IN RE:  QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

In re Vailoces

The Case

This is a petition filed with the Supreme Court by Quinciano D. Vailoces, a lawyer who had been disbarred, asking to be readmitted to the practice of law and to have his name restored to the roll of attorneys. The complainant in the original disbarment, Ledesma de Jesus-Paras, opposed the petition, and so did a telegram from Nicanor Vailoces, the barangay captain of Domolog, Bindoy, Negros Oriental. The case matters because it fixes the standard for reinstatement after disbarment: a pardon does not restore a lawyer, and reformation must be shown.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental found Vailoces guilty of falsification of a public document and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty, with the accessory penalties of the law, plus fine and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and upon finality he began serving his sentence. The complainant then brought disbarment proceedings before the Supreme Court, which culminated in his disbarment on April 12, 1961. After the President granted him an absolute and unconditional pardon on December 27, 1967, restoring him to full civil and political rights, he repeatedly sought readmission. His first plea was denied by minute resolution on August 30, 1968. A second plea, made on February 27, 1970, was deferred until after the integration of the bar. He filed another petition on December 12, 1977, and the oppositions to it were referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to the Solicitor General for investigation and recommendation. The Solicitor General recommended reinstatement, and the matter came before the Supreme Court as an original petition for readmission.

Facts

Vailoces was a member of the bar and a notary public. As notary, he acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus. When the document was presented for probate before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, the forced heirs of the alleged testatrix impugned its genuineness. The court found the document to be a forgery and denied probate to the will.

Vailoces was then convicted of falsification of a public document, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. After the judgment became final, he served his sentence. The complainant in the criminal case instituted disbarment proceedings before the Supreme Court, and he was disbarred on April 12, 1961.

On December 27, 1967, the President granted him an absolute and unconditional pardon and restored him to full civil and political rights. From August 23, 1968, he repeatedly sought readmission. In support of his petition of December 12, 1977, he attached the resolution of the Negros Oriental Bar Association signed by seventy-eight of its members, certifications from the mayor of Bindoy and from Governor William B. Villegas of Negros Oriental, a certification from Dean Eduardo G. Flores of the College of Law of Silliman University, a statement from Atty. Alexander G. Amor, former president of the Negros Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar, and clearances from Judge Romeo R. Solis, Provincial Fiscal Andrew S. Namukatkat, and City Fiscal Pablo E. Cabahug. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines favorably indorsed his request. The complainant and Nicanor Vailoces opposed it, but the Integrated Bar observed that the charges of immorality and gambling were general statements devoid of particular allegations of fact, and that the mayor of Bindoy who led the opposition had earlier issued a certification praising Vailoces. The Solicitor General, after investigation, recommended reinstatement upon his taking his oath anew.

Issues

• Whether or not the absolute and unconditional pardon granted to Vailoces by the President, which restored him to full civil and political rights, by itself warrants his reinstatement to the practice of law.
• Whether or not Vailoces has sufficiently proven himself fit and of good moral character to be readmitted to the practice of law.

Applicable Provisions

Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, the provision under which Vailoces was convicted, penalizes falsification of public documents. The decision refers to it as the basis of the conviction that led to his disbarment, and it bears on the case because the pardon that followed does not erase the need to show reformation.

The decision also states the governing standard for reinstatement in the following words:

Evidence of reformation is required before applicant is entitled to reinstatement, notwithstanding the attorney has received a pardon following his conviction, and the requirements of reinstatement had been held to be the same as for original admission to the bar, except that the court may require a greater degree of proof than in an original evidence.

This standard bears on the case because it makes reformation, not the pardon, the decisive requirement.

And it frames the decisive question in these words:

The decisive question on an application for reinstatement is whether applicant is of good moral character in the sense in which that phrase is used when applied to attorneys-at-law and is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the privileges of the office of an attorney.

This bears on the case because the Court measures the petitioner's conduct after disbarment against that question.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the plenary pardon extended to Vailoces by the President does not of itself warrant his reinstatement. The Court quoted the rule that evidence of reformation is required before an applicant is entitled to reinstatement, notwithstanding that the attorney has received a pardon following his conviction, and that the requirements of reinstatement are the same as for original admission to the bar, except that the court may require a greater degree of proof.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the conclusion of the Solicitor General that Vailoces had sufficiently proven himself fit to be readmitted. The Court held that his conduct after disbarment could stand searching scrutiny. He had regained the respect and confidence of his fellow attorneys and of the citizens of his community. The favorable indorsements of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and its Negros Oriental Chapter, the testimonials of the provincial governor and of the municipal and barrio officials of Bindoy, and his active participation in civic and social undertakings attested to his moral reform and rehabilitation. The Court noted that he was then sixty-nine years of age, had reached the twilight of his life, and had been barred from the practice of his profession for twenty-one years. Adequate punishment had been exacted. Chastened by his painful and humiliating experience, he pledged to conduct himself honestly, uprightly, and worthily if reinstated, and the Court found a reasonable expectation that he would lead an irreproachable life and maintain steadfast fidelity to the lawyer's oath.

Doctrine

A pardon, even an absolute and unconditional one that restores full civil and political rights, does not by itself entitle a disbarred lawyer to reinstatement. The applicant must show evidence of reformation, and the requirements of reinstatement are the same as for original admission to the bar, except that the court may require a greater degree of proof. The decisive question is whether the applicant is of good moral character in the sense in which that phrase is used when applied to attorneys-at-law, and is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the privileges of the office of an attorney. The Court weighs the applicant's conduct after disbarment, the indorsements of the Integrated Bar and the community, and the length of the punishment already exacted.

Disposition

The Court ordered that petitioner Quinciano D. Vailoces be reinstated in the roll of attorneys.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a pardon does not restore a lawyer, and evidence of reformation is required before reinstatement. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the effect of a pardon and the moral fitness required for readmission to the bar.