B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P.

Mendoza Proposing Reforms in

the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court).

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of

Rule 138, to wit:

NOTICE

SEC. 5.Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. All applicants for

admission other than those referred to in the two preceding sections shall, before
being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have successfully
completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially recognized by the
Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction
where the degree has been granted.
No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be
admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed the
following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the government:
civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private
international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
taxation and legal ethics.
A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the
bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications
showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or
its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the
proper authority; and (c) completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor
of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine
Government.
SEC. 6.Pre-Law. An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present
a certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the
study of law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized
and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the
completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed
therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree
or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having completed a
separate bachelor's degree course.
The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, is hereby directed to
CIRCULARIZE this resolution among all law schools in the country."

Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 8,
2011, which reads as follows:
"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for
Improving the Conduct of the Bar Examinations). - The Court Resolved to NOTE
the Letter dated January 28, 2011 of Justice Roberto A. Abad re: Amendment to
Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (Annual Examination), incident to the
implementation of B.M. No. 2265 (Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations).
The Court further Resolved to APPROVE the Amendment to Section 11, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court, to wit:
"Section 11. Annual examination. - Examinations for admission to the bar of the
Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in
four days to be designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners.
The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International
Law, and Labor and Social Legislation (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Second
day: Civil Law (morning) and Mercantile Law (afternoon); Third day: Remedial
Law, and Legal Ethics and Forums (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon);
Fourth day: Trial Memorandum (morning) and Legal Opinion (afternoon)".
(adv107)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Honorable Roberto A. Abad (x)
Associate Justice and Chairperson
2011 Committee on Bar Examinations
Supreme Court
Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa (x)
Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant
Supreme Court

BAR MATTER No. 1161

RE: PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE BAR EXAMINATIONS
RESOLUTION
ON
REFORM IN THE BAR EXAMINANTIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning
the admission to the practice of law, the Supreme Court en banc item in its
Resolution of 21 March 2000, created a "Special Study Group on Bar Examination
Reforms" to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar
Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the
law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools";
WHEREAS, the Special Study Group, with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA)
Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired
Justice Jose Y. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted
to the Supreme Court its Final Report, dated 18 September 2000, containing its
findings and recommendations;
WHEREAS, on 21 August 2001, the Supreme Court en banc referred, for further
study, report and recommendation, the Final Report of the Special Study Group to
the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM) headed by Justice
Jose C. Vitug;
WHEREAS, in connection with the discussion on the proposed reforms in the bar
examinations, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, then a Member of the CLEBM, submitted
a Paper, entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a
Primer, proposing structural and administrative reforms, changes in the design
and construction of questions, and the methodological reforms concerning the
marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination;
WHEREAS, proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine
Association of Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the
University of the Philippines College of Law, Arellano Law Foundation, the
Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association and other
prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar;
WHEREAS, considering her Memorandum to the Chief Justice on "Proposed
Technical Assistance Project on Legal Education," dated 27 February 2003,
Program Director Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum of the Program Management Office
(PMO) was invited to a meeting of the CLEBM;

WHEREAS, under the auspices of the PMO, the CLEBM conducted fur (4) regional
round-table discussions with the law deans, professors, the students and members
of the Integrated Bar of he Philippines for (a) the National Capital Region, at
Manila Diamond Hotel on 19 November 2003; (b) Mindanao, at the Grand Regal
Hotel Davao City on 23 January 2004; (c) the Visayas, at the Montebello Hotel in
Cebu City on January 2004; and (d) Luzon, at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Manila on 6
February 2004.
WHEREAS, in a Special Meeting of the CLEBM at the Pan Pacific Hotel on 23 April
2004, the Committee heard the views of Ms. Erica Moeser, the Chief Executive
Officer and President of the National Conference of Board Examiners in the United
States of America on a number of proposed bar reforms;
WHEREAS, the CLEBM, after extensive deliberation and consultation, has arived at
certain recommendations for consideration by the Supreme Court and submitted
its report , dated 21 May 2004, to the Court en banc;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, sitting en banc, hereby RESOLVES to approve and
adopt the following Bar Examination Reforms:
A. For implementation within one (1) up to two (2) years:
1. Initial determination by the Chairman of admission to the bar
examinations of candidates (on the merits of the each case) to be
passed upon by the Court en banc.
2. Submission by law deans of a certification that a candidate has no
derogatory record in school and, if any, the details and status
thereof.
3. Disqualification of a candidate after failing in three(3)
examinations, provided, that he may take a fourth and fifth
examination if he successful completes a one (1) year refresher
course for each examination; provided, further, that upon the
effectivity of this Resolution, those who have already failed in
five(5) or more bar examinations shall be allowed to take only
one (1) more bar examination after copleting (1) year refresher
course.
4. Promulgation of disciplinary measures for those involved in (a)
attempts to violate or vitiate the integrity and confidentiality of
the bar examination process; (b) improper conduct during the
bar examination; and (c) improper conduct of "bar
examinations."
5. Disqualification of a Bar Examination Chairperson:
a. kinship with an examinee who if his or her spouse or
relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity;

b.

having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee,

or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an
examinee; and
c. being a member of the governing board, faculty or
administration of a law school.
6. Desirable qualifications of Examiners:
a. membership in good standing in the Philippine Bar;
b. competence in the assigned subject;
c. a teacher of the subject or familiarity with the principles
of test construction; and
d. commitment to check test papers personally and
promptly pending the creation and organization of the
readership panels provided for in item B(6) below
7. Disqualifications of Examiners:
a. kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or
relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity;
b. having a member of his or her office staff as an examinee;
or when the spouse or child of such staff member is an
examinee;
c. being a member of the governing board, faculty or
administration of a law school
d. teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or
review center during the particular semester following
the bar examinations;
e. having any interest or involvement in any law school, bar
review center or group; and
f. suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the
imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction.
8. Personal preparation, by handwriting or using a typewriter, of
fifty (50) main questions, excluding subdivisions, and their
submission to the Chairperson in sealed envelope at least fortyfive (45) days before the schedule examination on any particular
subject; examiners should not use computers in preparing
questions;
9. Apportionment of examination questions among the various
topics covered by the subject;
10. Burning and shredding of rough drafts and carbon papers used in
the preparation of questions or in any other act connected with
such preparation;
11. Publication of names candidates admitted to take the bar
examinations;
12. Disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in
any subject;

13. Fixing at June 30 of the immediately preceding year as the cut-off

date for laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be
included in the bar examinations; and
14. Consideration of suggested answers to bar examinations
questions prepared by the U.P. Law Center and submitted to the
Chairperson.
B. For implementation within two (2) years up to five (5) years:
1. Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40%
of the total number of questions;
2. Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as part
of the calibration of test papers;
3. Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and
improving the essay examination;1awphil.net
4. Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on the
number of examinees ;
5. Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent
Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson;
6. Creation and organization of readership panels for each subject
area to address the issue of bias or subjectivity and facilitate the
formulation of test questions and the correction of examination
booklets; and
7. Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay
questions to correct variations in the level of test
standards.1awph!l.t
C. For implementation within five(5) years and beyond is the further
computerization or automation of the bar examinations to facilitate
application, testing, and reporting procedures.
D. Items not covered by this resolution, such as those that pertain to a
possible review of the coverage and relative weights of the subjects
of the bar examinations, are maintained.
E. For referral to the Legal education Boards:
1. Accreditation and supervision of law schools.
2. Inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in the law
curriculum, including an apprenticeship program in the Judiciary,
prosecution service, and law offices.
3. Imposition of sanctions on law schools that fail to meet the
standards as may be prescribed by the Legal Education Board.
4. Mandatory Law School Admission Test.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of July 2004, and shall be
published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Promulgated this 8th day of June 2004.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 18,
2011, which reads as follows:
"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations [Letter of Justice
Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for Improving the Conduct of the Bar
Examinations]. Acting on the Letter dated January 10, 2011 of Associate Justice
Roberto A. Abad, proposing to move the 2011 Bar Examinations from September
to November, the Court Resolved to NOTE the said Letter and GRANT the proposal
of Justice Abad to MOVE the 2011 Bar Examinations from September to November.
The Court further Resolved to
(a) NOTE the Letter dated September 2, 2010 of Justice Antonio Eduardo
B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters,
recommending the final approval by the Court En Banc of the proposed
changes for improving the conduct of the bar examinations by Justice
Abad, inasmuch as the Court En Banc had provisionally approved the
proposals
(b) APPROVE the Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations, hereto attached
as Annex "A"; and
(c) NOTE Resolution No. 12-991-2010 dated October 1, 2010 of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Cebu, Cebu City Hall, praying anew that the
Supreme Court, through the Bar Committee will extend the venue of the
Bar Examinations to Cebu City, and hold simultaneous annual
examinations in Manila and Cebu City." (adv14)
Very truly yours,

ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
B.M. No. 2265
RE: REFORMS IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS
Preliminary Statement
The Court has found merit in the proposed changes in the conduct of the
bar examinations that the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar Examinations and
Philippine Association of Law Schools recommended.
One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the
annual bar examinations that in the past consisted merely of naming the
laws that each subject covered. This description has been regarded as too
general and provides no specific understanding of the entry-level legal
knowledge required of beginning law practitioners.
A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar
examinations that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of
laws, doctrines, principles, and precedents, it has been noted that such
examinations are unable to hit a significant cross-section of the subject
matter. Further, the huge number of candidates taking the examinations
annually and the limited time available for correcting the answers make
fair correction of purely essay-type examinations difficult to attain.
Besides, the use of multiple choice questions, properly and carefully
constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying professionals all over the
world because of its proven reliability and facility of correction.
A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type examinations
but dedicating these to the assessment of the requisite communication
skills, creativity, and fine intellect that bar candidates need for the practice
of law.
Approved Changes
The Court has previously approved in principle the above recommended
changes. It now resolves to approve the following rules that shall govern
the future conduct of the bar examinations:
1. The coverage of the bar examinations shall be drawn up by topics and
sub-topics rather than by just stating the covered laws. The test for
including a topic or sub-topic in the coverage of the examinations is
whether it covers laws, doctrines, principles and rulings that a new
lawyer needs to know to begin a reasonably prudent and competent law
practice.

The coverage shall be approved by the Chairperson of the Bar

Examination in consultation with the academe, subject to annual review
and re-approval by subsequent Chairpersons.
2. The bar examinations shall measure the candidates knowledge of the
law and its applications through multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) that
are to be so constructed as to specifically:
2.1. Measure the candidates knowledge of and ability to recall the
laws, doctrines, and principles that every new lawyer needs in his
practice;
2.2. Assess the candidates understanding of the meaning and
significance of those same laws, doctrines, and principles as they
apply to specific situations; and
2.3. Measure his ability to analyze legal problems, apply the
correct law or principle to such problems, and provide solutions
to them.
3. The results of the MCQ examinations shall, if feasible, be corrected
electronically.
4. The results of the MCQ examinations in each bar subject shall be given
the following weights:
Political Law

15%

Labor Law

10%

Civil Law

15%

Taxation

10%

Mercantile Law

15%

Criminal Law

10%

Remedial Law

20%

Legal Ethics/Forms 5%
5. Part of the bar examinations shall be of the essay-type, dedicated to
measuring the candidates skills in writing in English, sorting out the
relevant facts in a legal dispute, identifying the issue or issues involved,

organizing his thoughts, constructing his arguments, and persuading his

readers to his point of view. The essays will not be bar subject specific.
5.1. One such essay examination shall require the candidate to
prepare a trial memorandum or a decision based on a
documented legal dispute. (60% of essays)
5.2 Another essay shall require him to prepare a written opinion
sought by a client concerning a potential legal dispute facing him.
(40% of essays)
6. The essays shall not be graded for technically right or wrong aswers,
but for the quality of the candidates legal advocacy. The passing standard
for correction shall be work expected of a beginning practitioner, not a
seasoned lawyer.
7. The examiners in all eight bar subjects shall, apart from preparing the
MCQs for their respective subjects, be divided into two panels of four
members each. One panel will grade the memorandum or decision essay
while the other will grade the legal opinion essay. Each member shall read
and grade the examination answer of a bar candidate independently of the
other members in his panel. The final grade of a candidate for each essay
shall be the average of the grades given by the four members of the panel
for that essay.
8. The results of the a) MCQ and b) essay-type examinations shall be given
weights of 60% and 40%, respectively, in the computation of the
candidates final grade.
9. For want of historical data needed for computing the passing grade in
MCQ kind of examinations, the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar
Examinations shall, with the assistance of experts in computing MCQ
examination grades, recommend to the Court the appropriate conversion
table or standard that it might adopt for arriving at a reasonable passing
grade for MCQs in bar examinations.
10. In the interest of establishing needed data, the answers of all
candidates in the essay-type examinations in the year 2011 shall be
corrected irrespective of the results of their MCQ examinations, which are
sooner known because they are electronically corrected. In future bar
examinations, however, the Bar Chairperson shall recommend to the
Court the disqualification of those whose grades in the MCQ are so low

that it would serve no useful purpose to correct their answers in the

essay-type examinations.
11. Using the data and experience obtained from the 2011 Bar
Examinations, future Chairpersons of Bar Examination are directed to
study the feasibility of:
11.1. Holding in the interest of convenience and economy bar
examinations simultaneously in Luzon, the Visayas, and
Mindanao; and
11.2. Allowing those who pass the MCQ examinations but fail the
essay-type examinations to take removal examinations in the
immediately following year.
12. All existing rules, regulations, and instructions that are inconsistent
with the above are repealed.
This Bar Matter shall take effect immediately, and shall be published in two
newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
January 18, 2011.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

EN BANC
RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS

B.M. No. 1222

x ---------------------------------------- x
ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner,
April 24, 2009
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
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 petitioners plea
for judicial clemency, and thereupon, order his reinstatement as a member in good
standing of the Philippine Bar.1[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 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 fathers
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.

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 Taguigeos.

Then in February 2004, by a sudden twist of fate, petitioners 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 Peoples 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.

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 Peoples
Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA) kay Danilo G. De Guzman sa
Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pagsusulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng
Isang Abogado dated 1 June 2007 of the Southeast Peoples 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;

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);

9)
Board Resolution No. 02, Series of 2008, A Resolution Recognizing the
Contributions of Danilo G. De Guzman to the Peoples 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 Peoples
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 ParentTeacher 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:

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 Lawyers 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 lawyers oath, the Court recognizes that Mr.
Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. 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 applicants 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 debilitating circumstance, petitioner still managed to continue extending his
assistance to others in whatever means possible. This only proves petitioners
strength of character and positive moral fiber.

However, still, it is of no question that petitioners act in copying the

examination questions from Atty. Balgos computer without the latters 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. Petitioners disbarment is
now commuted to suspension, which suspension is considered as served in view
of the petitioners 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. We

deem petitioner worthy of clemency to the extent of commuting his penalty to

seven (7) years 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[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[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[4] and the conduct of his public life during his years outside of
the bar.5[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[6]

mitigate the stain on his record. Compassion to the petitioner is warranted.

Nonetheless, we wish to impart to him the following stern warning:
And in Bernardo v. Atty. Mejia,7[7] we noted:

Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias 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
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 Peoples 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.

Petitioners 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

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

SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING
FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of
1993."

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to

uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for
advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the
ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the importance, nobility and
dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench
in the administration of justice and to develop social competence.

(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate
and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a holistic approach to
legal problems and issues;
(3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and
decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal
problems of the present and the future;
(4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful
employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic
professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for continuing
study and self-improvement;
(5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession; and
(6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their
profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.

Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal
education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality
among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal
education.

Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the
purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter
referred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and
administrative support to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education
in the Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives:

The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former

justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular
members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a
representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a
representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a representative
from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the
Board.

(1) to prepare students for the practice of law;

(2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of
the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society;
(3) to train persons for leadership;
(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the
improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the
light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and
in other countries.
(b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives:
(1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various fields
and of legal institutions;

With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman
and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines
and members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10)
years in the practice of law, as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or
recognized law school.
Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular members of
the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term of five (5) years without
reappointment from a list of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with prior
authorization from the Supreme Court, by the Judicial and Bar Council, for every

position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need confirmation by the

Commission on Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the
representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the representatives of
the PALS and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the representative from the ranks
of active law practitioners and the representative of the law students' sector, for
one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only
for the unexpire portion of the term of the predecessor.
The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary and
rank as the Chairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional
Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be diminished during their
term of office.
Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education, Culture and
Sports shall provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a
principal office to be located in Metropolitan Manila.
The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary
in the performanceof its powers and functions.
Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of
this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and functions:
(a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent
with the provisions of this Act;
(b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and
functions as herein enumerated;
(c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among
others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the
library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of
institutions of higher learning;
(d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;
(e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum
qualifications and compensation of faculty members;
(f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the
requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and

such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges
under the different levels of accreditation status;
(g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which
a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office
or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific
period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months.
For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such
accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the
actual work of a new member of the Bar.
(h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board
may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses
and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and
(i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations
necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act.
Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate
a law school unless accredited by the Board. Accreditation of law schools may be
granted only to educational institutions recognized by the Government.
Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may
withdraw or downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if it fails to
maintain the standards set for its accreditation status.
Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The
withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive after the lapse
ofthe semester or trimester following the receipt by the school of the notice of
withdrawal or downgrading unless, in the meantime, the school meets and/or
upgrades the standards or corrects the deficiencies upon which the withdrawal or
downgrading of the accreditation status is based.
Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a special endowment
fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of
the Board, and administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS)
which shall invest the same with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety
and liquidity.
The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained from, the
amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixty
percent (60%) of the privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994;

and from such donations, legacies, grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions
received by the Board for the purposes of this Act.
Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education
Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for
faculty development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar
programs for the advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law
schools.
The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an
amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be
utilized.
The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and
regulations for the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund.
Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and
colleges of law which are presently under the supervision of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports. Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to
the Board. Law schools and colleges which shall be established following the
approval of this Act shall likewise be covered.
Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is
hereby authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the
Contingent Fund for the initial expenses of the Board.
To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually,
under the budget of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the amount
of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective
Fiscal Year 1994.
Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared
unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person, circumstance or
transaction is held invalid, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act and
the applicability of such provisions to other persons, circumstances and
transactions shall not be affected thereby.
Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and
regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby
repealed or amended accordingly.

Section 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following
the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.