EUFROSINA Y. TAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, RESPONDENT.

Tan versus Sabandal

The Case

This is Tan versus Sabandal, a bar admission controversy decided by the Supreme Court in February 1992. Eufrosina Tan and other complainants charged Nicolas Sabandal with unauthorized practice of law and opposed his admission to the Philippine Bar. The case matters because it teaches the foundational rule that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, granted only to persons of good moral character, and that no testimonial of good character can outweigh proven dishonesty.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative matter before the Supreme Court itself, not in a trial court. On 29 November 1983, the Court sustained the charge of unauthorized practice of law against Sabandal and denied his petition to take the lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys. From 1984 to 1988, Sabandal filed several motions for reconsideration, all of which were denied or noted without action. On 10 February 1989, the Court reconsidered and allowed him to take the oath, binding him to his assurance that he would adhere to the Lawyer's Oath and the highest standards of the profession. Before a date could be set, complainants Tan, Dagpin, and Boquia each filed motions for reconsideration. The Court then required the present Board of Officers of the IBP Zamboanga del Norte Chapter to manifest whether it would certify Sabandal's good moral character, and required the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte to comment on his moral fitness. After receiving the IBP Certification and the comments of the judges, and after the civil case against Sabandal was terminated by compromise, the Court resolved to deny his plea.

Facts

Nicolas Sabandal took and passed the 1978 Bar examinations. In 1983, the Supreme Court sustained a charge of unauthorized practice of law against him and denied his petition to take the lawyer's oath. He then filed a series of motions for reconsideration, repeatedly asserting his good moral character. In 1989, the Court allowed him to take the oath, relying on his show of contrition and on testimonials of good moral character.

Unknown to the Court at that time, a civil case for cancellation of title and reversion, instituted by the Government in 1985, was pending against Sabandal. He had worked as a Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands, and that employment facilitated his procurement of a free patent and certificate of title over land that turned out to be swampland, not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent. He mortgaged the land to a rural bank to obtain a loan. The mortgage was foreclosed and the land sold at public auction, and he did not redeem it. He never disclosed the pendency of this case to the Court while he was pleading for admission.

The civil case was eventually settled by compromise, with Sabandal surrendering the certificate of title to the Government, the land reverting to the public domain, and Sabandal paying the bank 35,000 pesos for the loan and interest. The Office of the Solicitor General interposed no objection, observing that the amicable settlement may amount to a confession by the defendant. Complainant Tan later withdrew her objection and recommended Sabandal's admission, but complainants Boquia and Dagpin maintained their opposition.

Issues

• Whether or not Sabandal possesses the good moral character required for admission to the Philippine Bar.
• Whether or not the termination of the civil case against him by compromise erased the dishonesty shown by his acts.
• Whether or not the withdrawal of complainant Tan's objection and the testimonials of good moral character entitle him to take the lawyer's oath.

Applicable Provisions

The Court did not quote a statutory provision but relied on the constitutional and statutory requirement of good moral character for bar admission. The Court quoted the standard from In re Parazo:

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.

This standard governs whether an applicant may be admitted to the Bar.

The Court also defined good moral character:

Good moral character includes at least common honesty.

This definition sets the minimum moral qualification for bar membership.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Sabandal does not possess good moral character. His procurement of a free patent over public land while employed at the Bureau of Lands was manipulative and manifested gross dishonesty in the public service. His failure to disclose the pendency of the civil case while pleading for admission revealed a lack of candor and truthfulness.

On the second issue, the Court held that the compromise did not erase his dishonesty. No determination of guilt or innocence was made because the suit was compromised, and the Solicitor General himself observed that the settlement was tantamount to a confession. The Court stressed that Sabandal knew of the intrinsic invalidity of his title yet used it to secure a bank loan and did not redeem the land after foreclosure.

On the third issue, the Court held that the testimonials of good moral character were confined to lack of knowledge of any criminal case and were made without awareness of the facts surrounding the Government's case. They could not outweigh his acts of dishonesty. Tan's withdrawal of her objection could not tilt the balance in his favor, as her complaint treated of another subject matter. The Court reiterated that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and that no moral qualification is more important than truthfulness or candor.

Doctrine

The practice of law is not a matter of right but a privilege bestowed only upon individuals who are learned in the law and known to possess good moral character. Good moral character includes at least common honesty, and no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor. An applicant's dishonest acts, such as procuring a free patent over public land and using it as collateral, cannot be erased by the termination of a civil case through compromise, especially where no determination of guilt or innocence was made. Testimonials of good moral character that are made without awareness of the relevant facts cannot outweigh proven dishonesty. The withdrawal of a complainant's objection does not bind the Court, as the admission to the Bar is a matter of public interest and the Court's own determination.

Disposition

The Court recalled its Resolution of 10 February 1989 and denied Sabandal's prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath, finding him unfit to become a member of the Bar.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and good moral character includes at least common honesty. Examiners use this case to test the requirement of good moral character for bar admission and the effect of a compromise settlement on proof of dishonesty.