1. IN RE: Reinstatement of Rolando S.

Torres

AC # 5161, July 11, 2017

FACTS: This is a petition filed by Rolando Torres for judicial clemency for his reinstatement in the Roll of
Attorneys.

The case of disbarment Torres got involved in was a case of forgery that he participated and consented
to for his client (Ting-Dumali vs. Torres, 2004), and he was found guilty by the SC for violating Canons 1 & 10
of the CPR. Ultimately, he was disbarred by the SC in the aforementioned case.

Torres filed the necessary MRs (twice), but both were denied with finality by the court and expressed
that no further pleadings will be entertained. Still, he filed motions that beg for his reinstatement and even
wrote to associate judges and even the Chief Justice for compassion and mercy. Consistently, such motions
were expunged in the Court’s resolutions, again stressing that no further pleadings will be entertained in the
case at bar. Undaunted, Torres kept on filing similar motions and the court either expunges such or denies it
with finality.

After 10 years lapsed, Torres filed a petition seeking judicial clemency and for him to be reinstated in
the Roll of Attorneys. It was denied once more, with the SC explaining that Torres failed to provide substantial
proof of his reformation and reconciliation with his sister-in-law, the original complainant in the disbarment
case against him. Moreover, he did not demonstrate any remorse from his fraudulent acts committed against
the original complainant. Even with the SC ruling against him, he still filed the instant petition seeking the
same remedies from the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rolando Torres should be granted judicial clemency by the court.

HELD: NO.

The principle which should hold true for lawyers, being officers of the court, is that judicial clemency,
as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public
confidence in the courts. Thus, the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof of
reformation and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable. In Re: The Matter of the Petition for
Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as a member of the Philippine Bar, the Court laid down the following
guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications
or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and
prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an
administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can
be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to
legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential
for public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

The SC held that Torres failed to prove any of the aforementioned and merely rehashed all the several
testimonials and endorsements that were previously denied by the SC. Hence, his petition was denied.