A CONSTITUTIONAL History of the Supreme Court OF THE PHILIPPINES 1861, the Audiencia had ceased to perform these executive
a had ceased to perform these executive and administrative functions and
The Supreme Court of the Philippines is the progeny of the tribunal established by Act No.
136 of the Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901. There is no umbilical cord joining the
Supreme Court to the Real Audiencia de Manila set up by the Spaniards or the Audiencia
Territorial de Manila constituted by Major General Elwell Otis. These audiencias, however, serve
as backdrops and proper perspectives in retelling the history of the present Supreme Court.
The Judicial System of the Pre-Spanish Filipinos
When the Spanish colonizers first arrived in the Philippine archipelago, they found the
indigenous Filipinos without any written laws. Mainly, the laws enforced were derived from
customs, usages and tradition. These laws were believed to be God-given and were orally
transmitted from generation to generation.
A remarkable feature of these customs and traditions was that they were found to be very similar
to one another notwithstanding that they were observed in widely dispersed islands of the
archipelago. There were no judges and lawyers who were trained formally in the law, although
there were elders who devoted time to the study of the customs, usages and traditions of their
tribes to qualify them as consultants or advisers on these matters.
The unit of government of the indigenous Filipinos was the barangay, which was a family-based
community of 30 to 100 families, occupying a pook (locality or area) Headed by a chieftain
called a datu who exercised all functions of governmentexecutive, legislative, and
judiciala barangay was not only a political but also a social and economic organization. In
the exercise of his judicial authority, the datu acted as a judge (hukom) in settling disputes and
deciding cases in his barangay.
The Judicial System Under the Spanish Regime
During the early Spanish occupation, King Philip II established the Real Audiencia de
Manila which was given not only judicial but legislative, executive, advisory, and administrative
functions as well. Composed of the incumbent governor general as the presidente (presiding
officer), four oidores (equivalent to associate justices), an asesor (legal adviser), an alguacil
mayor (chief constable), among other officials, the Real Audiencia de Manila was both a trial
and appellate court. It had exclusive original, concurrent original and exclusive appellate
jurisdictions.
Initially, the Audiencia was given a non-judicial role in the colonial administration, to deal with
unforeseen problems within the territory that arose from time to timeit was given the power
to supervise certain phases of ecclesiastical affairs as well as regulatory functions, such as fixing
of prices at which merchants could sell their commodities. Likewise, the Audiencia had executive
functions, like the allotment of lands to the settlers of newly established pueblos. However, by
had been restricted to the administration of justice.
When the Audiencia Territorial de Cebu was established in 1886, the name of the Real
Audiencia de Manila was changed to Audiencia Territorial de Manila.
The Judicial System During the American Occupation
As expected, the subsequent occupation by the Americans of the Philippine Islands in the late
1890s after Spains defeat in the Spanish-American War paved the way for considerable
changes in the control, disposition, and governance of the Islands.
The judicial system established during the regime of the military government functioned as an
instrument of the executivenot of the judiciaryas an independent and separate branch of
government.
Secretary of State John Hay, on May 12, 1899, proposed a plan for a colonial government of the
Philippine Islands which would give Filipinos the largest measure of self-government. The plan
contemplated an independent judiciary manned by judges chosen from qualified locals and
Americans.
On May 29, 1899, General Elwell Stephen Otis, Military Governor for the Philippines,
issued General Order No. 20, reestablishing the Audiencia Teritorial de Manila which was to
apply Spanish laws and jurisprudence recognized by the American military governor as
continuing in force.
The Audiencia was composed of a presiding officer and eight members organized into two
divisions: the sala de lo civil or the civil branch, and the sala de lo criminal or the criminal branch.
It was General Otis himself who personally selected the first appointees to the Audiencia.
Cayetano L. Arellano was appointed President (equivalent to Chief Justice) of the Court, with
Manuel Araullo as president of the sala de lo civil and Raymundo Melliza as president of the salo
de lo criminal. Gregorio Araneta and Lt. Col. E.H. Crowder were appointed associate justices of
the civil branch while Ambrosio Rianzares, Julio Llorente, Major R.W. Young and Captain W.E.
Brikhimer were designated associate justices of the criminal branch. Thus, the
reestablished Audiencia became the first agency of the new insular government where Filipinos
were appointed side by side with Americans.
The Establishment of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
On June 11, 1901, the Second Philippine Commission passed Act No. 136 entitled An Act
Providing for the Organization of Courts in the Philippine Islands formally establishing the
Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands and creating Courts of First Instance and Justices of
the Peace Courts throughout the land. The judicial organization established by the Act was
conceived by the American lawyers in the Philippine Commission and was patterned in its basic
structures after similar organizations in the United States.
The Supreme Court created under the Act was composed of a Chief Justice and six Judges.
Five members of the Court could form a quorum, and the concurrence of at least four members
was necessary to pronounce a judgment.
Act No. 136 abolished the Audiencia established under General Order No. 20 and declared that
the Supreme Court created by the Act be substituted in its place. This effectively severed any
nexus between the present Supreme Court and the Audiencia.
The Anglo-American legal system under which the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands was
expected to operate was entirely different from the old Spanish system that Filipinos were
familiar with. Adjustments had to be made; hence, the decisions of the Supreme Court during its
early years reflected a blend of both the Anglo-American and Spanish systems. The
jurisprudence was a gentle transition from the old order to the new.
The Supreme Court During the Commonwealth
Following the ratification of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in a plebiscite, the principle of
separation of powers was adopted not by express and specific provision to that effect, but by
actual division of powers of the governmentexecutive, legislative, and judicialin different existence of a revolutionary government under Proclamation No. 1 dated February 25, 1986.
articles thereof.
As in the United States, the judicial power was vested by the 1935 Constitution in one Supreme
Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. It devolved on the Judiciary to
determine whether the acts of the other two departments were in harmony with the fundamental
law.
The Court during the Commonwealth was composed of a Chief Justice and ten Associate
Justices, and may sit en banc or in two divisions, unless otherwise provided by law.
The Supreme Court of the Second Republic
After the Japanese occupation during the Second World War and the subsequent independence
from the United States, Republic Act No. 296 or the Judiciary Act of 1948 was enacted. This
law grouped together the cases over which the Supreme Court could exercise exclusive
jurisdiction to review on appeal, certiorari or writ of error.
The Supreme Court Under the 1973 Constitution
The declaration of Martial Law through Proclamation No. 1081 by former President Ferdinand
E, Marcos in 1972 brought about the transition from the 1935 Constitution to the 1973
Constitution. This transition had implications on the Courts composition and functions.
This period brought in many legal issues of transcendental importance and consequence.
Among these were the legality of the ratification of a new Constitution, the assumption of the
totality of government authority by President Marcos, the power to review the factual basis for a
declaration of Martial Law by the Chief Executive. Writ large also during this period was the
relationship between the Court and the Chief Executive who, under Amendment No. 6 to the
1973 Constitution, had assumed legislative powers even while an elected legislative body
continued to function.
The 1973 Constitution increased the number of the members of the Supreme Court from 11 to
15, with a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. The Justices of the Court were appointed by
the President alone, without the consent, approval, or recommendation of any other body or
officials.
The Supreme Court Under the Revolutionary Government
Shortly after assuming office as the seventh President of the Republic of the Philippines after
the successful People Power Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino declared the
Among the more significant portions of this Proclamation was an instruction for all appointive
officials to submit their courtesy resignations beginning with the members of the Supreme
Court.The call was unprecedented, considering the separation of powers that the previous
Constitutions had always ordained, but understandable considering the revolutionary nature of
the post-People Power government. Heeding the call, the members of the Judiciaryfrom the
Supreme Court to the Municipal Circuit Courtsplaced their offices at the disposal of the
President and submitted their resignations. President Corazon C, Aquino proceeded to
reorganize the entire Court, appointing all 15 members.
On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino, through Proclamation No. 3, also abolished the
1973 Constitution and put in place a Provisional Freedom Constitution. Under Article I, section
2 of the Freedom Constitution, the provisions of the 1973 Constitution on the judiciary were
adopted insofar as they were not inconsistent with Proclamation No. 3.
Article V of Proclamation No. 3 provided for the convening of a Constitutional Commission
composed of fifty appointive members to draft a new constitution; this would be implemented by
Proclamation No. 9. The output of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 was submitted to the
people for ratification, under Filipino people then ratified the Constitution submitted to them by
the Constitutional Commission on February 2, 1987.
The Supreme Court Under the 1987 Constitution 10. The prohibition against designating members of the Judiciary to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative function. (Art. VIII, Sec. 12)
As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution provides that [t]he judicial power 11. The grant of administrative supervision over the lower courts and its personnel in the
shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Supreme Court. (Art. VIII, Sec. 6)
(Art. VII, Sec. 1). The exercise of judicial power is shared by the Supreme Court with all the
courts below it, but it is only the Supreme Courts decisions that are vested with precedential The Supreme Court under the present Constitution is composed of a Chief Justice and 14
value or doctrinal authority, as its interpretations of the Constitution and the laws are final and Associate Justices.
beyond review by any other branch of government. The members of the Court are appointed by the President from a list prepared by the Judicial
and Bar Council of at least three nominees for every vacancy. This new process is intended to
Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, however, the 1987 Constitution defines the concept of de-politicize the courts of justice, ensure the choice of competent judges, and fill existing
judicial power. Under paragraph 2 of Section 1, Article VIII, judicial power includes not only the vacancies without undue delay.
duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave Sources:
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or The Philippine Judiciary Foundation, 2011. The History of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court
instrumentality of the government. This latter provision dilutes the effectivity of the political of the Philippines, Manila.
question doctrine which places specific questions best submitted to the political wisdom of the The 1935 Constitution.
people beyond the review of the courts. The 1973 Constitution.
The 1986 Freedom Constitution
Building on previous experiences under former Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution provides for The 1987 Constitution.
specific safeguards to ensure the independence of the Judiciary. These are found in the following
provisions:

1. The grant to the Judiciary of fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not
be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year,
and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. (Art. VIII, Sec. 3).
2. The grant to the Chief Justice of authority to augment any item in the general
appropriation law for the Judiciary from savings in other items of said appropriation as
authorized by law. (Art. VI, Sec. 25[5])
3. The removal from Congress of the power to deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over cases enumerated in Section 5 of Article VIII.
4. The grant to the Court of the power to appoint all officials and employees of the
Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law (Art. VIII, Sec. 5 [6])
5. The removal from the Commission of Appointments of the power to confirm
appointments of justices and judges (Art. VIII, Sec. 8)
6. The removal from Congress of the power to reduce the compensation or salaries of the
Justices and judges during their continuance in office. (Art. VIII, Sec. 10)
7. The prohibition against the removal of judges through legislative reorganization by
providing that (n)o law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines
the security of tenure of its members. (Art. VIII, Sec. 2)
8. The grant of sole authority to the Supreme Court to order the temporary detail of judges.
(Art. VIII, Sec. 5[3])
9. The grant of sole authority to the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure for
the courts. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5])
 Republic of the Philippines 2011 Committee on Bar Examinations
SUPREME COURT Supreme Court
Manila
Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa (x)
NOTICE Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant
Supreme Court
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
8, 2011, which reads as follows:

"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Letter of Justice Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for
Improving the Conduct of the Bar Examinations). - The Court Resolved to NOTE
the Letter dated January 28, 2011 of Justice Roberto A. Abad re: Amendment to Republic of the Philippines
Section 11, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (Annual Examination), incident to the SUPREME COURT
implementation of B.M. No. 2265 (Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations). Manila

The Court further Resolved to APPROVE the Amendment to Section 11, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
"Section 11. Annual examination. - Examinations for admission to the bar of the
Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in
four days to be designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners.
The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International
Law, and Labor and Social Legislation (morning) and Taxation (afternoon);
Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Mercantile Law (afternoon); Third day:
Remedial Law, and Legal Ethics and Forums (morning) and Criminal Law
(afternoon); Fourth day: Trial Memorandum (morning) and Legal Opinion
(afternoon)". (adv107)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Honorable Roberto A. Abad (x)
Associate Justice and Chairperson
EN BANC
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY
18, 2011, which reads as follows:
"B.M. No. 2265 (Re: Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations [Letter of Justice
Roberto A. Abad Proposing Changes for Improving the Conduct of the Bar
Examinations]. Acting on the Letter dated January 10, 2011 of Associate Justice
Roberto A. Abad, proposing to move the 2011 Bar Examinations from September
to November, the Court Resolved to NOTE the said Letter and GRANT the
proposal of Justice Abad to MOVE the 2011 Bar Examinations from September
to November.
The Court further Resolved to
 (a) NOTE the Letter dated September 2, 2010 of Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and
Bar Matters, recommending the final approval by the Court En Banc of
the proposed changes for improving the conduct of the bar examinations
by Justice Abad, inasmuch as the Court En Banc had provisionally
approved the proposals
(b) APPROVE the Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations, hereto
attached as Annex "A"; and
(c) NOTE Resolution No. 12-991-2010 dated October 1, 2010 of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Cebu, Cebu City Hall, praying anew that
the Supreme Court, through the Bar Committee will extend the venue of
the Bar Examinations to Cebu City, and hold simultaneous annual
examinations in Manila and Cebu City." (adv14)
Very truly yours,
ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
B.M. No. 2265
RE: REFORMS IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS
Preliminary Statement
The Court has found merit in the proposed changes in the conduct of the bar
examinations that the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar Examinations and Philippine
Association of Law Schools recommended.
One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the annual bar
examinations that in the past consisted merely of naming the laws that each
subject covered. This description has been regarded as too general and provides
no specific understanding of the entry-level legal knowledge required of
beginning law practitioners.
A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar
examinations that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of laws,
doctrines, principles, and precedents, it has been noted that such examinations
are unable to hit a significant cross-section of the subject matter. Further, the
huge number of candidates taking the examinations annually and the limited time
available for correcting the answers make fair correction of purely essay-type
examinations difficult to attain. Besides, the use of multiple choice questions,
properly and carefully constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying
professionals all over the world because of its proven reliability and facility of
correction.
A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type examinations but
dedicating these to the assessment of the requisite communication skills,
creativity, and fine intellect that bar candidates need for the practice of law.
Approved Changes
The Court has previously approved in principle the above recommended
changes. It now resolves to approve the following rules that shall govern the
future conduct of the bar examinations:
1. The coverage of the bar examinations shall be drawn up by topics and
sub-topics rather than by just stating the covered laws. The test for
including a topic or sub-topic in the coverage of the examinations is
whether it covers laws, doctrines, principles and rulings that a new lawyer
needs to know to begin a reasonably prudent and competent law
practice.
The coverage shall be approved by the Chairperson of the Bar
Examination in consultation with the academe, subject to annual review
and re-approval by subsequent Chairpersons.
2. The bar examinations shall measure the candidates knowledge of the
law and its applications through multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) that
are to be so constructed as to specifically:
2.1. Measure the candidates knowledge of and ability to recall
the laws, doctrines, and principles that every new lawyer needs in
his practice;
2.2. Assess the candidates understanding of the meaning and
significance of those same laws, doctrines, and principles as they
apply to specific situations; and
2.3. Measure his ability to analyze legal problems, apply the
correct law or principle to such problems, and provide solutions to
them.
3. The results of the MCQ examinations shall, if feasible, be corrected
electronically.
4. The results of the MCQ examinations in each bar subject shall be
given the following weights:
Political Law 15%
Labor Law 10%
Civil Law 15%
Taxation 10%
Mercantile Law 15%
Criminal Law 10%
Remedial Law 20%
Legal Ethics/Forms 5%
5. Part of the bar examinations shall be of the essay-type, dedicated to
measuring the candidates skills in writing in English, sorting out the
relevant facts in a legal dispute, identifying the issue or issues involved,
organizing his thoughts, constructing his arguments, and persuading his
readers to his point of view. The essays will not be bar subject specific.
5.1. One such essay examination shall require the candidate to
prepare a trial memorandum or a decision based on a
documented legal dispute. (60% of essays)
5.2 Another essay shall require him to prepare a written opinion
sought by a client concerning a potential legal dispute facing him.
(40% of essays)
6. The essays shall not be graded for technically right or wrong aswers,
but for the quality of the candidates legal advocacy. The passing
standard for correction shall be work expected of a beginning practitioner,
not a seasoned lawyer.
7. The examiners in all eight bar subjects shall, apart from preparing the
MCQs for their respective subjects, be divided into two panels of four
members each. One panel will grade the memorandum or decision essay
while the other will grade the legal opinion essay. Each member shall
read and grade the examination answer of a bar candidate independently
of the other members in his panel. The final grade of a candidate for each
essay shall be the average of the grades given by the four members of
the panel for that essay.
8. The results of the a) MCQ and b) essay-type examinations shall be This Bar Matter shall take effect immediately, and shall be published in two
given weights of 60% and 40%, respectively, in the computation of the newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
candidates final grade.
January 18, 2011.
9. For want of historical data needed for computing the passing grade in
MCQ kind of examinations, the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar

Examinations shall, with the assistance of experts in computing MCQ

examination grades, recommend to the Court the appropriate conversion
table or standard that it might adopt for arriving at a reasonable passing
grade for MCQs in bar examinations.

10. In the interest of establishing needed data, the answers of all

candidates in the essay-type examinations in the year 2011 shall be
corrected irrespective of the results of their MCQ examinations, which are
sooner known because they are electronically corrected. In future bar
examinations, however, the Bar Chairperson shall recommend to the
Court the disqualification of those whose grades in the MCQ are so low
that it would serve no useful purpose to correct their answers in the
essay-type examinations.

11. Using the data and experience obtained from the 2011 Bar
Examinations, future Chairpersons of Bar Examination are directed to
study the feasibility of:

11.1. Holding in the interest of convenience and economy bar

examinations simultaneously in Luzon, the Visayas, and
Mindanao; and

11.2. Allowing those who pass the MCQ examinations but fail the
essay-type examinations to take removal examinations in the
immediately following year.

12. All existing rules, regulations, and instructions that are inconsistent
with the above are repealed.
 Republic of the Philippines examination, the attached card shall be detached immediately thereafter before
SUPREME COURT transmittal to the other examiner for review and correction of the other part of the
Manila examination. This is to ensure that the other examiner would not be influenced by
the grade or rating given by the other.
B.M. No. 1161 February 3, 2009
In this connection, there shall be an increase in the honorarium of the Bar
Re: Proposed Reform in the Bar Examinations examiners from P130.00 to 200.00 per booklet per Bar subject or P100 per
booklet per examiner." (adv132)
Sirs/Mesdames:
Very truly yours,
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court
dated February 3, 2009. (Sgd.)
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
"Bar Matter No. 1161.- Re: Proposed Reform in the Bar Examinations. - The Clerk of Court
Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education
and Bar Matters, to APPROVE, the proposal of Atty. Ma, Cristina B. Layusa,
Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, regarding the (1) implementation of
Paragraph 4 Part B of Bar Matter No. 1161, or the designation of two (2)
examiner per Bar subject; and (2) increase in the honorarium of the examiners
from P130.00 to P200.00 per booklet.

Hence, every Bar subject shall be divided into two (2) parts - Part I and Part II.
Each examiner shall be assigned a specific scope from which to formulate
his/her questions. The time allotted for each Bar subject of four (4) hours for the
morning subjects and three (3) hours for the afternoon subjects shall not change.
In answering the questions, the Bar examinees have the discretion in utilizing the
time allotted for answering. Thus they may opt to begin answering a particular
part of the examination which he or she feels is relatively easier that the others.

As with the previous Bar examinations, only one set of test questionnaire and
one examination booklet for each Bar subject shall be given to each Bar
examinee. Each examination booklet shall also be divided into two (2) parts,
marked as Part I and Part II, where the answers are to be written corresponding
to Part I and Part II of the questionnaire, respectively. A separated card for the
grades or rating received by the Bar examinee for each part of the examination
shall be attached to the front cover of the booklets marked as Part I and Part II.
Upon review and correction of the two examiners' respective part of the
 EN BANC exercise of equity and compassion, grant petitioners plea for judicial clemency, and

thereupon, order his reinstatement as a member in good standing of the Philippine

RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS B.M. No. 1222
Bar.[1]
x ---------------------------------------- x

ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, To recall, on February 4, 2004, the Court promulgated a Resolution, in B.M. No. 1222,
Petitioner, Present:
the dispositive portion of which reads in part:
Puno, C.J.,
Quisumbing,*
Ynares-Santiago, WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of
Carpio, the Investigating Committee, hereby resolves to
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, (1) DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of
Carpio Morales, law effective upon his receipt of this RESOLUTION;
Tinga,
Chico-Nazario, xxxx
Velasco, Jr.,
Nachura,
Leonardo-De Castro,
The subject of the Resolution is the leakage of questions in Mercantile Law
Brion,
Peralta, and during the 2003 Bar Examinations. Petitioner at that time was employed as an
Bersamin, JJ.
assistant lawyer in the law firm of Balgos & Perez, one of whose partners, Marcial
Promulgated:
Balgos, was the examiner for Mercantile Law during the said bar examinations. The
April 24, 2009
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x Court had adopted the findings of the Investigating Committee, which identified

RESOLUTION petitioner as the person who had downloaded the test questions from the computer of

Balgos and faxed them to other persons.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) has favorably recommended the
This treats the Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated November 10,
reinstatement of petitioner in the Philippine Bar. In a Report dated January 6, 2009,
2008 filed by petitioner Danilo de Guzman. He prays that this Honorable Court in the
 developed. Despite having entered private practice, he continued to
the OBC rendered its assessment of the petition, the relevant portions of which we render free legal services to his fellow Taguigeos.
quote hereunder: Then in February 2004, by a sudden twist of fate, petitioners
flourishing career was cut short as he was stripped of his license to
practice law for his alleged involvement in the leakage in the 2003 Bar
Petitioner narrated that he had labored to become a lawyer to
Examinations.
fulfill his fathers childhood dream to become one. This task was not
particularly easy for him and his family but he willed to endure the
Devastated, petitioner then practically locked himself inside
same in order to pay tribute to his parents.
his house to avoid the rather unavoidable consequences of his
disbarment.
Petitioner added that even at a very young age, he already
imposed upon himself the duty of rendering service to his
On March 2004, however, petitioner was given a new lease in
fellowmen. At 19 years, he started his exposure to public service when
life when he was taken as a consultant by the City Government of
he was elected Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of
Taguig. Later, he was designated as a member of the Secretariat of
Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig City. During this time, he initiated several
the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). For the next five (5)
projects benefiting the youth in their barangay.
years, petitioner concentrated mainly on rendering public service.
Thereafter, petitioner focused on his studies, taking up
Petitioner humbly acknowledged the damaging impact of his
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and eventually pursuing Bachelor
act which unfortunately, compromised the integrity of the bar
of Laws. In his second year in law school, he was elected as the
examinations. As could be borne from the records of the investigation,
President of the Student Council of the Institute of Law of the Far
he cooperated fully in the investigation conducted and took personal
Eastern University (FEU). Here, he spearheaded various activities
responsibility for his actions. Also, he has offered his sincerest
including the conduct of seminars for law students as well as the
apologies to Atty. Balgos, to the Court as well as to all the 2003 bar
holding of bar operations for bar examinees.
examinees for the unforeseen and unintended effects of his actions.
Despite his many extra-curricular activities as a youth and
Petitioner averred that he has since learned from his mistakes
student leader, petitioner still managed to excel in his studies. Thus,
and has taken the said humbling experience to make him a better
he was conferred an Academic Excellence Award upon his graduation
person.
in Bachelor of Laws.
Meanwhile, as part of his Petition, petitioner submitted the
Upon admission to the bar in April 1999, petitioner
following testimonials and endorsements of various individuals and
immediately entered government service as a Legal Officer assigned
entities all attesting to his good moral character:
at the Sangguniang Bayan of Taguig. Simultaneously, he also
rendered free legal services to less fortunate residents
1) Resolution No. 101, Series of 2007, Resolution
of Taguig City who were then in need of legal assistance.
Expressing Full Support to Danilo G. De Guzman in
his Application for Judicial Clemency, Endorsing his
In March 2000, petitioner was hired as one of the Associate
Competence and Fitness to be Reinstated as a
Lawyers at the Balgos and Perez Law Offices. It was during his stay
Member of the Philippine Bar and for Other Purposes
with this firm when his craft as a lawyer was polished and
 dated 4 June 2007 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod,
City of Taguig;
2) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating
sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng
Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Southeast Peoples
Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (SEPHVOA)
kay Danilo G. De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong
Magawaran ng Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong
Pag-susulong sa Kanyang Kakayahan Upang
Maibalik sa Kanya ang mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang
Abogado dated 1 June 2007 of the Southeast
Peoples Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
(SEPHVOA), Ibayo-Tipas, City of Taguig;
3) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating
sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng
Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahang Residente
ng Mauling Creek, Inc. (SAREMAC) kay G. Danilo G.
De Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng
Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa
Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang
mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado dated 1 June 2007
of the Samahang Residente ng Mauling Creek, Inc.
(SAREMAC), Lower Bicutan, City of Taguig;
4) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating
sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng
Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahan ng mga
Maralita (PULONG KENDI) Neighborhood
Association, Inc. (SAMANA) kay G. Danilo G. De
Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng
Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa
Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang
mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado dated 1 June 2007
of the Samahan ng mga Maralita (PULONG KENDI)
Neighborhood Association, Inc. (SAMANA), Sta. Ana,
City of Taguig;
5) An Open Letter Attesting Personally to the
Competence and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman as
to Warrant the Grant of Judicial Clemency and his
Reinstatement as Member of the Philippine Bar
dated 8 June 2007 of Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino,
Laogan, Trespeses and Llantino Law Offices;
6) Testimonial to the Moral and Spiritual
Competence of Danilo G. De Guzman to be Truly
Deserving of Judicial Clemency and Compassion
dated 5 July 2007 of Rev. Fr. Paul G. Balagtas,
Parish Priest, Archdiocesan Shrine of St. Anne;
7) Testimonial Letter dated 18 February 2008 of
Atty. Loreto C. Ata, President, Far Eastern University
Law Alumni Association (FEULAA), Far Eastern
University (FEU);
8) Isang Bukas na Liham na Naglalayong Iparating
sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman ang Buong Suporta ng
Pamunuan at mga Kasapi ng Samahang Bisig Kamay
sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (SABISKA) kay G. Danilo G. De
Guzman sa Kanyang Petisyong Magawaran ng
Kapatawaran at ang Boluntaryong Pag-susulong sa
Kanyang Kakayahan Upang Maibalik sa Kanya ang
mga Pribilehiyo ng Isang Abogado dated 8 July 2008
of the Samahang Bisig Kamay sa Kaunlaran, Inc.
(SABISKA);
9) Board Resolution No. 02, Series of 2008, A
Resolution Recognizing the Contributions of Danilo
G. De Guzman to the Peoples Law Enforcement
Board (PLEB) Taguig City, Attesting to his Utmost
Dedication and Commitment to the Call of Civic and
Social Duty and for Other Purposes dated 11 July
2008 of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB);
10) A Personal Appeal for the Grant of Judicial
Forgiveness and Compassion in Favor of Danilo G.
De Guzman dated 14 July 2008 of Atty. Edwin R.
 Sandoval, Professor, College of Law, San
Sebastian College Recoletos;
11) An Open Letter Personally Attesting to the Moral
competence and Fitness of Danilo G. De Guzman
dated 5 September 2008 of Mr. Nixon F. Faderog,
Deputy Grand [Kn]ight, Knights of Columbus and
President, General Parent-Teacher
Association, Taguig National High School, Lower
Bicutan, Taguig City;
12) Testimonial Letter dated 5 September 2008 of
Atty. Primitivo C. Cruz, President, Taguig Lawyers
League, Inc., Tuktukan, Taguig City;
13) Testimonial Letter dated 21 October 2008 of
Judge Hilario L. Laqui, Presiding Judge, Regional
Trail Court (RTC), Branch 218, Quezon City; and
14) Testimonial Letter dated 28 October 2008 of
Justice Oscar M. Herrera, former Justice, Court of
Appeals and former Dean, Institute of Law, Far
Eastern University (FEU).
Citing the case of In Re: Carlos S. Basa, petitioner pleaded
that he be afforded the same kindness and compassion in order that,
like Atty. Basa, his promising future may not be perpetually foreclosed.
In the said case, the Court had the occasion to say:
Carlos S. Basa is a young man about 29 years of age,
admitted to the bars of California and the Philippine Islands.
Recently, he was charged in the Court of First Instance of the
City of Manila with the crime of abduction with consent, was
found guilty in a decision rendered by the Honorable M.V. De
Rosario, Judge of First Instance, and was sentenced to be
imprisoned for a period of two years, eleven months and
eleven days of prision correccional. On appeal, this decision
was affirmed in a judgment handed down by the second
division of the Supreme Court.
xxxx
When come next, as we must, to determine the exact action
which should be taken by the court, we do so regretfully and
reluctantly. On the one hand, the violation of the criminal law
by the respondent attorney cannot be lightly passed over. On
the other hand, we are willing to strain the limits of our
compassion to the uttermost in order that so promising a
career may not be utterly ruined.
Petitioner promised to commit himself to be more circumspect
in his actions and solemnly pledged to exert all efforts to atone for his
misdeeds.
There may be a reasonable ground to consider the herein
Petition.
In the case of Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the
Lawyers Oath (Bar Matter 712), which may be applied in the instant
case, the Court said:
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve
to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's
oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal
profession with the following admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyers oath, the
Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad
moral fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show
that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic
duties and public service.
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted
all efforts, to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are
prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial
notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash,
temerarious and uncalculating.
xxxx
Meanwhile, in the case of Rodolfo M. Bernardo vs. Atty. Ismael F.
Mejia (Administrative Case No. 2984), the Court [in] deciding
whether or not to reinstate Atty. Mejia to the practice of law stated:
The Court will take into consideration the applicants
character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and
character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his
conduct subsequent to the disbarment and the time that has
elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for
reinstatement.
Petitioner was barely thirty (30) years old and had only been in the
practice of law for five (5) years when he was disbarred from the
practice of law. It is of no doubt that petitioner had a promising future
ahead of him where it not for the decision of the Court stripping off his
license.
Petitioner is also of good moral repute, not only before but likewise,
after his disbarment, as attested to overwhelmingly by his
constituents, colleagues as well as people of known probity in the
community and society.
Way before the petitioner was even admitted to the bar, he had
already manifested his intense desire to render public service as
evidenced by his active involvement and participation in several social
and civic projects and activities. Likewise, even during and after his
disbarment, which could be perceived by some as a debilitating
circumstance, petitioner still managed to continue extending his
assistance to others in whatever means possible. This only proves
petitioners strength of character and positive moral fiber.
However, still, it is of no question that petitioners act in copying the
examination questions from Atty. Balgos computer without the latters
knowledge and consent, and which questions later turned out to be
the bar examinations questions in Mercantile Law in the 2003 Bar
Examinations, is not at all commendable. While we do believe that
petitioner sincerely did not intend to cause the damage that his action
ensued, still, he must be sanctioned for unduly compromising the
integrity of the bar examinations as well as of this Court.
We are convinced, however, that petitioner has since reformed and
has sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in view of the
circumstances and likewise for humanitarian considerations, the
penalty of disbarment may now be commuted to suspension.
Considering the fact, however, that petitioner had already been
disbarred for more than five (5) years, the same may be considered
as proper service of said commuted penalty and thus, may now be
allowed to resume practice of law.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully
recommended that the instant Petition for Judicial Clemency and
Compassion dated 10 November 2008 of petitioner DANILO G. DE
GUZMAN be GRANTED. Petitioners disbarment is now commuted to
suspension, which suspension is considered as served in view of the
petitioners five (5) year disbarment. Hence, petitioner may now be
allowed to resume practice of law.
The recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant is well-taken in
part. We deem petitioner worthy of clemency to the extent of commuting his penalty to
seven (7) years suspension from the practice of law, inclusive of the five (5) years he
has already served his disbarment.
Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct
offenders.[2] While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it
also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served
its purpose.[3]
In cases where we have deigned to lift or commute the supreme penalty of
disbarment imposed on the lawyer, we have taken into account the remorse of the
disbarred lawyer[4] and the conduct of his public life during his years outside of the since his disbarment towards public service, particularly with the Peoples Law

bar.[5] For example, in Valencia v. Antiniw, we held: Enforcement Board. The attestations submitted by his peers in the community and

other esteemed members of the legal profession, such as retired Court of Appeals
However, the record shows that the long period of
respondent's disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his Associate Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui, Professor Edwin Sandoval and
misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate
his willingness and capacity to live up once again to the exacting Atty. Lorenzo Ata, and the ecclesiastical community such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtas
standards of conduct demanded of every member of the bar and
testify to his positive impact on society at large since the unfortunate events of 2003.
officer of the court. During respondent's disbarment for more than
fifteen (15) years to date for his professional infraction, he has been
persistent in reiterating his apologies and pleas for reinstatement to
the practice of law and unrelenting in his efforts to show that he has Petitioners subsequent track record in public service affords the Court some hope that
regained his worthiness to practice law, by his civic and humanitarian
activities and unblemished record as an elected public servant, as if he were to reacquire membership in the Philippine bar, his achievements as a lawyer
attested to by numerous civic and professional organizations,
government institutions, public officials and members of the would redound to the general good and more than mitigate the stain on his
judiciary.[6]
record. Compassion to the petitioner is warranted. Nonetheless, we wish to impart to

him the following stern warning:

And in Bernardo v. Atty. Mejia,[7] we noted:

Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias
disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is
already of advanced years. While the age of the petitioner and the
length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of
disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for
reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of
Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been
attributed to him, and he has shown remorse. Obviously, he has
learned his lesson from this experience, and his punishment has
lasted long enough. x x x
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold
the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to
repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the
very bands of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a
pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body
politic.[8]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion
is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The disbarment of DANILO G. DE GUZMAN from the
practice of law is hereby COMMUTED to SEVEN (7) YEARS SUSPENSION FROM THE

PRACTICE OF LAW, reckoned from February 4, 2004.

Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse expected of him considering the

gravity of his transgressions. Even more to his favor, petitioner has redirected focus
SO ORDERED.
B.M. No. 1153 Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the
Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated
March 9, 2010
"B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar
Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court). - The Court
Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138,
to wit:
study of law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized
and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion
of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a
bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or
its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having completed a
separate bachelor's degree course.
The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, is hereby directed to
CIRCULARIZE this resolution among all law schools in the country.

The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of

Rule 138, to wit:

SEC. 5 Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. All applicants for admission
other than those referred to in the two preceding sections shall, before being
admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have successfully
completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially recognized by the Philippine
Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree
has been granted.

No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be
admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed the
following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil
law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law,
political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal
ethics.

A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the
bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications
showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or
its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper
authority; and (c) completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws
academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.

SEC. 6.Pre-Law. An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present a
certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the