In Re: Distrito

Facts: An information for usurpation of authority was filed against Distrito, a former SK chairman, when
under the pretense of official position and without being lawfully entitled to do so, he presided over a
special session of the SK. As a result, he was conditionally allowed to take the Bar exam which he passed.
He was, however, not allowed to take the lawyers oath or sign the roll of attorney pending the resolution
of the said case.

The OBC received a letter from one Benjie Montinola alleging that Distrito had other cases filed against
him which he did not disclose in his petition to take the bar exams, to wit:

1. 2 counts of BP 22; and

2. 2 civil case for a sum of money.

Further, it was found that Distrito had taken his oath as a lawyer before a testimonial dinner tendered by
the IBP and that he had signed an attendance sheet of a Sangguniang Panlungsod committee hearing as
“atty.”

In his defense, Distrito contended that:

1. The BP 22 case stemmed from debts of some 50 fish vendors where his father, as punong
Barangay, guaranteed the same in order to help the fishermen. But as the drawer of the two
checks, the complainant filed the action against the petitioner when the debts remained unpaid;
2. The civil cases for sum of money stemmed from a salary loan that he and other barangay officials
obtained from Fil-Global Credit and SWIP Lending. The Barangay Treasurer allegedly failed to duly
remit the payment;
3. Regarding the IBP incident, he was just invited and that there was no mention of any induction
ceremony. Although he did swear in as he had no choice when he heard his name called on stage;
4. That Benjie Montinola was a non-existing person; and
5. Regarding the signing the attendance sheet as “atty.” He was under the impression that he could
and that what was not allowed was the practice of law.

Why did he not mention the case?

It was his honest belief that it was not necessary considering that the above cases had long been settled
and dismissed even without reaching the arraignment stage.

Issue: WON Distrito should be allowed to take the lawyers oath

Held: No.

Ratio:

Re: non-disclosure of the dismissed cases

The petitioner's contention is quite hard to accept. If petitioner had not read the notation, as what he
claimed, why did he disclose his pending case for Usurpation of authority or Official Function ? Moreover,
the said instruction is written in the middle of the form, so if petitioner had not really read the same, he
was not mindful of what he was doing which should not be the case of a Bar applicant.
Admittedly, the petitioner was less than honest when he failed to disclose the two other cases for violation
of B.P. Blg. 22 and the civil cases involving sums of money which were f iled against him, in his petition to
take the bar examinations. He should have known that the said petition is not to be taken lightly as it is
made under oath. The petitioner, in so doing, violated Rule 7.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which requires of every applicant candor and truthfulness. Every applicant is duty bound to lay before the
Court all his involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to
fully ascertain or determine the applicant's moral character. The petitioner should have realized the
implication of any omission on his part, even if inadvertently made.

In this case, the fact that the criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 did not even reach the
arraignment stage is of no moment; it was the petitioner's duty to disclose the same as it was a material
fact which could affect his application for admission to the bar.

The concealment or withholding from the court of the fact that an applicant has been charged with or
indicated for an alleged crime is a ground for disqualification of the applicant to take the bar examination,
or for revocation of the license to practice, if he has already been admitted to the bar. If what the applicant
concealed is a crime which does not involve moral turpitude, it is the fact of concealment and not the
commission of the crime itself that makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer. It should be noted that
the application was made under oath, which he lightly took when he made the concealment.

Re: attendance and participation in the dinner

A perusal of the invitation sent by the IBP to the petitioner reveals that there was an express mention that
the affair was for new lawyers.

The Court can only conclude that the petitioner did not take his petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys seriously. He would have us believe that he attended an affair, believing in
good faith that it was meant for those who recently passed the bar, when the invitation he himself
attached to his petition states otherwise. The petitioner's forthrightness and candor with the Court leave
much to be desired.

Re: Admitted use of the word “atty.” when there was no authority to do so

The Oath is thus a prerequisite to the admission to the practice of law, while the signing in the Roll is the
last act that finally signifies membership in the bar, giving the applicant the right to call himself "attorney".
Continued membership in the IBP and regular payment of membership dues and other lawful assessments
that it may levy are conditions sine qua non to the privilege to practice law and to the retention of his
name in the Roll of Attorneys.

The unauthorized use of the said appellation may render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.
The Court may deny the applicant's petition to take the Lawyer's Oath for grave misconduct, such as calling
himself and "attorney" and appearing as counsel for clients in courts even before being admitted to the
bar. Although the evidence in this case does not include that the petitioner actually engaged in the
practice of law, the fact is that he signed in an attendance sheet as "Atty. Caesar Distrito." He called
himself "attorney" knowing fully well that he was not yet admitted to the bar.