Harassing a would-be lawyer

By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico

 

In October 2013, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) of the Supreme Court received a letter from Enrique, informing the Court that “he was filing a complaint against respondent Anthony, (his nephew), then an applicant for the 2013 Bar Examinations, for being a person of questionable character x x x.”

The Court discovered that Anthony had disclosed his cases in his Petition to Take the 2013 Bar Examinations, which cases Enrique had filed against Anthony. Thus, he was allowed to provisionally take the examinations “subject to the condition that, should he pass, he shall not be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him.”

Anthony passed the examinations.  In April 2014, he petitioned the Court to allow him to take his Lawyer’s Oath, claiming that the cases had already been dismissed. He also submitted 4 certifications of good moral character. In July 2014, the Court asked him why he failed to disclose one case. He explained that he was unaware of this case as he received the subpoena after he filed his petition. The Court then required him to submit a copy of the dismissal order, and additional certifications of good moral character. He complied and the Court referred the same to the OBC, which recommended that his oath-taking be held in abeyance in view of “the other criminal charges still pending against him before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.” The Court adopted this in Nov. 2015.

In Oct. 2018, or 3 years later, Anthony again petitioned the Court to allow him to take his oath, stating that all the criminal cases have been dismissed. He informed the Court that he feared that a new round of criminal cases would be filed against him. In Oct. 2019, the OBC recommended his oath-taking. But, before he could take his oath, the Court received a letter from Enrique, stating his objections to the oath-taking and listed 10 more criminal cases. The Court then suspended the scheduled oath-taking until the Court en banc could decide.

In Jan. 2020, Anthony wrote Chief Justice Peralta and explained that 9 of the 10 cases mentioned in Enrique’s letter had already been dismissed. The 10^th case, he wrote, was recently filed in 2019. Its purpose was to further delay his oath-taking.

The Supreme Court allowed Anthony to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.

The Court held that “all criminal charges against him have been dismissed except for the most recent one filed in 2019. The timing of the filing of the case, however, is highly suspect as it came just as the other criminal charges against respondent were dismissed x x x. It can no longer be denied that the manifest intention of complainant in successively filing these criminal cases against respondent is to prevent him from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys – the last two steps needed to be undertaken by respondent to become a full-fledged lawyer. The dismissal of all the other criminal cases against respondent, coupled with the various certifications of goof moral character inn his favor, is sufficient for the Court to conclude that respondent possesses the moral qualifications required of lawyers. Though it is true that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, the Court will not unjustifiably withhold this privilege from respondent, who has clearly shown that he is both intellectually and morally qualified to join the legal profession. And so, after almost six years of waiting, the Court finally grants respondent’s prayer for admission to the Philippine Bar.” (Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui vs. Anthony De Zuzuarregui, B. M. 2796, Feb. 11, 2020)