G.R. No. A.M. No. 528-SBC & A.M. No. 529-SBC February 25, 1982
AQUILINA BITANGCOR and JOSEFINA PEREDO, complainants, vs. RODOLFO M. TAN, respondent.

FACTS

Two separate administrative complaints were filed against successful 1971 bar examinee Rodolfo M. Tan, praying that he be prevented from taking his lawyer’s oath due to alleged immorality. Aquilina Bitangcor alleged that Tan, after being charged with rape, promised to marry her, leading to the dismissal of the case. She bore a child whom Tan initially supported minimally before refusing further aid. Josefina Peredo alleged that Tan, after the 1971 bar exams, promised to marry her, leading to cohabitation, which he subsequently abandoned, causing her social humiliation. Tan denied all allegations, claiming the complaints were harassment. The Court referred the cases for investigation. During proceedings, Bitangcor filed an affidavit of desistance after a monetary settlement, while Peredo persistently pursued her complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Rodolfo M. Tan possesses the good moral character required for admission to the Philippine Bar.

RULING

The Supreme Court allowed Rodolfo M. Tan to take his lawyer’s oath. The legal logic balances the gravity of the misconduct against subsequent rehabilitation and the passage of time. While the Court acknowledged the serious nature of the charges, which implicated Tan’s moral fitness, it emphasized that the power to admit candidates to the bar is not punitive but protective of the public and the integrity of the legal profession. The Investigator found the charges, particularly Peredo’s, substantiated, indicating a lapse in moral standards. However, the Court considered significant mitigating factors: the ten-year period since the bar exams during which Tan was denied his profession, his contrite telegrams pledging to uphold professional conduct, and the absence of any other reported indiscretion in the interim. Citing precedent (Barba vs. Pedro), the Court ruled that the prolonged deprivation of his professional privilege constituted sufficient discipline and expiation for his transgressions. The decision reflects a rehabilitative perspective, holding that the “agony of waiting” has served its purpose, and Tan has demonstrated the requisite rehabilitation to be deemed morally fit for admission.