IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESPORO A. DIAO. SEVERINO MARTINEZ, PETITIONER.

After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar.

About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having
falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination, that
he had the requisite academic qualifications. The.matter was in due
course referred to the Solicitor-General who caused the charge to be
investigated; and later he submitted a report recommending that Diao’s
name be erased from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the
allegations in his petition for examination in this Court, he (Diao)
had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal
education prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially
in the following particulars:

(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and

(b)
Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A.
diploma therefrom—which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in
support of his application for examination and of his allegation
therein of successful completion of the “required pre-legal education”.

Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao,
practically admits the first charge; but he claims that although he had
left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S.
Army  passed the General Classification Test given therein, which
(according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his
return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his
army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.

We have serious doubts about the validity of this claim, what with
respondent’s failure to exhibit any certification to that effect (the
equivalence) by the proper school officiate However, it is
urvneeesF?rv to dwel on thrs  since the second charge is clearly
meritorious. Diao never, obtained his A.A.1 from Qiusumbing College;
and yet his application for examination represented, him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college. Now, asserting he had obtained
his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April 1949, he says he
was errorfpcuglv certified, due to confusion, as a (graduate of
Quisumbing College, in his school records.

This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the “error”
or “confusion” was. obviously of his own. making. Had his application
disclosed his having obtained A A. from Arellano University, it wculd
also have disclosed that he got it in April 1019, thereby showing
that lie began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) °Lr months
before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree And then he would not
have been nermitted if  take the bar tests, because our Rules
provide, and the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under
oath, “That pieviors to the study of law, he had successfully and
satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education

(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education.” (italics on “previous”)

Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the
bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed
to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar.
Such admission having been  obtained under false pretenses must be, and
is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled  the Bar, examinations is
immaterial. Passing such examination is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study
in the regular manner is eqstaMy essential.

The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of
attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to
return his lawyer’s diploma within thirty days. So ordered,

Padilla, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintali, JJ, concur.