B.M. No. 44, B.M. No. 59, SBC No. 624 February 10, 1989
Eufrosina Yap Tan, Benjamin Cabigon, Cornelio Agnis and Diomedes D. Agnis, complainants, vs. Nicolas El. Sabandal, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath due to pending administrative complaints. He filed a petition for admission to the Bar, which was opposed by multiple complainants. In a 1983 Resolution, the Court denied his petition, finding clear evidence of unauthorized practice of law. The Court noted that respondent had held himself out as an “attorney” in various agrarian, civil, and criminal cases, even explicitly introducing himself as such in court proceedings and referring to individuals as “our clients” in correspondence, despite knowing he was not yet admitted to the Bar.
Subsequently, respondent filed several motions for reconsideration and appeals for mercy in 1984, 1985, and 1986, all of which were denied or noted without action by the Court. In 1988, he filed a second petition to take the oath, accompanied by a letter expressing contrition and promising faithful adherence to the lawyer’s oath. The complainants, required to comment on this latest petition, did not file any opposition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal should now be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath and be admitted to the practice of law.

RULING

Yes, the Court granted respondent’s petition and allowed him to take the lawyer’s oath. The legal logic rests on the Court’s sound discretion to determine an applicant’s fitness based on good moral character, a requirement that is not static. While the Court had previously denied admission due to respondent’s misconduct of unauthorized practice and misrepresentation, the central inquiry shifted to whether he had subsequently demonstrated reformation and present moral fitness over a significant period.
The Court applied criteria analogous to those used in reinstatement cases, such as the appreciation of one’s past dereliction, the lapse of time, subsequent good conduct, civic involvement, and community endorsements. Here, after ten years from passing the bar, respondent showed genuine contrition and a willingness to reform. He submitted testimonials, including one from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapter of Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness. The absence of opposition from the original complainants to his 1988 petition was also a relevant factor. Consequently, the Court found that respondent had satisfied the requisite moral character for admission, binding him to his assurance of strict future compliance with the Lawyer’s Oath and professional standards.