Diao Vs Martinez
Diao Vs Martinez
Diao Vs Martinez
About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely
represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the
requisite academic qualifications. The matter was in due course referred to
the Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated; and later he
submitted a report recommending that Diao's name be erased from the roll
of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for
examination in this Court, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up law
subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of
Private Education, specially, in the following particulars:
(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963 (b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A.
diploma therefrom — which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in
support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein of
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF successful completion of the "required pre-legal education".
TELESFORO A. DIAO,
vs. Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner. admits the first charge: but he claims that although he had left high school in
his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General
Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal
high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education,"
authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year (emphasis on "previous").
high school.
Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar
We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what with examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take it,
respondent's failure to exhibit any certification to that effect (the equivalence) luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission
by the proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked.
since the second charge is clearly meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such
from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law;
represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college. Now, taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally
asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, essential..
1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate
of Quisumbing College, in his school records.
The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name
of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer's diploma
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts within thirty days. So ordered.
be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the
parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this
stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or
"confusion" was obviously of his own making. Had his application disclosed
his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have
disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law
studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his
Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been permitted to
take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar
examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he