G.R. No. B.M. No. 1154; June 8, 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A BAR, ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner.

FACTS

Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez filed a petition seeking to disqualify Haron S. Meling from the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose disciplinary action upon him as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Melendrez alleged that Meling failed to disclose in his bar application three pending criminal cases (Grave Oral Defamation and Less Serious Physical Injuries) filed against him by Melendrez and his wife. Melendrez further alleged that Meling improperly used the title “Attorney” in his official communications as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City despite not being a member of the Philippine Bar.
In his Answer, Meling explained his non-disclosure by claiming he believed the cases were “closed and terminated” based on advice from a retired judge, and he denied the acts involved moral turpitude. Regarding the use of “Attorney,” he claimed it was merely typed by an office clerk. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) found his explanations unacceptable, characterizing the non-disclosure as dishonest and the use of the title as unauthorized.

ISSUE

Whether Haron S. Meling should be subject to disciplinary action for his failure to disclose pending criminal cases in his bar application and for his unauthorized use of the title “Attorney.”

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for disciplinary action against Meling as a Shari’a Bar member, suspending him until further orders. The Court found that the petition to disqualify him from the bar oath had become moot, as Meling did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations.
The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental requirement of good moral character for the practice of law, which applies equally to members of the regular Bar and the Shari’a Bar. Good moral character is a continuing condition for retaining the privilege to practice. Meling’s deliberate concealment of the pending criminal cases in his sworn bar application constituted dishonesty, violating the duty of candor expected of all bar applicants and officers of the court. His excuse—reliance on a retired judge’s advice—was frivolous, as only a court of competent jurisdiction can terminate cases. This act of suppression is a breach of Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Furthermore, his unauthorized use of the title “Attorney,” which is reserved exclusively for members of the Integrated Bar in good standing, demonstrated a lack of integrity and respect for legal propriety. Even if done by a clerk, his signing of the communications showed a knowing tolerance of the misrepresentation. The Court emphasized that the judiciary cannot countenance dishonesty, as it erodes public trust. Consequently, his actions warranted suspension from the Shari’a Bar to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.