Tan vs.

Sabandal

FACTS:

Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations. He was not allowed to take the Lawyers
Oath because of pending administrative complaints filed against him regarding instances when he
called himself attorney knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar. Evidence sufficiently
show that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he
was paid for his legal services
He then filed a petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll
of Attorneys. In a resolution promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied.
Respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance
to be a member of the Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyers oath and conduct himself in an
upright manner.

Issue:

Whether or not Sabandal should be allowed to practice law

HELD:

No.

The practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are
not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The Supreme
Court and the Philippine Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal profession, both
in academic preparation and legal training as well as in honesty and fair dealing. The Court and the
licensed lawyers themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways of
achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known
to be honest and to possess good moral character. Although the term "good moral character" admits of
broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common honesty. It has also been held
that no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor

The court ruled that in the development of the case, they find Sabandal to have concealed the
civil case brought against him in the course of his series of petitions to be allowed to take oath together
with the testimonies attesting to his good moral character without any mention of the pending case
against him. The court finds this as manipulative and gross dishonesty on the part of the respondent.
Although there were testimonials on his good moral characters those were made without any
knowledge of the case against him. The commission of his offense itself is devoid of honesty. With the
practice of law a matter of privilege and not as a right, they find respondent unfit to be a member of the
law profession therefore it recalled the court resolution of allowing the respondent to take oath.