B.

M.No.1222,
Re:2003BAREXAMI
NATI
ONS

Febr
uar
y4,
2004

FACTS:

On22September2003,t hedayfoll
owingthebarexami nat
ioni nMercantil
eLaw,Just iceVit
ug,
Chair
manofthe2003BarExami nati
onsCommi t
tee,wasi nformedaboutar umor edleakagein
theexami
nati
onont hesubject.Aft
erJusticeVitugconduct edinquir
ies,herecommendedt hat
theexami
nati
oninMer canti
leLawbenul l
if
ied.Ont hefoll
owi ngday,theCour tadoptedthesaid
recommendat
ionandresolvedtoholdanotherexami nat
iononOct ober2,2003.

Howev er
,becausenumer ouspet i
ti
ons,pr otests,andmot ionsforr econsiderat
ionweref il
ed
againstt
her etakingoftheexami nati
oni nmer canti
lelaw,theCourtcancel ledtheholdingof
suchexaminat i
on.Ont herecommendat i
onoft heOf f
iceoftheBarConf idant,theCourti
nstead
decidedtoallocatethefif
teen( 15)percent agepoi nt
sf ormercanti
lelaw amongt heseven(7)
otherbarexami nati
onsubjects.Italsoresolvedt ocreatecommi t
teecomposedoft hr
eereti
red
member softheCour tt
hatwoul dconductat horoughi nv
esti
gati
onoft heincident.

Uponi nvest
igat
ionoftheInvest
igat
ingCommi tt
ee,itwasf oundthatleakedtestquesti
onsin
Mer canti
leLaw werethequesti
onswhi chtheexami ner,Attor
neyMar cialO.T.Balgos,had
preparedandsubmi tt
edtoJusticeVitug.Theleakedt estquesti
onsconst i
tut
ed82% oft he
actualbarexam questi
ons.Hence,anybarexami neewhowasabl et ogetholdoftheleaked
questionsbefor
ethemercant
ilel
awexami nat
ionandanswer edthem corr
ectl
y.

Att
y .Balgosclaimedthattheleakedt estquestionswer epreparedbyhim onhi scomputer.The
cul
pr i
twho st ole ordownloaded t hem f rom At ty
.Bal gos’comput erwithoutthe latt
er’s
knowl edgeandconsent ,
andwhof axedt hem tootherpersons,wasAtty.Balgos’l
egalassist
ant,
Att
or neyDaniloDeGuzman, whov ol
unt ari
lyconfessedthedeedt otheInvesti
gati
ngCommi t
tee.
DeGuzmanr evealedthathef axedt het estquestions,withthehelpofhi ssecret
aryRey nita
Vil
lasis,tohi
sf rat
erni
ty‘
brods,
’namel y,RonanGar vida,Ar
lan,andErwinTan.

I
SSUES:

1.WONAt
ty.DeGuzmanshoul
dbehel
dli
abl
e

2.WONAt
ty.Bal
dosshoul
dbehel
dli
abl
e
RULI
NG:

1.YES.Atty
.De Guzman was DISBARRED on the gr
ound ofgr
ave mi
sconduct
,gr
ave
di
shonest
y,l
ackofi
ntegr
it
y,andcr
iminalbehav
ior
.

TheCourthel dthatAt ty
.DeGuzman’ sactofdownl oadi
ngAtty.Bal
gos’t
estquesti
onsin
mercanti
lelawf rom thel at
ter
’scomputer
,wi thouthisknowledgeandpermissi
on,wasa
cr
iminalactofl arceny.Itwast hef
tofint
ellectualproper
tyandanunlawfulinf
ract
ionof
Att
orneyBal gos’r i
ghtt opriv
acyofcommuni cat
ionandt osecuri
tyofhispapersand
ef
fectsagai
nstunaut hori
zedsearchandseizure.

Veri
ly,Atty.De Guzman transgr
essed the veryf i
rstcanon ofthe lawyer
s’Code of
Prof
essionalResponsi
bil
it
ywhi chprov
idest hat‘alawyershallupholdtheConst
it
uti
on,
obeythelawsoftheland,andpromoterespectforlawandlegalprocesses.
’

Further,byt r
ansmi t
ti
nganddi str
ibut
ingthestolentestquesti
onstosomemember shis
fr
aternity,possibl
yforpecuni aryprof
itandtogiv ethem undueadv
antageovertheother
exami nersint hemer canti
lelaw exami nat
ion,DeGuzmanshowedcl earcheat
ing or
dishonest ywhichisv i
olati
veofRul e1.01ofCanon1,aswel lasCanon7oft heCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibili
tyformember softheBar ,
whichprovi
de:

Rul
e1.
01-Alawy ershal
lnotengagei
nunl
awf
ul,di
shonest
,immor
alordecei
tf
ul
conduct

Canon7-ALAWYERSHALLATALLTI MESUPHOLDTHEI
NTEGRI
TYAND
DI
GNITYOFTHELEGALPROFESSIONANDSUPPORTTHEACTIVI
TIES
OFTHEINTEGRATEDBAR.

Hence,hewasgui lt
yofgr avemi sconductunbecomingamemberoft heBar.Hev i
olat
ed
thelaw insteadofpromot i
ngr espectforitanddegr adedt henoblepr of
essi
onofl aw
i
nsteadofuphol di
ngitsdignityandi nt
egri
ty.Hisactuati
onsi mpair
edpubl i
crespectfor
theCourt,anddamagedt heintegri
tyofthebarexaminati
onsast hefinalmeasureofalaw
graduat
e’sacademicpreparednesst oembarkuponthepr act
iceoflaw.

2.YES.At
ty.Bal
doswasREPRIMANDEDbyt heCourtforhisnegl
igenceandlackofduecar
e
i
nprepar
ingandsaf
eguar
dinghi
sproposedtestquesti
onsinmer cant
il
elaw.

TheCommitteefoundthatthethef
toft hetestquest
ionsf
rom Atty
.Balgos’computer
coul
dhavebeenav oi
dedifAtt
y.Balgoshadexerci
sedduedil
igenceinsafeguar
dingt
he
secr
ecyoft
hetestquest
ionswhichheprepar
ed.

Att
y .Balgosadmi tt
edthathewasnotf ai
rl
yfamili
arwiththeuseofcomput erandheev en
hadt orelyonhi ssecret
aryt ouset hepasswordt oopenandcl osehiscomput er
.Such
comput erwasal soplacedinr oom towhichotherpersonshadaccess.Unf ami l
iarwit
hthe
useoft hemachi newhosepot ent
ialformischi
efhecouldnothav ebeent otal
lyunaware
of,
heshoul dhav eavoi
dedi tsusef orsosensit
iveanunder t
aki
ngast ypingthequest i
ons
inthebarexami nati
on.Afterallheknewhowt ouset hetypewr
iterintheuseofwhi chhe
i
squi teprofi
cient.
 Also,heshoul
dhavepreparedthetestquesti
onsinhist
rust
yty
pewri
ter
,inthepri
vacyof
hi
shome, inst
eadofhi
slawof f
ice,wheretheywouldhav
ebeensaf
efrom thepr
yingeyes
ofsecret
ari
esandassi
stantatt
orneys.

Howev er,althoughAt ty.Bal

gos’negli
gencei nthepreparati
onandsaf ekeepingofhi s
proposedt estquest i
onsforthebarexaminat
ioninmer cant
il
elaw,wasnott hepr oxi
mate
causeoft he‘ barl
eakage,itwas,i
nfact,t
herootcause.Ifonlyhehadtakent hosesimple
precauti
onst oprotectthesecrecyofhispaper s,nobodycoul dhav
est ol
ent hem and
copiedandci rcul
atedthem.Thei nt
egri
tyoft hebarexaminationswoul
dnothav ebeen
sull
iedbyt hescandal .

TheCour
tadopt
edt
her
ecommendat
ionoft
heI
nvest
igat
ingCommi
tt
eer
ecommendst
hat
:

1.Attor
neyDani l
oDeGuzmanbeDI SBARRED forhehadshownt hathei smor all
yunf i
tto
conti
nueasamemberoft helegalpr of
ession,forgravedishonest y
,lackofi ntegri
ty,and
cri
minalbehavi
or.I
nadditi
on, heshouldmakeawr it
tenPUBLICAPOLOGYandpayDAMAGESt o
theSupremeCour tforinvolvingitinanot her‘barscandal
,
’causi ngt hecancell
ationoft he
mercanti
lelawexaminat
ion,andwr eakinghavocupont hei
mageoft hisinsti
tut
ion.

2.Attor
neyMar ci
alO.T.BalgosshouldbeREPRI MANDEDbyt heCourtandl ikewi
seber equired
tomakeawr i
tt
enAPOLOGYt otheCourtforthepubli
cscandalhebr oughtuponi tasar esultof
hisnegli
genceandlackofduecar ei
npreparingandsafeguardi
nghispr oposedtestquesti
onsi n
mercanti
lelaw.Ast heCourthadt ocanceltheMercantil
eLaw exami nati
ononaccountoft he
‘
leakage’ofAttor
neyBalgos’testquest
ions,whichcomprised82%oft hebarquest ionsinthat
examinati
on,Atty
.Balgosi
snotent i
tl
edtoreceiv
eanyhonor ari
um asexami nerforthatsubject.