G.R. No. A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.

FACTS

Rolando S. Torres (respondent) was disbarred by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated April 14, 2004, for gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath and Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The disbarment stemmed from charges filed by his sister-in-law, Isidra Ting-Dumali, which included: (1) participation in and consent to a perjured Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement in 1986 that excluded other heirs; (2) participation in and consent to the forgery of the complainant’s signature in a 1995 Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; (3) gross misrepresentation and false testimony in a judicial reconstitution case in 1995 to exclude other heirs; and (4) making false representations to facilitate payment for a property sale. The Court denied his subsequent motions for reconsideration and expunged or denied his repeated pleas for clemency or reinstatement. More than ten years after his disbarment, on June 23, 2015, respondent filed the instant Petition seeking judicial clemency for reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE

Whether Rolando S. Torres has sufficiently demonstrated reformation and rehabilitation to merit judicial clemency and reinstatement as a member of the Philippine Bar.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for reinstatement. Applying the guidelines for judicial clemency from Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, the Court found that respondent failed to meet the required standards. Specifically:
1. Proof of Remorse and Reformation: Respondent’s evidence was insufficient. He submitted a 2015 church certification stating he assisted poor litigants and was active in church, but it lacked specifics on actual engagements. Other testimonials from lawyers pertained to his conduct prior to disbarment, not after, and thus were incompetent to prove reformation. Certifications from 2004 were too remote. The Court also noted a 2007 Department of Justice Resolution dismissing criminal complaints against him did not equate to reformation, as it was based on prescription and lack of evidence, not innocence.
2. Sufficient Time Lapsed: While over ten years had passed since disbarment, this alone was insufficient without proof of reformation.
3. Age and Productive Years: Respondent was 72 years old at the time of the petition, which did not show he had productive years ahead for redeeming himself through service.
4. Promise and Potential: No showing of intellectual aptitude, legal acumen, or potential for public service was presented.
5. Other Relevant Factors: None were shown to justify clemency.
The Court emphasized that membership in the Bar is a privilege requiring moral fitness, and reinstatement must be based on clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation. Sympathy for respondent’s predicament could not override the duty to preserve the integrity of the legal profession. Thus, the petition was denied for failure to comply with the guidelines for judicial clemency.