Post

De Zuzuarregui v. De Zuzuarregui

Posted
By Anonymous
6 min read
De Zuzuarregui v. De Zuzuarregui

Case Title and Citation

En Banc, Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui, complainant, v. Anthony de Zuzuarregui, respondent.
B.M. No. 2796, February 11, 2020
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

Facts

  • On October 2, 2013, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter dated September 15, 2013 from complainant, through counsel, informing the Court of a complaint against respondent, then an applicant for the 2013 Bar Examinations, due to four criminal charges pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City: Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC (two separate cases), Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172, and Use of Falsified Documents under Article 172.
  • Respondent disclosed in his Petition to Take the 2013 Bar Examinations that four criminal cases were pending at that time (one Estafa; one Estafa thru Falsification; two Falsification-related). The Court provisionally allowed him to take the 2013 Bar Examinations on the condition that, if he passed, he would not be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath or sign the Roll until cleared of the charges.
  • Respondent passed the 2013 Bar Examinations and filed a Verified Petition to Take the Lawyer’s Oath on April 24, 2014, claiming that the pending cases had been dismissed, evidenced by Orders of Dismissal. He submitted multiple certifications of good moral character from various individuals and institutions.
  • The Court, by resolutions dated July 1, 2014 and September 23, 2014, ordered respondent to explain nondisclosure of a particular case and to submit status documents and further certifications. He submitted a Second Verified Compliance on November 7, 2014, including an Order of Dismissal for one case and multiple clearances and good-moral-character certifications.
  • By a March 10, 2015 Resolution, the Court referred respondent’s Second Verified Compliance to the OBC for evaluation. The OBC recommended that respondent’s Petition to Take the Lawyer’s Oath be held in abeyance due to other pending criminal charges; the Court adopted this recommendation in its November 16, 2015 Resolution.
  • In October 2018, respondent filed a Verified Second Motion seeking permission to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll, citing the dismissal of all charged cases against him. He asserted fear of future fabricated charges to delay his oath.
  • In a Report and Recommendation dated October 28, 2019, the OBC recommended granting the prayer for admission to the Bar. The Court, on November 19, 2019, resolved to allow respondent to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll upon payment of fees.
  • A January 8, 2020 letter from complainant opposed the oath, citing ten pending criminal cases still hanging before the Quezon City Prosecutor. The Court suspended the oath-taking pending an En Banc decision.
  • Respondent asserted that nine of the ten cases had been dismissed for lack of probable cause; one case remained pending at the time.
  • The Court ultimately concluded that the timing of the complaints was suspect but that the dismissed cases, together with credible attestations of good moral character, demonstrated respondent’s moral fitness to practice law. The Court granted the prayer to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll, and warned complainant and counsel not to file frivolous criminal complaints under threat of contempt.

Issues

  1. Was respondent morally fit to be admitted to the Philippine Bar notwithstanding the pending criminal cases against him?
  2. Should the Court grant respondent’s prayer to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys based on the evidence of dismissed cases and the attestations of good moral character?
  3. Did complainant’s filing of multiple criminal complaints against respondent warrant sanctions or contempt, given the Court’s ultimate decision to proceed with admission?

Ruling

  1. Yes — The Court held that respondent’s admission to the Bar was permissible in light of the dismissal of the pending cases (except for the intermittently filed case) and the credible attestations of good moral character; the Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege, and that respondent demonstrated the requisite moral qualifications.
  2. Yes — The Court granted respondent permission to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll on a date set by the Court, upon payment of the required fees, after considering the dismissals and character attestations.
  3. Yes — The Court warned complainant and counsel not to file frivolous criminal complaints against respondent under the threat of contempt.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court requires admission to the bar to be conditioned on good moral character and the absence of pending charges involving moral turpitude. The Court noted that all criminal charges against respondent had been dismissed, with the exception of one later case, and that multiple credible attestations of good moral character had been submitted.
  • While the Court recognized the suspicious timing of the filings and the right of the complainant to oppose admission, it emphasized that the privilege of practicing law is not an inherent right and may be granted when the applicant has demonstrated moral fitness. It cited In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys (Medado) regarding the ethical considerations of bar admission and the privilege nature of legal practice.
  • The Court found the attestations and documentary clearances persuasive evidence of moral character, and concluded that the respondent possesses the requisite moral qualifications for admission despite the prior filings.
  • The Court also noted the need to deter frivolous or harassing filings, issuing a warning to the complainant and counsel.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Moral qualification standard for admission to the Bar; good moral character can be demonstrated by credible attestations and court-determined dismissals of charges.
  • The practice of law is a privilege, not a guaranteed right; the Court may grant or withhold admission based on fitness and public-interest considerations.
  • Court discretion in admission proceedings to weigh evidence of character, case dispositions, and potential ongoing charges.
  • Sanctions for frivolous or harassing filings in bar-admission proceedings to protect the integrity of the process.

Disposition

  • The Court grants respondent Anthony de Zuzuarregui permission to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys on a date set by the Court and upon payment of the appropriate legal fees. The petition for admission is granted.
  • Complainant Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui and his counsel are warned not to file any more frivolous criminal complaints against respondent, under threat of contempt.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • None noted; the decision states that multiple justices concur.

Significance / Notes

  • Demonstrates the Supreme Court’s willingness to exercise discretion to admit a candidate to the Bar when the majority of pending charges have been dismissed and credible good-moral-character evidence is presented.
  • Highlights the Court’s concern with the timing and motivation behind serially filed criminal charges intended to delay bar admission.
  • Reiterates the judiciary’s gatekeeping role in maintaining the integrity of the bar admission process and the authority to sanction abusive or frivolous filings in this context.
Judicial Ethics Judicial Misconduct Public Officers
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.