed them to other
persons.

The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) has favorably recommended


the reinstatement of petitioner in the Philippine Bar. In a Report
dated January 6, 2009, the OBC rendered its assessment of the
petition, the relevant portions of which we quote hereunder:

Petitioner narrated that he had labored to become a lawyer to fulfill


his father’s childhood dream to become one. This task was not
particularly easy for him and his family but he willed to endure the
same in order to pay tribute to his parents.

Petitioner added that even at a very young age, he already


imposed upon himself the duty of rendering service to his
fellowmen. At 19 years, he started his exposure to public service
when he was elected Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
of Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig City. During this time, he initiated
several projects benefiting the youth in their barangay.

Thereafter, petitioner focused on his studies, taking up Bachelor of


Arts in Political Science and eventually pursuing Bachelor of Laws.
In his second year in law school, he was elected as the President
of the Student Council of the Institute of Law of the Far Eastern
University (FEU). Here, he spearheaded various activities including
the conduct of seminars for law students as well as the holding of
bar operations for bar examinees.

Despite his many extra-curricular activities as a youth and student


leader, petitioner still managed to excel in his studies. Thus, he was
conferred an Academic Excellence Award upon his graduation in
Bachelor of Laws.

26
Upon admission to the bar in April 1999, petitioner immediately
entered government service as a Legal Officer assigned at the
Sangguniang Bayan of Taguig. Simultaneously, he also rendered
free legal services to less fortunate residents of Taguig City who
were then in need of legal assistance.

In March 2000, petitioner was hired as one of the Associate


Lawyers at the Balgos and Perez Law Offices. It was during his
stay with this firm when his craft as a lawyer was polished and
developed. Despite having entered private practice, he continued
to render free legal services to his fellow Taguigeños.

Then in February 2004, by a sudden twist of fate, petitioner’s


flourishing career was cut short as he was stripped of his license to
practice law for his alleged involvement in the leakage in the 2003
Bar Examinations.

Devastated, petitioner then practically locked himself inside his


house to avoid the rather unavoidable consequences of his
disbarment.

On March 2004, however, petitioner was given a new lease in life


when he was taken as a consultant by the City Government of
Taguig. Later, he was designated as a member of the Secretariat
of the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). For the next five
(5) years, petitioner concentrated mainly on rendering public
service.

Petitioner humbly acknowledged the damaging impact of his act


which unfortunately, compromised the integrity of the bar
examinations. As could be borne from the records of the
investigation, he cooperated fully in the investigation conducted
and took personal responsibility for his actions. Also, he has offered
his sincerest apologies to Atty. Balgos, to the Court as well as to all
the 2003 bar examinees for the unforeseen and unintended effects
of his actions.
27
Petitioner averred that he has since learned from his mistakes and
has taken the said humbling experience to make him a better
person.

Meanwhile, as part of his Petition, petitioner submitted the following


testimonials and endorsements of various individuals and entities
all attesting to his good moral character:

1) Resolution No. 101, Series of 2007, "Resolution Expressing


Full Support to Danilo G. De Guzman in his Application for
Judicial Clemency, Endorsing his Competence and Fitness to
be Reinstated as a Member of the Philippine Bar and for Other
Purposes" dated 4 June 2007 of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, City of Taguig;

2) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa


Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan
at mga Kasapi ng Southeast People’s Village Homeowners
Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA) kay Danilo G. De Guzman sa
Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang
Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang
Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado"
dated 1 June 2007 of the Southeast People’s Village
Homeowners Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA), Ibayo-Tipas, City
of Taguig;

3) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa


Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan
at mga Kasapi ng Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek,
Inc. (SAREMAC) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang
Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong
Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa
Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" dated 1 June
2007 of the Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc.
(SAREMAC), Lower Bicutan, City of Taguig;

28
4) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa
Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan
at mga Kasapi ng Samahan ng mga Maralita (PULONG
KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA) kay G.
Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng
Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa Kanyang
Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng
Isang Abogado" dated 1 June 2007 of the Samahan ng mga
Maralita (PULONG KENDI) Neighborhood Association, Inc.
(SAMANA), Sta. Ana, City of Taguig;

5) "An Open Letter Attesting Personally to the Competence


and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman as to Warrant the Grant
of Judicial Clemency and his Reinstatement as Member of the
Philippine Bar" dated 8 June 2007 of Miguelito Nazareno V.
Llantino, Laogan, Trespeses and Llantino Law Offices;

6) "Testimonial to the Moral and Spiritual Competence of


Danilo G. De Guzman to be Truly Deserving of Judicial
Clemency and Compassion" dated 5 July 2007 of Rev. Fr.
Paul G. Balagtas, Parish Priest, Archdiocesan Shrine of St.
Anne;

7) "Testimonial Letter" dated 18 February 2008 of Atty. Loreto


C. Ata, President, Far Eastern University Law Alumni
Association (FEULAA), Far Eastern University (FEU);

8) "Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating sa


Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng Pamunuan
at mga Kasapi ng Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc.
(SABISKA) kay G. Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang
Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong
Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa
Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado" dated 8 July
2008 of the Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc.
(SABISKA);
29
9) Board Resolution No. 02, Series of 2008, "A Resolution
Recognizing the Contributions of Danilo G. De Guzman to the
People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) – Taguig City,
Attesting to his Utmost Dedication and Commitment to the
Call of Civic and Social Duty and for Other Purposes" dated
11 July 2008 of the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB);

10) "A Personal Appeal for the Grant of Judicial Forgiveness


and Compassion in Favor of Danilo G. De Guzman" dated 14
July 2008 of Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval, Professor, College of
Law, San Sebastian College – Recoletos;

11) "An Open Letter Personally Attesting to the Moral


competence and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman" dated 5
September 2008 of Mr. Nixon F. Faderog, Deputy Grand
[Kn]ight, Knights of Columbus and President, General Parent-
Teacher Association, Taguig National High School, Lower
Bicutan, Taguig City;

12) "Testimonial Letter" dated 5 September 2008 of Atty.


Primitivo C. Cruz, President, Taguig Lawyers League, Inc.,
Tuktukan, Taguig City;

13) "Testimonial Letter" dated 21 October 2008 of Judge


Hilario L. Laqui, Presiding Judge, Regional Trail Court (RTC),
Branch 218, Quezon City; and

14) "Testimonial Letter" dated 28 October 2008 of Justice


Oscar M. Herrera, former Justice, Court of Appeals and
former Dean, Institute of Law, Far Eastern University (FEU).

Citing the case of In Re: Carlos S. Basa, petitioner pleaded that he


be afforded the same kindness and compassion in order that, like
Atty. Basa, his promising future may not be perpetually foreclosed.
In the said case, the Court had the occasion to say:

30
Carlos S. Basa is a young man about 29 years of age, admitted to
the bars of California and the Philippine Islands. Recently, he was
charged in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila with the
crime of abduction with consent, was found guilty in a decision
rendered by the Honorable M.V. De Rosario, Judge of First
Instance, and was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two
years, eleven months and eleven days of prision correccional. On
appeal, this decision was affirmed in a judgment handed down by
the second division of the Supreme Court.

xxxx

When come next, as we must, to determine the exact action which


should be taken by the court, we do so regretfully and reluctantly.
On the one hand, the violation of the criminal law by the respondent
attorney cannot be lightly passed over. On the other hand, we are
willing to strain the limits of our compassion to the uttermost in
order that so promising a career may not be utterly ruined.

Petitioner promised to commit himself to be more circumspect in


his actions and solemnly pledged to exert all efforts to atone for his
misdeeds.

There may be a reasonable ground to consider the herein Petition.

In the case of Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyer’s Oath


(Bar Matter 712), which may be applied in the instant case, the
Court said:

After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow


petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the
Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the following
admonition:

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, the Court


recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber.

31
On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout
Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts, to
atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give
him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general
tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.

xxxx

Meanwhile, in the case of Rodolfo M. Bernardo vs. Atty. Ismael F.


Mejia (Administrative Case No. 2984), the Court [in] deciding
whether or not to reinstate Atty. Mejia to the practice of law stated:

The Court will take into consideration the applicant’s character and
standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the
charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to
the disbarment and the time that has elapsed in between the
disbarment and the application for reinstatement.

Petitioner was barely thirty (30) years old and had only been in the
practice of law for five (5) years when he was disbarred from the
practice of law. It is of no doubt that petitioner had a promising
future ahead of him where it not for the decision of the Court
stripping off his license.

Petitioner is also of good moral repute, not only before but likewise,
after his disbarment, as attested to overwhelmingly by his
constituents, colleagues as well as people of known probity in the
community and society.

Way before the petitioner was even admitted to the bar, he had
already manifested his intense desire to render public service as
evidenced by his active involvement and participation in several
social and civic projects and activities. Likewise, even during and
after his disbarment, which could be perceived by some as a

32
debilitating circumstance, petitioner still managed to continue
extending his assistance to others in whatever means possible.
This only proves petitioner’s strength of character and positive
moral fiber.

However, still, it is of no question that petitioner’s act in copying the


examination questions from Atty. Balgos’ computer without the
latter’s knowledge and consent, and which questions later turned
out to be the bar examinations questions in Mercantile Law in the
2003 Bar Examinations, is not at all commendable. While we do
believe that petitioner sincerely did not intend to cause the damage
that his action ensued, still, he must be sanctioned for unduly
compromising the integrity of the bar examinations as well as of
this Court.

We are convinced, however, that petitioner has since reformed and


has sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in view of the
circumstances and likewise for humanitarian considerations, the
penalty of disbarment may now be commuted to suspension.
Considering the fact, however, that petitioner had already been
disbarred for more than five (5) years, the same may be considered
as proper service of said commuted penalty and thus, may now be
allowed to resume practice of law.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully


recommended that the instant Petition for Judicial Clemency and
Compassion dated 10 November 2008 of petitioner DANILO G. DE
GUZMAN be GRANTED. Petitioner’s disbarment is now commuted
to suspension, which suspension is considered as served in view
of the petitioner’s five (5) year disbarment. Hence, petitioner may
now be allowed to resume practice of law.

The recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant is well-


taken in part.1avvphi1.zw+ We deem petitioner worthy of clemency
to the extent of commuting his penalty to seven (7) years

33
suspension from the practice of law, inclusive of the five (5) years
he has already served his disbarment.

Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to


correct offenders.2 While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to
discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion
when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose.3

In cases where we have deigned to lift or commute the supreme


penalty of disbarment imposed on the lawyer, we have taken into
account the remorse of the disbarred lawyer4 and the conduct of
his public life during his years outside of the bar.5 For example, in
Valencia v. Antiniw, we held:

However, the record shows that the long period of respondent's


disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his
misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to
demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again to
the exacting standards of conduct demanded of every member of
the bar and officer of the court. During respondent's disbarment for
more than fifteen (15) years to date for his professional infraction,
he has been persistent in reiterating his apologies and pleas for
reinstatement to the practice of law and unrelenting in his efforts to
show that he has regained his worthiness to practice law, by his
civic and humanitarian activities and unblemished record as an
elected public servant, as attested to by numerous civic and
professional organizations, government institutions, public officials
and members of the judiciary.6

And in Bernardo v. Atty. Mejia,7 we noted:

Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejia’s
disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is
already of advanced years. While the age of the petitioner and the
length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of
disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for
34
reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of
Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has
been attributed to him, and he has shown remorse. Obviously, he
has learned his lesson from this experience, and his punishment
has lasted long enough. x x x

Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse expected of


him considering the gravity of his transgressions. Even more to his
favor, petitioner has redirected focus since his disbarment towards
public service, particularly with the People’s Law Enforcement
Board. The attestations submitted by his peers in the community
and other esteemed members of the legal profession, such as
retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge
Hilario Laqui, Professor Edwin Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata,
and the ecclesiastical community such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtas
testify to his positive impact on society at large since the
unfortunate events of 2003.

Petitioner’s subsequent track record in public service affords the


Court some hope that if he were to reacquire membership in the
Philippine bar, his achievements as a lawyer would redound to the
general good and more than mitigate the stain on his record.
Compassion to the petitioner is warranted. Nonetheless, we wish
to impart to him the following stern warning:

"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound
to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all
men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample
them underfoot and to ignore the very bands of society, argues
recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example
to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic." 8

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Judicial


Clemency and Compassion is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The
disbarment of DANILO G. DE GUZMAN from the practice of law is

35
hereby COMMUTED to SEVEN (7) YEARS SUSPENSION FROM
THE PRACTICE OF LAW, reckoned from February 4, 2004.

SO ORDERED.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

LEONARDO A.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-


RENATO C. CORONA
MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO
DANTE O. TINGA
MORALES
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO- PRESBITERO J.


NAZARIO VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. TERESITA J.


NACHURA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA


Associate Justice Associate Justice

36
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

37
Footnotes

* On official leave.
1
Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion (hereinafter,
Petition), p. 26.
2
Bernardo v. Mejia, A.C. No. 2984, August 31, 2007, 531
SCRA 639.
3
Id.
4
See Adez Realty, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
100643, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 201.
5
A.C. No. 1302, 1391, 1543, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 503.
6
Id. at 515.
7
Supra note 2 at 643.
8
Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585, November 12, 2004, 442
SCRA 324, 341.

38

You might also like