IN RE:  FLORENCIO MALLARE

By our original decision of April 29, 1968, we declared that, according to the evidence
submitted at his investigation, respondent Florencio Mallare admitted to the practice of law in 1962, was not really a Filipino citizen.  As a result, the dispositive
portion of our decision was of the following tenor:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the respondent Florencio Mallare is hereby
declared excluded from the practice of law; his admission to the Philippine bar
is revoked and he is hereby ordered to return immediately to this Court the
lawyer’s diploma pre­viously issued to him.

“Let a copy of this decision be furnished, when it becomes
final, to the Secretary of Justice, for such action as may be deemed warranted;
and let an­other copy be sent to the Local Civil Registrar of Macalelon, Quezon, for purposes
of record in the corresponding civil registry of births.”

After several motions for reconsideration had been denied,
respondent Mallare filed a petition for reopening,
and new trial, predicated upon the discovery of an entry in the Register of
Baptisms of the Parish of the Immaculate Conception of Macalelon,
Tayabas (now Quezon),
bearing No. 5 at rage 147, attesting to the fact that respondent’s late father,
Esteban Mallare, was baptized as the natural son of
Ana Mallare, “india soltera de este pueblo” and
an unknown father.

This document, if authentic, would greatly tend to support, in
con­junction with other evidences on record, the claim of respondent that his
father was a citizen of the Philippines, which citizenship was acquired by
herein respondent upon his birth in the Philippines, his Chinese mother Te Na
having followed Esteban Mallare’s nationality upon
her marriage to the latter.

Respondent further submits the affidavit of one Damiana Cabañgon, who allegedly
was the “hilot” who attended Ana Mallare and that the latter had no husband when she gave
birth to Esteban Mallare; and that of respon­dent’s
mother Te Na, that she had erroneously registered her son, Florencio,
as an alien in 1960.

The Commissioner of Immigration has opposed the reopening on the
ground that the evidence proposed to be introduced by herein respondent is not
newly discovered, but forgotten evidence.

Considering that the respondent, as a duly admitted member of the
bar, should be given ample opportunity to establish the true facts about his
citizenship and that no effort should be spared to ascertain the truth before
stripping him of the privilege granted to him by this Court since 1962, and
denying him the practice of his chosen profession which he has honorably
discharged as far as the records show:

The Court Resolved to set aside the decision of April 29,
1968 and to grant the reopening and new trial prayed for, which shall take
place before the Court’s Investigating Officer on the days specified by him
upon notice to respondent Mallare, the Commissioner
of Immigration and the Solicitor General, wherein said parties may adduce all
proper additional evidence that they may desire to present.  The proofs taken at the original
investigation shall not he retaken, but considered as part of the evidence in
the new trial.  Thereafter, the Court
Investigator shall submit his report to this Tribunal.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.