IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A BAR, ATTY. FRO…

Melendrez versus Meling

The Case

This is an original administrative proceeding before the Supreme Court, brought by Atty. Froilan Melendrez against Haron Meling, a member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar. Melendrez asked the Court for two things: to disqualify Meling from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations, and to discipline him as a member of the Shari'a Bar. The case matters because it teaches the bar candidate two enduring rules — that the requirement of good moral character is a continuing condition for the privilege of practicing law, and that the title "Attorney" belongs only to members of the Philippine Bar, not to members of the Shari'a Bar as such.

Procedural History

The case began when Melendrez filed a Petition with the Office of the Bar Confidant on October 14, 2002. The Supreme Court, by Resolution dated December 3, 2002, required Meling to answer, and he filed his Answer with the Office of the Bar Confidant. The Office of the Bar Confidant then submitted its Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2003, finding against Meling and recommending that he not be allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys, and that his membership in the Shari'a Bar be suspended until further orders. The matter reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter within its power over admission to the practice of law, and the Court rendered its Decision on June 8, 2004.

Facts

On May 21, 2001, an incident occurred in which Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people, and purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez's wife, causing her injuries. Three criminal cases followed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cotabato City: two for Grave Oral Defamation and one for Less Serious Physical Injuries.

When Meling filed his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations, he did not disclose these three pending criminal cases. He later explained that a retired judge, their former law professor, had advised him to settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez, and that in good faith he considered the cases, which arose from a single incident involving the same parties, as closed and terminated. He also denied the charges and insisted that the acts complained of do not involve moral turpitude.

Melendrez further alleged that Meling had been using the title "Attorney" in his communications as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, although he is not a member of the Philippine Bar. Meling admitted that some of his communications contained the word "Attorney," explaining that they were typed by the office clerk.

Issues

• Whether or not Meling's non-disclosure of the three pending criminal cases in his Petition to take the Bar Examinations constitutes concealment amounting to dishonesty and lack of good moral character.
• Whether or not Meling's use of the appellation "Attorney" despite not being a member of the Philippine Bar warrants sanction.
• Whether or not the relief of preventing Meling from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys has been rendered moot.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.

This rule bears on the case because the Court held Meling answerable for suppressing the material fact of his pending criminal cases in his application to take the Bar Examinations.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court fully concurred with the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant. The standard form for the 2002 Bar Examinations required the applicant to aver that he has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, and that there is no pending case or charge against him. Despite this declaration, Meling did not reveal his three pending criminal cases. The Court held that his deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done under oath at that. The disclosure requirement exists so the Court can determine whether there is satisfactory evidence of the applicant's good moral character; by concealing the pending cases, the applicant flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted. The merit of the cases is immaterial; what matters is the act of concealing them, which constitutes dishonesty.

On the second issue, the Court held that Meling's use of the appellation "Attorney," knowing fully well that he is not entitled to it, cannot go unchecked. Speaking through the earlier case of Alawi versus Alauya, the Court explained:

…persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence, may only practice law before Shari'a courts. While one who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered "counselors," in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an "attorney." The title "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court noted that Meling did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations. This rendered the Petition moot and academic insofar as it sought to prevent him from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys. The prayer for sanctions upon him as a member of the Shari'a Bar, however, remained ripe for resolution.

Doctrine

The practice of law, whether under the regular courts or the Shari'a courts, is not a matter of right but a mere privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who also possess good moral character. The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is essential for remaining in the practice of law. An applicant's deliberate non-disclosure, under oath, of pending criminal cases in the petition to take the Bar Examinations constitutes concealment and dishonesty, and results in the forfeiture of the privilege — even if the cases are ultimately proven unwarranted, because the merit of the cases is immaterial; what matters is the act of concealing them. Finally, the title "Attorney" is reserved to those admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and in good standing; members of the Shari'a Bar who are not likewise members of the Philippine Bar may practice only before Shari'a courts and may not use that title.

Disposition

The Petition was granted insofar as it sought sanctions against Meling as a member of the Shari'a Bar, and his membership in the Philippine Shari'a Bar was suspended until further orders from the Court, effective immediately; the relief of preventing him from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys was dismissed as moot and academic.

Remember This

Memorize this line: good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is essential for remaining in the practice of law. Examiners use this case on the disclosure requirement in bar applications, on concealment as dishonesty, and on the distinction between a Shari'a Bar member and a full-fledged attorney.