G.R. No. B.M. Nos. 979 and 986 December 10, 2002
RE: 1999 BAR EXAMINATIONS, MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA, petitioner.

FACTS

Petitioner Mark Anthony A. Purisima was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Examinations, subject to submitting a certification of completion of the pre-bar review course within sixty days from the last day of the examinations. He passed the exams. However, in a Resolution dated April 13, 2000, the Court disqualified him and declared his examinations null and void on two grounds: (1) his failure to submit the required certification of completion of the pre-bar review course under oath, and (2) his commission of a serious act of dishonesty by stating in his Petition to Take the 1999 Bar Examinations that he took his pre-bar review course at the Philippine Law School (PLS), when PLS had not offered such a course since 1967. His motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Due Process, explaining that the entry regarding PLS was a “self-evident clerical error and a mere result of an oversight.” He claimed he had requested a friend, Ms. Lilian A. Felipe, to fill out and file his petition form, and due to his preoccupation with bar preparations, he failed to check the form, which erroneously listed PLS instead of the University of Santo Tomas (UST) where he actually took the course. He submitted substantial evidence of his enrollment and attendance at UST, including a Certification from Dean Amado L. Dimayuga, official receipts, identification cards, and affidavits from classmates, professors, and UST staff. He also explained that he did not submit a separate certification of completion within the 60-day period because he believed the Certification from Dean Dimayuga (submitted as Annex “D” of his Petition) already sufficed. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a summary hearing and recommended granting petitioner the benefit of the doubt, citing similar compassionate rulings in past cases and noting that three other examinees disqualified for the same failure to submit the certification were later allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Mark Anthony A. Purisima should be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and be admitted to the Philippine Bar despite the earlier findings of failure to submit the required certification and alleged dishonesty in his petition.

RULING

Yes. The Court granted the prayer in Bar Matters Nos. 979 and 986, allowing Mark Anthony A. Purisima to take the Lawyer’s Oath and be admitted to the Philippine Bar. The Court found petitioner’s explanation, fortified by unquestionably genuine documents, credible. It held that the erroneous entry of PLS was a clerical error and not a deliberate falsehood, as supported by documentary evidence proving his actual enrollment and completion of the pre-bar review course at UST. The Court also accepted his explanation for not submitting a separate certification within the 60-day period, as he believed the earlier submitted Certification from Dean Dimayuga was sufficient. Citing past instances of compassion and similar treatment for other examinees (Reoma, Revilla, Tesorero, and Gingoyon), the Court ruled that petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt. The three-year deprivation of the privilege to practice law was considered an ample penalty. The Court also noted its concern over the laxity of law schools in monitoring pre-bar review attendance but emphasized the need for compassion in this case.