AC 270; (March, 1974) (Digest)
A.C. No. 270. March 29, 1974. In Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana of Cebu City.
FACTS
Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana was disbarred by the Supreme Court on May 29, 1959, for acts of misconduct as a notary public and for exhibiting a norm of conduct deemed unworthy of the legal profession. Following his disbarment, Rusiana filed several petitions for reinstatement, which were supported by numerous resolutions and testimonials from members of the bench and bar, labor unions, civic organizations, and media professionals in Cebu, all attesting to his good moral character and conduct since his removal.
His earlier petitions were denied. However, on June 13, 1972, he filed a verified petition for reinstatement, submitting extensive proofs including clearances from various courts and the police, and character testimonials from fiscals, judges, and several bar associations. After a hearing, the Court, in a resolution dated July 20, 1972, acknowledged his exemplary conduct and repentance over the past thirteen years but required him to enroll in and pass regular fourth-year review classes in a recognized law school to guarantee his competence given changes in law since 1959, as a precondition for possible readmission.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana has sufficiently demonstrated rehabilitation of character and competence to warrant reinstatement to the Philippine Bar.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition for reinstatement. The sole object in an application for reinstatement is to determine whether the applicant has presented positive evidence of successful character rehabilitation and is thus fit to re-enter a profession of public trust. The Court, in its 1972 resolution, had already found that Rusiana had undergone adequate punishment, observed exemplary conduct, and shown credible repentance, making it reasonable to expect his future adherence to ethical canons.
The additional requirement to pass law review classes was imposed to ensure his legal competence remained current. Rusiana complied fully with this directive, as evidenced by sworn certificates from his professors and confirmatory letters from the Gullas Law School registrar and dean, attesting to his regular attendance and successful completion of the courses under standard student conditions. Consequently, having satisfied all conditions for rehabilitation and demonstrated present fitness, the Court allowed Carlos C. Rusiana to retake the lawyer’s oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys upon payment of requisite fees.