Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Tan vs. Sabandal - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    romy lumintad
    Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath due to pending complaints that he called himself an "attorney" before being admitted to the Bar. Evidence showed he held himself out as an attorney and was paid for legal services. His petitions to be admitted were denied. Although character references supported his moral fitness, his prior work as a Land Investigator facilitated procuring a fraudulent land title, demonstrating dishonesty and lack of good moral character. His petition to be admitted to the Bar was denied again.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tan vs. Sabandal - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    romy lumintad
    1K views2 pages
    Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath due to pending complaints that he called himself an "attorney" before being admitted to the Bar. Evidence showed he held himself out as an attorney and was paid for legal services. His petitions to be admitted were denied. Although character references supported his moral fitness, his prior work as a Land Investigator facilitated procuring a fraudulent land title, demonstrating dishonesty and lack of good moral character. His petition to be admitted to the Bar was denied again.

    Original Title

    Tan vs. Sabandal- case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath due to pending complaints that he called himself an "attorney" before being admitted to the Bar. Evidence showed he held himself out as an attorney and was paid for legal services. His petitions to be admitted were denied. Although character references supported his moral fitness, his prior work as a Land Investigator facilitated procuring a fraudulent land title, demonstrating dishonesty and lack of good moral character. His petition to be admitted to the Bar was denied again.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Tan vs. Sabandal - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    romy lumintad
    Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath due to pending complaints that he called himself an "attorney" before being admitted to the Bar. Evidence showed he held himself out as an attorney and was paid for legal services. His petitions to be admitted were denied. Although character references supported his moral fitness, his prior work as a Land Investigator facilitated procuring a fraudulent land title, demonstrating dishonesty and lack of good moral character. His petition to be admitted to the Bar was denied again.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Romeo T. Lumintad, Jr.

    Case Digest

    EUFROSINA YAP TAN vs. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL


    B.M. No. 44. February 10, 1989

    MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

    Unauthorized Practice of Law- GUILTY; barred from taking OATH


    FACTS:

    Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of pending administrative
    complaints filed against him regarding instances when he called himself “attorney” knowing full well that he was
    not yet admitted to the Bar, he was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. Oppositor’s evidence sufficiently show
    that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he was paid for his
    “legal services.

    He then filed a petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
    In a resolution promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied.
    From 1984-1988, Sabandal filed Motions for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution, all of which were either
    denied or "Noted without action."

    On 28 June 1988, respondent filed a second Petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. Respondent
    asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the
    Phil. Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer’s oath and conduct himself in an upright manner.

    Acting to his second petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court of
    Zamboanga del Norte where Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent’s moral fitness to be a
    member of the Bar.

    In compliance therewith, the executive judge stated therewith in his comment that he is not aware of any
    acts committed by the respondent as would disqualify him from admission to the Bar. However, he added that
    respondent has a pending civil case before his Court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent,
    then working as Land Investigator in the Bureau of Lands is alleged to have secured a free patent and later a
    certificate of title to a parcel of land which upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible of
    acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and
    the land subsequently sold at public auction and respondent has not redeemed the land since then.

    The case was however settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement cancelled the
    OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the surrender of the
    certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain the land covered by the
    aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising acts of possession or ownership over the said
    land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and interest.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he already submitted three
    (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been terminated. (IBP
    Zamboanga, Members of IBP and RTC)

    RULING:

    His petition must be denied. Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a
    privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good
    moral character.

    It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said employment
    facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the property which he could not but have known was a public
    land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross
    dishonesty while in public service, which cannot be erased by the termination of the case and where no
    determination of guilt or innocence was made because his suit has been compromised. this is a sad reflection of his
    sense of honor and fair dealings.
    Although the term”good moral character” admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as “including at least
    common dishonesty.” It has also been held that no moral qualification for membership is more important than
    truthfulness or candor.

    You might also like