Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Yap Tan vs. Sabandal

    Uploaded by

    Angelie Flores
    ESSENTIAL AND USEFUL CASE

    Copyright:

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

    Yap Tan vs. Sabandal

    Uploaded by

    Angelie Flores
    35 views3 pages
    ESSENTIAL AND USEFUL CASE

    Original Title

    Yap-Tan-vs.-Sabandal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    ESSENTIAL AND USEFUL CASE

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    35 views3 pages

    Yap Tan vs. Sabandal

    Uploaded by

    Angelie Flores
    ESSENTIAL AND USEFUL CASE

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    VOL.

    170, FEBRUARY 10, 1989 211


    Yap Tan vs. Sabandal
    *
    Bar Matter No. 44. February 10, 1989.

    EUFROSINA YAP TAN, complainant, vs. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, respondent.


    *
    Bar Matter No. 59. February 10, 1989.

    BENJAMIN CABIGON, complainant, vs. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, respondent.


    *
    SBC No. 624. February 10, 1989.

    CORNELIO AGNIS and DIOMEDES D. AGNIS, complainants,  vs.  NICOLAS EL.


    SABANDAL, respondent.

    Legal Ethics;  Lawyers;  Admission to the Bar;  Lawyer’s Oath;Since respondent Sabandal has
    shown contrition and willingness to reform and has submitted proof of his good moral character and
    civic consciousness, he may now be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.—In several cases wherein
    reinstatements to the legal profession were allowed, the following criteria were considered: the
    person appreciates the significance of his dereliction and he has assured the Court that he now
    possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored
    to the practice of law (Magat vs. Santiago, L-43301-45665, April 1, 1980, 97 SCRA 1); the time that
    has elapsed between disbarment and the application for reinstatement, his good conduct and
    honorable dealing subsequent to his disbarment, his active involvement in civic, educational, and
    religious organizations (In Re: Juan T. Publico, 102 SCRA 721 [1981]); the favorable indorsement of
    the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local government officials and citizens of his
    community (In Re: Quinciano D. Vailoces, Adm. Case No. 439, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 1);
    the pleas of his mother and wife for the sake and the future of his family (Andres vs. Cabrera, SBC-
    585, February 29, 1984, 127 SCRA 802). The foregoing criteria may be made applicable to
    respondent’s case. After the lapse of ten (10) years from the time respondent took and passed the
    1978 Bar Examination, he has shown contrition and willingness to reform. He has also submitted
    several testimonials, including one from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to his good moral
    character and civic consciousness. AC-

    _______________

    * EN BANC.

    212

    212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS


    ANNOTATED

    Yap Tan vs. Sabandal

    CORDINGLY, respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal is hereby allowed to take the lawyer’s oath,
    with the Court binding him to his assurance that he shall strictly abide by and adhere to the
    language, meaning and spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Highest standards of the legal
    profession.

    PETITION to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to take the lawyer’s
    oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

    The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.


         Alberto Concha for Eufrosina Yap Tan.
         Nelbert Poculan for respondent.
    /
    RESOLUTION

    MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

    Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of
    pending administrative complaints filed against him, he was not allowed to take the
    lawyer’s oath. He then filed a Petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be
    allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. The complainants, namely, Eufrosina Y. Tan,
    Benjamin Cabigon, Cornelio Agnis and Diomedes D. Agnis, opposed the Petition on
    several grounds.
    In a Resolution of this Court en banc promulgated on 29 November 1983, respondent’s
    petition was denied, the Court finding, inter alia, that:
    “x x x the evidence supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. While respondent’s
    infraction may be mitigated in that he appeared for his in-laws in CAR Cases Nos. 347 and 326
    where they were parties, it is clear from the proceedings in CAR Case No. 347 that he clarified his
    position only after the opposing counsel had objected to his appearance. Besides, he specifically
    manifested ‘Atty. Nicolas Sabandal, appearing for the defendants, Your Honor’ (Exhibit ‘A-1’). He
    called himself ‘attorney’ knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar. Oppositors’
    evidence sufficiently shows that respondent had held himself out as an ‘attorney’ in the agrarian,
    civil and criminal cases mentioned by said oppositors. Respondent cannot shift the blame on the
    stenographer, for he could have easily asked for rectification. x x x Oppositors had also presented
    evidence of proceedings wherein witnesses testified as to respondent’s being

    213

    VOL. 170, FEBRUARY 10, 1989 213


    Yap Tan vs. Sabandal

    their lawyer and their compensating him for his services (Exhibits ‘D-8’ and ‘D-9’). It may be that in
    the Court of a municipality, even non-lawyers may appear (Sec. 34, Rule 138, Rules of Court). If
    respondent had so manifested, no one could have challenged him. What he did, however, was to
    hold himself out as a lawyer, and even to write the Station Commander of Roxas, complaining of
    harassment to ‘our clients’, when he could not but have known that he could not yet engage in the
    practice of law. His argument that the term ‘client’ is a ‘dependent or person under the protection of
    another and not a person who engages in the profession’ is puerile.” (126 SCRA 60, at 67 & 68)

    A Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution was filed by respondent on 23


    January 1984, which was opposed by Complainants, who stated that the “span of time
    was so short to determine with sufficient definiteness whether or not respondent has
    reformed;” that “the testimonials are self-serving obviously prepared by respondent
    himself and had them signed by the signatories who could not refuse him.” In its
    Resolution of 8 May 1984 the Court denied reconsideration.
    On 23 May 1985 respondent filed an Ex-parte Motion for Reconsideration reiterating
    his prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath, which was again opposed by
    Complainants, and which was denied by the Court on 16 July 1985, with the Court
    stating that no other Motions of this kind would be entertained.
    Undaunted, on 2 December 1985, respondent filed another Motion for Reconsideration
    and Appeal for Mercy and Forgiveness, which the Court simply NOTED in its Resolution
    of 7 January 1986.
    In a letter dated 4 December 1986 respondent’s children echoed his appeal to the Court
    to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath, which the Court noted without action on 7 July
    1987.
    On 28 June 1988, respondent filed a second Petition to be allowed to take the lawyer’s
    oath. Complainants were required to comment but they have not done so to date.
    In a letter dated 23 November 1988 addressed to the Chief Justice and Associate
    Justices of this Court, respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence
    and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the Philippine Bar, he would
    always be faithful to the lawyer’s oath and conduct
    214

    214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


    Yap Tan vs. Sabandal

    himself in an upright manner. /


    Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great
    extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court that he is
    a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law.
    In several cases wherein reinstatements to the legal profession were allowed, the
    following criteria were considered: the person appreciates the significance of his
    dereliction and he has assured the Court that he now possesses the requisite probity and
    integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law
    (Magat vs. Santiago, L-43301-45665, April 1, 1980, 97 SCRA 1); the time that has elapsed
    between disbarment and the application for reinstatement, his good conduct and
    honorable dealing subsequent to his disbarment, his active involvement in civic,
    educational, and religious organizations (In Re: Juan T. Publico,  102 SCRA 721[1981]);
    the favorable indorsement of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the local
    government officials and citizens of his community (In Re: Quinciano D. Vailoces,  Adm.
    Case No. 439, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 1); the pleas of his mother and wife for the
    sake and the future of his family (Andres vs. Cabrera, SBC-585, February 29, 1984, 127
    SCRA 802).
    The foregoing criteria may be made applicable to respondent’s case. After the lapse of
    ten (10) years from the time respondent took and passed the 1978 Bar Examination, he
    has shown contrition and willingness to reform. He has also submitted several
    testimonials, including one from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to his good
    moral character and civic consciousness.
    ACCORDINGLY, respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal is hereby allowed to take the
    lawyer’s oath, with the Court binding him to his assurance that he shall strictly abide by
    and adhere to the language, meaning and spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath and the highest
    standards of the legal profession.
    SO ORDERED.

              Fernan, (C.J.),  Narvasa,  Gutierrez


    Jr.,  Cruz,  Paras,  Feliciano,  Gancayco,  Padilla,  Bidin,  Sarmiento,  Cortés,  Griño-
    Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

    215

    VOL. 170, FEBRUARY 10, 1989 215


    Locsin vs. Court of Appeals

    Respondent allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

    Note.—The practice of law being clothed with public interest, the holder of this
    privilege must submit to a degree of control for the common good to the extent of the
    interest he has created. (Marcial A. Edillis, 84 SCRA 554).

    ——o0o——

    © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

    You might also like