Legal & Judicial Ethics, M.P.Lacsie, 2015 pg.

Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a
material fact, in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
The language of our jurisprudence is clear, The judiciary has no place for dishonest officers of the courts. Members
must live and practice the virtues of honesty and integrity. Anything short of this standard would constitutes infidelity
to the constitutional tenet that a public office is a public trust.
It is our solemn task to observe what is incumbent upon us. So whatever we declare on our application, it must be
clothed with utmost veracity. In ordinary wording, it must be true and complete. We may partially doubt whether our
previous acts would result to suspicion, however, that belongs and exclusively lodged to the Court. Falling on same
logic, In Bernardo Vs. Mejia, A.C. No. 2984, August 31, 2007: Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of
Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The action will depend on whether or not the Court
decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will continue to be preserved even
with the applicants reentry as a counselor at law.
In Re: Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in 2002 Bar Examination, B.M. No. 1154, June 8,
2004, In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations
that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)
The merit of the cases against Meling is not material in this case. What matters is his act of concealing them which
constitutes dishonesty xxx Despite the declaration required by the form, Meling did not reveal that he has three
pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done under oath at that. The non-disclosure of
Meling of the criminal cases filed against him makes him also answerable under Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a
material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
In re Ramon Galang, A.C. No. 1163, August 29, 1975, that the concealment of an attorney in his application to take
the Bar examinations of the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for an alleged crime, as a ground for
revocation of his license to practice law, is well settled.