Tan Vs.

Sabandal
B.M. No. 44. November 29, 1983

Facts:

Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view
of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed
numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's oath.

Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where
Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In
compliance therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment that he is not aware of any acts
committed by the respondent as would disqualify him to from admission to the Bar. However, he added
that respondent has a pending civil case before his court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which
respondent, then working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to have secured a free
patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a
swampland and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the
bank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold at public auction and
respondent has not redeemed the land since then.

The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement
canceled the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for
the surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public
domain the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising
acts of possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the
loan and interest.

Issue:

Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he already
submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been
terminated.

Held:

No, he couldn’t be admitted.

His acquisition of the land, in which he was employed as government employee is a manipulative
and does not speak well of his moral character. His failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil
case for Reversion filed against his, reveals his lack of candor and truthfulness. It has been held that
practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character.

Thus, his petition must be denied.