DIAO VS MARTINEZ CASE DIGEST
A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO,
vs.
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner.
LEGAL ETHICS; CANON 10.01
FACTS:
- Diao was admitted to the Bar. About two years later, Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications.
- (a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education"
The Solicitor General upon investigation submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys
On the first charge, Diao claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school
On the second charge Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate of such college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University he says he was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records
Whether or not Daio committed any falsehood to obtain admission to the bar warranting the revocation of his license
YES. The reason that the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education,"
Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked.
The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days. So ordered.