G.R. No. B052063, December 7, 1928
In re: FELIPE DEL ROSARIO

FACTS

Felipe del Rosario failed the bar examinations in 1925 and 1926. In 1927, he filed a motion for the revision of his 1925 examination papers, alleging a mistake in the computation of his grades. The Supreme Court granted the motion and admitted him to the bar. Subsequently, a general investigation into bar examination irregularities revealed that Juan Villaflor, a former court employee, had falsified del Rosario’s grades. Villaflor pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. Del Rosario was also charged but was acquitted for lack of evidence. The City Fiscal of Manila then submitted a supplementary report recommending that del Rosario be disbarred and forever prohibited from taking the bar examination.

ISSUE

Whether Felipe del Rosario, having been acquitted in the criminal case for falsification of public documents, may still be disbarred and prohibited from taking future bar examinations based on the same facts.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court approved the City Fiscal’s recommendation and ordered del Rosario to surrender his attorney’s certificate, effectively disbarring him.

The Court held that an acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to disbarment proceedings. The two proceedings are distinct: a criminal case determines penal liability, while disbarment proceedings inquire into a lawyer’s fitness to remain a member of the bar and protect the courts and the public. The Court found it incredible that del Rosario was unaware of the illegal machinations that made him the sole beneficiary of the falsified grades. The conviction of his co-accused, Villaflor, demonstrated that del Rosario had no legal right to his attorney’s certificate. The practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and requires a higher standard of conduct than merely avoiding criminal conviction. Allowing someone of questionable integrity to remain an officer of the court would disgrace the judiciary.