G.R. No. A.C. No. 244; March 29, 1963
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO, vs. SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner.

FACTS

Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1953 after passing the examinations. Approximately two years later, Severino G. Martinez filed a disbarment petition, alleging that Diao made false representations in his bar examination application regarding his pre-legal educational qualifications. The Solicitor General investigated and recommended disbarment, finding that Diao had not completed the required high school education and, more critically, had falsely claimed to hold an Associate in Arts (A.A.) diploma from Quisumbing College, which he never attended or obtained.
In his answer, Diao admitted the high school deficiency but claimed his U.S. Army service and a General Classification Test were considered equivalent by educational authorities, though he provided no official certification. Regarding the A.A. degree, he asserted he actually obtained it from Arellano University in April 1949 but was erroneously certified as a graduate of Quisumbing College due to “confusion” in his records.

ISSUE

Whether Telesforo A. Diao should be disbarred for obtaining admission to the Bar through false representations concerning his compliance with pre-legal educational requirements.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Telesforo A. Diao. The Court found his explanations unmeritorious. The claim of educational equivalence for high school was dubious due to the lack of proper certification. More decisively, the Court rejected his explanation about the A.A. degree. Diao’s assertion of a clerical “confusion” between Quisumbing College and Arellano University was deemed a fabrication of his own making. The critical legal point was that, even accepting his claim of an A.A. from Arellano University obtained in April 1949, his law studies had commenced in the second semester of 1948-1949, which was before he earned that degree.
This sequence violated the fundamental rule, affirmed under oath in a bar application, that an applicant must have “successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education” previous to the study of law. By falsely representing himself as an A.A. graduate of Quisumbing College (1940-1941), Diao concealed the fact that he began law studies prior to completing his pre-legal course, thereby making him unqualified to take the bar examination. His subsequent passing of the bar exams was rendered immaterial, as compliance with pre-legal educational prerequisites is a separate and essential qualification for admission to the practice of law. Consequently, his admission to the Bar, having been procured by fraud and false pretenses, was declared void. The Court ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and required him to return his lawyer’s diploma.