G.R. No. B.M. No. 2796, February 11, 2020
Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui, Complainant, v. Anthony de Zuzuarregui, Respondent.

FACTS

Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui (complainant) filed a complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) against his nephew, Anthony de Zuzuarregui (respondent), a 2013 Bar Examinations applicant, questioning his moral character due to four pending criminal cases for Estafa and Falsification. Respondent disclosed these cases in his bar application. The Court provisionally allowed him to take the 2013 Bar Exams, stipulating that passing would not permit him to take the Lawyer’s Oath until cleared of the charges. Respondent passed. He later filed a petition to take the oath, claiming the cases had been dismissed and submitting certifications of good moral character. The Court required further explanations and documents, including regarding an undisclosed case (Criminal Case No. XV-INV-13G-06821), which respondent explained he was unaware of at the time of his application. After submissions, the OBC recommended holding the petition in abeyance due to other pending charges, which the Court adopted in 2015. In 2018, respondent filed a motion stating all criminal charges had been dismissed but feared new fabricated complaints. The OBC, in 2019, recommended allowing him to take the oath, finding the attestations credible and the cases dismissed. The Court scheduled his oath-taking for January 20, 2020. However, complainant objected via a January 8, 2020 letter, listing 10 new pending criminal cases. The Court suspended the oath-taking. Respondent explained that nine of the ten had been dismissed, and the tenth, filed in 2019, was pending, alleging these were harassment suits to delay his admission.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Anthony de Zuzuarregui possesses the requisite good moral character for admission to the Philippine Bar despite the series of criminal complaints filed against him.

RULING

Yes. The Court resolved to allow Anthony de Zuzuarregui to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys. The dismissal of all previous criminal charges against respondent, except for one recently filed in 2019, coupled with the various certifications of good moral character in his favor, sufficiently established his moral qualifications. The Court found the timing of the successive criminal filings highly suspect, indicating a manifest intention by the complainant to prevent respondent from becoming a lawyer. The practice of law is a privilege, but the Court will not unjustifiably withhold it from one who has shown both intellectual and moral fitness. Consequently, after nearly six years, respondent’s admission was granted. The complainant and his counsel were severely warned not to file any more frivolous complaints under pain of contempt.