[B.M. No. 1132.April 1, 2003]RE: RESOLUTION NO. 112-2002 OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTEEN BANCGentlemen:Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court datedAPR 01 2003.Bar Matter No. 1132(Re: Resolution No. 112-2002 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte, Requesting to Require Lawyers to Indicate in their Pleadings their Number in the Roll of Attorneys.)On 12 November 2002 we granted the request of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and theSangguniang Panlalawiganof Ilocos Norte to require all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers and pleadings filed in judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the previously required current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt or life Member Number.The requirement was meant to protect the public by making it easier to detect impostors who represent themselves as members of the Bar.It was likewise intended to help lawyers keep track of their Roll of Attorneys Number.On 16 January 2003 Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino, Head, Academic Affairs Office, Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), filed thisMotion for Clarificationdated 16 January 2003 asking that aforesaid Resolution dated 12 November 2002 be clarified so that proper instruction may be conveyed to judges during seminars, courses, and programs conducted by the PHILJA.According to Fr. Aquino, two (2) issues needed clarification, to wit:(a) whether or not a judge may dismiss an action, expunge from the records or refuse inclusion from the records of any pleading wherein signatory counsel failed to state his roll of Attorneys Number; and (b) whether or not the Resolution of 12 November 2002 maybe construed as precluding a party who may not be a lawyer from signing his own pleadings, as presently allowed by the Rules.With respect to the first issue, it is worth mentioning that in Bar Matter No. 287Re:Requirement that Official Receipt Number and Date of Payment of Current IBP Membership Dues be Indicated by Counsel per IBP Resolution NO. XIV-1999-63, we defined on 26 September 2000 the consequences for non-compliance with the requirement for lawyers to indicate their IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue in all pleadings, motions and papers filed in court as follows -All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court,whether personally or by mail,shall bear counsel's current IBP official receipt number and date of issue, otherwise, such pleadings, motions and papersmay not be acted uponby the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action the court may take against the erring counsel who shall likewise be required to comply with the requirement within five (5) days from notice.Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further disciplinary sanction and for contempt of court."Considering that the requirement to state the Roll of Attorneys Number in all pleadings filed in court or quasi-judicial body, like that of the requirement to indicate the IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue, pertains to counsel filing the pleading or other paper in behalf of his client, we see no reason why non-compliance should not be meted the same penalty as in the case of failure to indicate the IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue.Hence, we adopt by analogy in the present matter what we have already stated in our Resolution of26 September 2000in Bar Matter No. 287.With respect to the second issue, it is asked whether our Resolution of12 November 2002may be construed as precluding a party who may not be a lawyer from signing his own pleadings, as presently allowed by the Rules.We answer the query in the negative.As the requirement is directed against lawyers only and the purpose for which is to screen bogus lawyers and protect the public from them, the requirement and the consequent penalties therefore cannot be construed as precluding a party who is not a lawyer from signing a pleading himself as presently allowed by the Rules.ACCORDINGLY, our Resolution dated12 November 2002is amended for clarification to read as follows-The Court Resolved, upon recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant, to GRANT the request of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte to require all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating the current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or by mail, which do not bear counsel's Roll of Attorneys Number as herein required may not be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action the court may take against the erring counsel who shall likewise be required to comply with the requirement within five (5) days from notice.Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further disciplinary sanction and for contempt of court.Strict compliance herewith is enjoined effective immediately (amendments italized).

B.M. No. 1922 June 3, 2008RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/EXEMPTION REQUIRED IN ALL PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.Sirs/Mesdames:Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court En Banc datedJune 3, 2008"Bar Matter No. 1922. Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsels MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. The Court Resolved toNOTEthe Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement program.The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, toREQUIREpracticing members of the bar toINDICATEin all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period.Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation." Caprio-Morales Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., on official leave. (adv216a)

B.M. No. 2265RE: REFORMS IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONSPreliminary StatementThe 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 ChangesThe 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; and2.3. 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 Law15%

Labor Law10%

Civil Law15%

Taxation10%

Mercantile Law15%

Criminal Law10%

Remedial Law20%

Legal Ethics/Forms5%

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 given weights of 60% and 40%, respectively, in the computation of the candidates final grade.9. For want of historical data needed for computing the passing grade in MCQ kind of examinations, the Chairperson of the 2011 BarExaminations 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; and11.2. 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.This Bar Matter shall take effect immediately, and shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.January 18, 2011.

[B.M. Nos. 979 and 986.December 10, 2002]RE:1999 BAR EXAMINATIONS,MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA,petitioner.R E S O L U T I O NBELLOSILLO,J.:Petitioner was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Examinations.Like many others he was directed to submit the required certification of completion of the pre-bar review course within sixty (60) days from the last day of the examinations.Petitioner passed the 1999 Examinations.But in a Resolution dated 13 April 2000 the Court disqualified him from becoming a member of the Philippine Bar and declared his examinations null and void on two (2) grounds: (a) Petitioner failed to submit the required certificate of completion of the pre-bar review course under oath for his conditional admission to the 1999 Bar Examinations; and (b) He committed a serious act of dishonesty which rendered him unfit to become a member of the Philippine Bar when he made it appear in his Petition to Take the 1999 Bar Examinations that he took his pre-bar review course at the Philippine Law School (PLS) when, as certified by Acting Registrar Rasalie G. Kapauan, PLS had not offered such course since 1967.Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the 13 April 2000 Resolution but his motion was denied.On 29 October 2001, retired Regional Trial Court Judge Amante P. Purisima, father of petitioner, filed a Petition to Reopen Bar Matter 986.However, the Court in its Resolution of 27 November 2001 noted without action the said petition and further resolved that no further pleadings will be entertained.On 2 July 2002 petitioner filed a Motion for Due Process stating, among others, his reasons why in his Petition to Take the 1999 Bar Examinations it was stated that he was enrolled in and regularly attending the pre-bar review course at the PLS and not at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) where he in fact took the said course as evidenced by the Certification dated 22 July 1999 of Dean Amado L. Damayuga of the UST Faculty of Civil Law.Petitioner claimed that the statement in paragraph 8 of his Petition that he x x x enrolled in and passed the regular fourth year (law) review classes at the Phil. Law School x x x x was a self-evident clerical error and a mere result of an oversight which is not tantamount to a deliberate and willful declaration of a falsehood.Petitioner explained that upon obtaining a ready-made form of the Petition and affixing his signature on the space provided therefor, he requested his schoolmate/friend Ms. Lilian A. Felipe to fill up the form, have it notarized and then to file it for him with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).Being consumed with his preparations for the upcoming bar examinations, petitioner admitted that he did not have the opportunity to check the veracity of the information supplied by Ms. Felipe. Had he done this he could have readily seen that Ms. Felipe had erroneously typed Philippine Law School, instead of UST, on the space provided for the school where petitioner attended his pre-bar review course.Petitioner further averred that on 26 July 1999, a week after the filing of the Petition to take the bar, he (thru Ms. Felipe) submitted the Certification of Completion of the Pre-Bar Review as Annex D of his Petition to prove that he actually enrolled and attended the pre-bar review course in UST.To corroborate his enrollment in UST, petitioner submitted (a) the Official Receipt of his payment of tuition fee for the course; (b) his identification card for the course; (c) car pass to the UST campus; (d) individual affidavits of classmates in the pre-bar review course in UST that petitioner was their classmate and that he attended the review course; (e) separate affidavits of five (5) UST students/acquaintances of petitioner that they saw him regularly attending the review lectures; (f) affidavit of Professor Abelardo T. Domondon attesting to the attendance of petitioner in his review classes and lectures in Taxation and Bar Review Methods at the UST Faculty of Civil Law; (g) affidavit of Ms. Gloria L. Fernandez, maintenance staff at the UST Law Department that she knew petitioner very well as he was among those who would arrive early and request her to open the reading area and turn on the airconditioning before classes started; and, (h) affidavit of Ms. Melicia Jane Parena, office clerk at the UST Faculty Civil Law, that Dean Dimayuga issued the Certification dated 22 July 1999 to the effect that petitioner was officially enrolled in and had completed the pre-bar review course in UST which started on 14 April 1999 and ended 24 September 1999.Petitioner also explained that he did not submit the required certification of completion of the pre-bar review course within sixty (60) days from the last day of the examinations because he thought that it was already unnecessary in view of the Certification of Completion (Annex D of his Petition) issued by Dean Dimayuga which not only attested to his enrollment in UST but also his completion of the pre-bar review course.In a letter dated 17 September 2002, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., thru Senior Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, who took over as Chairman of the 1995 Committee on Bar Examinations, retired Judge Purisima expressed his concern for his son and stated that his son took the pre-bar review course in UST and that he entry in his sons Petition that he took it in PLS is a self-evident clerical error. He then poised the question that if there was really a falsehood and forgery in paragraph 8 and Annex D of the Petition, which would have been a fatal defect, why then was his son issued permit to take the 1999 Bar examinations?Pursuant to the Court Resolution of 1 October 2002, the OBC conducted a summary hearing on 30 October 2002 during which the Bar Confidant asked clarificatory questions from petitioner who appeared together with his father, retired Judge Purisima, and Ms. Lilian Felipe.On 7 November 2002 the OBC submitted its Report and Recommendation the pertinent portions of which are quoted hereunder:Considering petitioners explanation fortified by unquestionably genuine documents in support thereof, we respectfully submit that petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt.The Resolution of the Court dated April 2, 2002, in Bar Matter 890, may be cited. In the said case, Victor Rey T. Gingoyon was given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to take the Lawyers Oath.In said case, Mr. Gingoyon stated in his Petition to take the 1998 Bar that the charge of Grave Threats (Criminal Case No. 9693) against him was still pending before the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Mandaue City, Branch 3, when in fact, in the decision of MTC dated April 8, 1998, he was already convicted.But the Court believed his explanation that he had no actual knowledge of his conviction.In allowing Mr. Gingoyon to take the Lawyers Oath, the Court stated, thus:It had been two (2) years past since he first filed the petition to take the lawyers oath.Hopefully, this period of time of being deprived the privilege had been long enough for him to do some introspection.In his letter, petitioners father also pleaded that the three (3) years denial of his sons request for oath-taking should be enough penalty, if there may be any wrong that his son may have unwittingly committed.It is submitted that the same kindness and compassion extended to Mr. Gingoyon in Bar Matter 890 be given to petitioner.Three years deprivation of the privilege to practice law may be considered an ample penalty, not to mention that petitioner has not been convicted of any crime.As regards petitioners failure to submit within sixty days the required certification of completion of the pre-bar review course, his explanation that there was no need for him to submit another certification because the July 22, 1999 Certification of Dean Dimayuga certified not only his enrollment but also his completion of the course, is impressed with truth.Let it be also noted that, in the Resolution dated April 13, 2000, in this Bar Matter 986, the Court declared DISQUALIFIED from the 1999 Bar examinations not only Purisima but also Josenio Marquez Reoma, Ma. Salvacion Sucgang Revilla and Victor Estell Tesorero for their failure to submit within sixty days from the last day of the examinations the certification of completion of the pre-bar review course.However, the Court, in its Resolution dated June 20, 2000, acting on the separate motions for reconsideration of the Court Resolution dated April 13, 2000 filed by Reoma and Revilla, both were allowed to take the Lawyers Oath.In the case of Reoma, his explanation that his failure to submit the required certification was due to his honest belief and assumption that the UP College of Law, where he took his review course, had filed the required certification together with other required documents, was accepted.In the case of Revilla, her claim that her failure to submit the required certification within the 60-day period was due to her erroneous impression that only the certification of enrollment and attendance was arequired, was likewise accepted.The Court also allowed Mr. Tesorero to take his oath, as he stated that his f ailure to submit within the 60-day period was due to his honest and mistaken belief that he had substantially complied with the requirements for admission to the Bar Examinations because he thought that the required certificate of compleltition of the pre-bar review course is the same as the certificate of enrollment and attendance in the said course.The OBS respectfully submits that pertitioners explanation should also be given credit just like his three co-examinees.Let it be finally cited that in Bar Matter No. 832, in the Matter of Admission to the Bar of Blas Antonio M. Tuliao, the Court also favorably considered the report of the Committee on Legal Education which recommended the admission to the Bar of Mr. Tuliao on grounds of fairness, equal treatment and protection, considering that his co-accused in a criminal case have been allowed to take the lawyers oath.This Court stated, in its Resolution dated November 27, 2001, that there was no reason to accord a different treatment to Mr. Tuliao, and that the dispensation of justice should be even-handed and consistent.The recommendation is well taken.The foremost question to be resolved is whether petitioner did enrol in and complete his pre-bar review course in UST as he herein avows.The testimony of petitioner and Ms. Felipe during the 30 October 2002 hearing that the subject Certification of Dean Dimayuga was duly submitted to the OBC a week after the filing of the Petition to take the bar appears to be credible.It is supported by documentary evidence showing that petitioner actually enrolled and completed the required course in UST.Granting that the Certification of Dean Dimayuga was defective as it certified completion of the pre-bar review course which was still on-going, this defect should not be attributed to petitioner considering that he had no participation in the preparation thereof.Whatever it is, the fact remains that there is such a certification issued by the UST which appears to be genuine.This finding is backed by the affidavit of Ms. Parena, office clerk at the UST Faculty of Civil Law, that she was the one who released the Certification to petitioner on 26 July 1999.Indeed, it must be stressed that there is nothing on record which impugns the authenticity of the subject Certification as well as that of the other documentary evidence proferred by petitioner to establish that he was duly enrolled and took the pre-bar review course in UST, not in PLS.As to the argument that the Certification of Dean Dimayuga did not include the taking and completion of the pre-bar review course, the realities of our bar reviews render it difficult to record the attendance religiously of the reviewees every single day for several months.Considering petitioners explanation, fortified by undisputedly genuine documents, at the very least, petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to take his oath.The Court is well aware of instances in the past when ,as a measure of compassion and kindness, it has acted favorably on similar petitions.In his letter petitioners father pleaded that the denial of permission for Mark to take his oath for about three (3) years now should be enough penalty. It is time to move on.At this juncture it may be well to note the Courts growing concern over the apparent laxity of law schools in the conduct of their pre-bar review classes. Specifically, it has been observed that the attendance of reviewees is not closely monitored, such that some reviewees are able to comply with the requisite with minimal attendance.Enrollment and completion of pre-bar review course is an additional requirement under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court for those who failed the bar examinations for three (3) or more times.For the Court to insist on strict compliance may be literally asking for the moon but it can be done.We just have to bear in mind that this requirement is not an empty or idle ceremony; it is intended to ensure the quality and preparedness of those applying for admission to the bar.WHEREFORE,premises considered, as recommended by the Office of the Bar Confidant in its Report and Recommendation dated 7 November 2002, the prayer in Bar Matters Nos. 979 and 986 is granted and examinee MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA who passed the 1999 Bar Examinations is now allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and be admitted to the Philippine Bar.He is further allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys upon payment of the required fees.SO ORDERED.[B.M. No. 1222.February 4, 2004]Re: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONSR E S O L U T I O NPER CURIAM:On 22 September 2003, the day following the bar examination in Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in the examination on the subject. After making his own inquiries, Justice Vitug reported the matter to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and to the other members of the Court, recommending that the bar examination on the subject be nullified and that an investigation be conducted forthwith. On23 September 2003, the Court adopted the recommendation of Justice Vitug, and resolved to nullify the examination in Mercantile Law and to hold another examination on04 October 2003ateight oclockin the evening (being the earliest available time and date) at the De La Salle University,Taft Avenue,Manila. The resolution was issued without prejudice to any action that the Court would further take on the matter.Following the issuance of the resolution, the Court received numerous petitions and motions from the Philippine Association of Law Schools and various other groups and persons, expressing agreement to the nullification of the bar examinations in Mercantile Law but voicing strong reservations against the holding of another examination on the subject. Several reasons were advanced by petitioners or movants, among these reasons being the physical, emotional and financial difficulties that would be encountered by the examinees, if another examination on the subject were to be held anew. Alternative proposals submitted to the Court included the spreading out of the weight of Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar subjects, i.e., to determine and gauge the results of the examinations on the basis only of the performance of the examinees in the seven bar subjects. In a resolution, dated 29 September 2003, the Court, finding merit in the submissions,resolved to cancel the scheduled examination in Mercantile Law on 04 October 2003 and to allocate the fifteen percentage points among the seven bar examination subjects. In the same resolution, the Court further resolved to create a Committee composed of three retired members of the Court that would conduct a thorough investigation of the incident subject of the23 September 2003resolution.In a resolution, dated07 October 2003, the Court adopted the computation in the allocation of the fifteen percentage points for Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar examination subjects, to wit:SubjectOriginalAdjustedRelativeAdjustedPercentagePercentageWeightRelativeWeightWeightWeightPolitical andInternationalLaw15%17.647%33.53%Labor andSocialLegislation10%11.765%22.35%Civil law15%17.647%33.53%Taxation10%11.765%22.35%Criminal law10%11.765%22.35%RemedialLaw20%23.529%44.71%Legal Ethicsand PracticalExercises5%5.882%11.18%100%20%In another resolution, dated14 October 2003, the Court designated the following retired Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to compose the Investigating Committee:Chairman:JusticeCarolinaC. Grio-AquinoMembers:Justice Jose A.R. MeloJustice Vicente V. MendozaThe Investigating Committee was tasked to determine and identify the source of leakage, the parties responsible therefor or who might have benefited therefrom, recommend sanctions against all those found to have been responsible for, or who would have benefited from, the incident in question and to recommend measures to the Court to safeguard the integrity of the bar examinations.On15 January 2004, the Investigating Committee submitted its report and recommendation to the Court, herein reproduced in full; thus -In the morning of September 21, 2003, the third Sunday of the 2003 bar examinations, the examination in commercial law was held in De la Salle University on Taft Avenue, Manila, the venue of the bar examinations since 1995. The next day, the newspapers carried news of an alleged leakage in the said examination.[1]Upon hearing the news and making preliminary inquiries of his own, Justice Jose C. Vitug, chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee, reported the matter to the Chief Justice and recommended that the examination in mercantile law be cancelled and that a formal investigation of the leakage be undertaken.Acting on the report and recommendation of Justice Vitug, the Court, in a resolution dated September 23, 2003, nullified the examination in mercantile law and resolved to hold another examination in that subject on Saturday, October 4, 2003 at eight oclock in the evening (being the earliest available time and date) at the same venue. However, because numerous petitions, protests, and motions for reconsideration were filed against the retaking of the examination in mercantile law, the Court cancelled the holding of such examination. On the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Court instead decided to allocate the fifteen (15) percentage points for mercantile law among the seven (7) other bar examination subjects (Resolution datedOctober 7, 2003).In a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2003, the Supreme Court created an Investigating Committee composed of three (3) retired Members of the Court to conduct an investigation of the leakage and to submit its findings and recommendations on or beforeDecember 15, 2003.The Court designated the following retired Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to compose the Committee:Chairman:JusticeCAROLINAGRIO-AQUINOMembers:Justice JOSE A. R. MELOJustice VICENTE V. MENDOZAThe Investigating Committee was directed to determine and identify the source of the leakage, the parties responsible therefor and those who benefited therefrom, and to recommend measures to safeguard the integrity of the bar examinations.The investigation commenced onOctober 21, 2003and continued up toNovember 7, 2003. The following witnesses appeared and testified at the investigation:1.Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug, chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee;2.Atty. Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, law clerk in the office of Justice Vitug3.Atty. Marcial O. T. Balgos, examiner in mercantile law;4.Cheryl Palma, private secretary of Atty. Balgos;5.Atty. Danilo De Guzman, assistant lawyer in the firm of Balgos & Perez;6.Atty. Enrico G. Velasco, managing partner of Balgos & Perez;7.Eduardo J. F. Abella, reviewer in commercial law at theLexReviewCenter;8.Silvestre T. Atienza, office manager of Balgos & Perez;9.Reynita Villasis, private secretary of Atty. De Guzman;10.Ronan Garvida, fraternity brother of Atty. De Guzman;11.Ronald F. Collado, most illustrious brother of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity;12.Jovito M. Salonga, Asst. Division Chief of Systems Development for Judicial Application, MlSO;The Committee held nine (9) meetings - six times to conduct the investigation and three times to deliberateon its report.ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOSE C. VITUG, chairman of the Bar Examinations Committee, testified that on Monday morning, September 22, 2003, the day after the Bar examination in mercantile or commercial law, upon arriving in his office in the Supreme Court, his secretary,[2]Rose Kawada, informed him that one of the law clerks, Atty. Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, told her that a friend of hers named Ma. Cecilia Delgado-Carbajosa, a bar examinee from Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City, who was staying at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Paco, confided to her that something was wrong with the examination in mercantile law, because previous to the examination,i.e.,on Saturday afternoon, the eve of the examination, she received a copy of the test questions in that subject. She did not pay attention to the test questions because no answers were provided, and she was hard-pressed to finish her review of that subject, using other available bar review materials, of which there were plenty coming from various bar review centers.However, upon perusing the questions after the examinations, Cecilia noticed that many of them were the same questions that were asked in the just-concluded-examination.Justice Vitug requested Marlo to invite her friend to his office in the Supreme Court, but Carbajosa declined the invitation. So, Justice Vitug suggested that Marlo and Rose invite Carbajosa to meet them at Robinsons Place, Ermita. She agreed to do that.Cecilia Carbajosa arrived at Robinsons Place at the appointed time and showed the test questions to Rose and Marlo. Rose obtained a xerox copy of the leaked questions and compared them with the bar questions in mercantile law. On the back of the pages, she wrote, in her own hand, the differences she noted between the leaked questions and the bar examination questions.Rose and Marlo delivered the copy of the leaked questions to Justice Vitug who compared them with the bar examination questions in mercantile law. He found the leaked questions to be the exact same questions which the examiner in mercantile law, Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos, had prepared and submitted to him as chairman of the Bar Examinations Committee. However, not all of those questions were asked in the bar examination. According to Justice Vitug, only 75% of the final bar questions were questions prepared by Atty. Balgos; 25% prepared by Justice Vitug himself, were included in the final bar examination. The questions prepared by Justice Vitug were not among the leaked test questions.Apart from the published news stories about the leakage, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Justice Vitug received, by telephone and mail, reports of the leakage from Dean Mariano F. Magsalin, Jr. of the Arellano Law Foundation (Exh. H) and a certain Dale Philip R. De los Reyes (Exh. B -B-3), attaching copies of the leaked questions and the fax transmittal sheet showing that the source of the questions was Danny De Guzman who faxed them to Ronan Garvida on September 17, 2003, four days before the examination in mercantile law on September 21, 2003 (Exh. B-1).ATTORNEY MARLO MAGDOZA-MALAGAR was subpoenaed by the Committee. She identified the copy of the leaked questions that came from Cecilia Carbajosa (Exh. A). She testified that, according to Carbajosa, the latter received the test questions from one of her co-bar reviewees staying, like her, at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Paco, and also enrolled in the review classes at the Lex Review Center at the corner of P. Faura Street and Roxas Boulevard, Ermita. She did not pay for the hand-out because theLexReviewCentergives them away for free to its bar reviewees.ATTORNEY MARCIAL O. T. BALGOS, 71 years of age, senior partner in the law firm of BALGOS AND PEREZ with offices in Rm. 1009 West Tektite Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, testified that in November 2002, Justice Jose C. Vitug, as chair of the Committee on the 2003 Bar Examinations, invited him to be the examiner in commercial law. He accepted the assignment and almost immediately began the preparation of test questions on the subject. Using his personal computer in the law office, he prepared for three consecutive days, three (3) sets of test questions which covered the entire subject of Mercantile Law (pp. 3-5, tsn,Oct. 24, 2003). As he did not know how to prepare the questionnaire in final form, he asked his private secretary, Cheryl Palma, to format the questions (p. 13, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).And, as he did not know how to print the questionnaire, he likewise asked Cheryl Palma to make a print-out (Id., pp. 14-15). All of this was done inside his office with only him and his secretary there. His secretary printed only one copy (Id., p. 15). He then placed the printed copy of the test questions, consisting of three sets, in an envelope which he sealed, and called up Justice Vitug to inform him that he was bringing the questions to the latters office that afternoon. However, as Justice Vitug was leaving his office shortly, he advised Atty. Balgos to give the sealed envelope to his confidential assistant who had been instructed to keep it. When Atty. Balgos arrived in the office of Justice Vitug, he was met by Justice Vitugs confidential assistant to whom he entrusted the sealed envelope containing the test questions (pp. 19-26, tsn,Oct. 24, 2003).Atty. Balgos admitted that he does not know how to operate a computer except to type on it. He does not know how to open and close his own computer which has a password for that purpose. In fact, he did not know, as he still does, the password. It is his secretary, Cheryl Palma, who opened and closed his computer for him (p. 45, tsn, Oct. 24, 2003).Atty. Balgos testified that he did not devise the password himself. It was Cheryl Palma who devised it (Id., p. 71).His computer is exclusively for his own use. It is located inside his room which is locked when he is not in the office. He comes to the office every other day only.He thought that his computer was safely insulated from third parties, and that he alone had access to it. He was surprised to discover, when reports of the bar leakage broke out, that his computer was in fact interconnected with the computers of his nine (9) assistant attorneys (tsn, pp. 30,45). As a matter of fact, the employees - Jovito M. Salonga and Benjamin R. Katly - of the Courts Management Information Systems Office (MISO) who, upon the request of Atty. Balgos, were directed by the Investigating Committee to inspect the computer system in his office, reported that there were 16, not 9, computers connected to each otherviaLocal Area Network (LAN) and one (1) stand-alone computer connected to the internet (Exh. M). Atty. Balgos law partner, former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez, also had a computer, but Perez took it away when he became the Secretary of Justice.The nine (9) assistant attorneys with computers, connected to Attorney Balgos computer, are:1.Zorayda Zosobrado (she resigned in July 2003)2.Claravel Javier3.Rolynne Torio4.Mark Warner Rosal5.Charlynne Subia6.Danilo De Guzman (resigned onOctober 22, 2003[Exh. D])7.Enrico G. Velasco, managing partner8.Concepcion De losSantos9.Pamela June JalandoniUpon learning from Justice Vitug of the leakage of the bar questions prepared by him in mercantile law, Atty. Balgos immediately called together and questioned his office staff. He interrogated all of them except Atty. Danilo De Guzman who was absent then. All of them professed to know nothing about the bar leakage.He questioned Silvestre Atienza, the office manager, Atienza is only a second year law student at MLQU. But he is an expert in installing and operating computers. It was he and/or his brother Gregorio who interconnected the computers in the law office, including Attorney Balgos computer, without the latters knowledge and permission.Atienza admitted to Attorney Balgos that he participated in the bar operations or bar ops of the Beta Sigma Lambda law fraternity of which he is a member, but he clarified that his participation consisted only of bringing food to the MLQU bar examinees (Tsn, pp. 46-47, Oct. 24, 2003).The next day, Attorney Balgos questioned Attorney Danilo De Guzman, also a member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity, FEU chapter. De Guzman admitted to him that he downloaded the test questions from Attorney Balgos computer and faxed a copy to a fraternity brother. Attorney Balgos was convinced that De Guzman was the source of the leakage of his test questions in mercantile law (Tsn, p. 52, Oct. 24, 2003).Attorney Balgos prepared a COMPARISON (Exh. E) of the juxtaposed final bar questions and his proposed test questions, with marginal markings made by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza (Ret.), indicating whether the questions are similar: (S); or different: (D), together with the percentage points corresponding to each question. On the basis of this comparative table and Atty. Balgos indications as to which questions were the same or different from those given in the final questionnaire, Justice Mendoza computed the credit points contained in the proposed leaked questions. The proposed questions constituted 82% of the final bar questions. Attached to this Report as Annex A is the comparative table and the computation of credit points marked as Exh. E-1.CHERYL PALMA, 34 years old, private secretary of Attorney Balgos for the past six years, testified that she did not type the test questions. She admitted, however, that it was she who formatted the questions and printed one copy as directed by her employer. She confirmed Atty. Balgos testimony regarding her participation in the operation of his personal computer. She disclosed that what appears in Atty. Balgos computer can be seen in the neighborhood network if the other computers are open and not in use; that Silvestre Atienza of the accounting section, can access Atty. Balgos computer when the latter is open and not in use.ATTORNEY ENRICO VELASCO, managing partner of the firm, testified that onOctober 16, 2003, he sent De Guzman a memo (Exh. C) giving him 72 hours to explain in writing why you should not be terminated for causing the Firm an undeserved condemnation and dishonor because of the leakage aforesaid.OnOctober 22, 2003, De Guzman handed in his resignation effective immediately. He explained that:Causing the firm, its partners and members to suffer from undeserved condemnation and humiliation is not only farthest from, but totally out of, my mind. It is just unfortunate that the incident subject matter of your memorandum occurred. Rest assured, though, that I have never been part of any deliberate scheme to malign the good reputation and integrity of the firm, its partners and members. (Exh. D)DANILO DE GUZMAN testified that he joined Balgos & Perez in April 2000. He obtained his LLB degree from FEU in 1998. As a student, he was an awardee for academic excellence. He passed the 1998 bar examinations with a grade of 86.4%. In FEU, he joined the Beta Sigma Lambda law fraternity which has chapters in MLQU, UE and MSU (MindanaoStateUniversity). As a member of the fraternity, he was active during bar examinations and participated in the fraternitys bar ops.He testified that sometime in May 2003, when he was exploring Atty. Balgos computer, (which he often did without the owners knowledge or permission), to download materials which he thought might be useful to save for future use, he found and downloaded the test questions in mercantile law consisting of 12 pages. He allegedly thought they were quizzers for a book that Atty. Balgos might be preparing. He saved them in his hard disk.He thought of faxing the test questions to one of his fraternity brods, a certain Ronan Garvida who, De Guzman thought, was taking the 2003 bar examinations. Garvida is also a law graduate from FEU. He had taken the 2002 bar examinations, but did not pass.OnSeptember 17, 2003, four days before the mercantile law bar examination, DeGuzman faxed a copy of the 12-page-test questions (Exhs. I, I-1, I-2, I-3) to Garvida because earlier he was informed by Garvida that he was retaking the bar examinations. He advised Garvida to share the questions with other Betan examinees. He allegedly did not charge anything for the test questions. Later, after the examination was over, Garvida texted (sent a text message on his cell phone) him (De Guzman), that he did not take the bar examination.Besides Garvida, De Guzman faxed the mercantile law bar questions to another fraternity brother named Arlan (surname unknown), through Reynita (Nanette) Villasis, his secretary (Tsn, pp. 20-28, Oct. 29, 2003). But he himself faxed the questions to still another brod named Erwin Tan who had helped him during the bar ops in 1998 when he (De Guzman) took the bar examinations (Id., p. 28). He obtained the cell phone numbers of Arlan and Erwin Tan from Gabby Tanpiengco whom he informed by text message, that they were guide questions, not tips, in the mercantile law examination.When he was confronted by Attorney Velasco on Wednesday after the examination, (news of the leakage was already in all the newspapers), De Guzman admitted to Attorney Velasco that he faxed the questions to his fraternity brothers, but he did not reveal where he got the testquestions.De Guzman received a text message from Erwin Tan acknowledging that he received the test questions. However, Erwin informed him that the questions were kalat na kalat (all over the place) even if he did not share them with others (Tsn, pp. 54-55, Oct. 29, 2003).De Guzman also contacted Garvida who informed him that he gave copies of the test questions to Betans Randy Iigo and James Bugain.Arlan also texted De Guzman that almost all the questions were asked in the examination. Erwin Tan commented that many of the leaked questions were asked in the examination, pero hindi exacto; mi binago (they were not exactly the same; there were some changes).De Guzman tried to text Garvida, but he received no response.De Guzman disclosed that he learned how to operate a computer from Silvestre Atienza, the office manager, and through self-study, by asking those who are knowledgeable on computers. He has been using computers since 1997, and he bought his own computer in 2001, a Pentium 3, which he uses at home.REYNITA VILLASIS, the 36-year-old legal secretary of Attorney De Guzman, submitted her affidavit (Exh. F) and orally affirmed her participation in the reproduction and transmittal by fax of the leaked test questions in mercantile law to Ronan Garvida and Arlan, as testified by De Guzman.RONAN GARVIDA, appeared before the Investigating Committee in compliance with the subpoena that was issued to him. Garvida graduated from FEU College of Law in 2000. He is about 32 years of age. While still a student in 1998, he was afflicted with multiple sclerosis or MS, a disease of the nervous system that attacks the nerve sheaths of the brain and spinal cord. It is a chronic disabling disease although it may have periods of remission. It causes its victim to walk with erratic, stiff and staggering gait; the hands and fingers may tremble in performing simple actions; the eyesight can be impaired, and speech may be slow and slurred (p. 737, Vol. 2, Readers Digest Medical Encyclopedia, 1971 Ed., compiled by Benjamin F. Miller, M.D.). All these symptoms were present when Garvida testified before the Committee onNovember 6, 2003to answer its questions regarding his involvement in the leakage of the examiners test questions in mercantile law.Garvida testified that when he was a freshman at FEU, he became a member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity where he met and was befriended by Attorney De Guzman who was his senior by one and a half years. Although they had been out of touch since he went home to the province on account of the recurrence of his illness, De Guzman was able [to] get this cell phone number from his compadre, Atty. Joseph Pajara. De Guzman told Garvida that he was faxing him possible questions in the bar examination in mercantile law. Because the test questions had no answers, De Guzman stressed that they were not tips but only possible test questions.Garvida had intended to take the 2003 bar examinations. He enrolled in theConsortiumReviewCenterin FEU, paying P10,000.00 as enrollment fee. However, on his way to the Supreme Court to file his application to take the bar examination, he suffered pains in his wrist - symptoms that his MS had recurred. His physician advised him to go to theNationalOrthopedicHospitalinQuezon Cityfor treatment. This he did.He gave up his plan to take the 2003 bar examinations. Nevertheless, he continued to attend the review classes at theConsortiumReviewCenterbecause he did not want to waste completely the P10,000-enrollment fee that he paid for the review course (Nahihinayang ako). That was presumably why De Guzman thought that Garvida was taking the barexams and sent him a copy of the test questions in mercantile law.Upon receipt of the test questions, Garvida faxed a copy to his brod Randy Iigo who was reviewing at theConsortiumReviewCenter. Randy photocopied them for distribution to other fraternity brods. Some of the brods doubted the usefulness of the test questions, but Randy who has a high regard for De Guzman, believed that the questions were tips. Garvida did not fax the questions to any other person than Randy Iigo. He allegedly did not sell the questions to Randy. I could not do that to a brod, he explained.In view of the fact that one of the copies of the leaked test questions (Exh. H) bore on the left margin a rubber stamp composed of the Greek initials BEA-MLQU, indicating that the source of that copy was the Beta Sigma Lambda chapter at MLQU, the Committee subpoenaed Ronald Collado, the Most Illustrious Brother of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity of MLQU.RONALD COLLADO is a senior law student at the MLQU. He admitted that his fraternity conducted Bar Ops for the 2003 bar exams. Bar Ops are the biggest activity of the fraternity every year. They start as soon as new officers of the fraternity are elected in June, and they continue until the bar examinations are over. The bar operations consist of soliciting funds from alumni brods and friends to be spent in reproducing bar review materials for the use of their barristers (bar candidates) in the various review centers, providing meals for their brod-barristers on examination days; and to rent a bar site or place near De la Salle University where the examinees and the frat members can convene and take their meals during the break time. The Betans bar site for the 2003 bar examinations was located onLeon Guinto Street, Malate. On September 19 and 21, before [the] start of the examination, Collados fraternity distributed bar review materials for the mercantile law examination to the examinees who came to the bar site. The test questions (Exh. H) were received by Collado from a brod, Alan Guiapal, who had received them from Randy Iigo.Collado caused 30 copies of the test questions to be printed with the logo and initials of the fraternity (BEA-MLQU) for distribution to the 30 MLQU examinees taking the bar exams. Because of time constraints, frat members were unable to answer the test questions despite the clamor for answers, so, they were given out as is - without answers.DEAN EDUARDO J. F. ABELLA of theJoseRizalUniversitylaw school inMandaluyongCity, was the reviewer in Mercantile Law and Practical Exercises at theLexReviewCenterwhich is operated by the Lex Review & Seminars Inc., of which Dean Abella is one of the incorporators. He learned about the leakage of test questions in mercantile law when he was delivering the pre-week lecture on Legal Forms at theArellanoUniversity. The leaked questions were shown to him by his secretary, Jenylyn Domingo, after the mercantile law exam. He missed the Saturday lecture in mercantile law because he was suffering from a touch of flu. He gave his last lecture on the subject on Wednesday or Thursday before the exam. He denied having bought or obtained and distributed the leaked test questions in Mercantile Law to the bar reviewees in theLexReviewCenter.F I N D I N G SThe Committee finds that the leaked test questions in Mercantile Law were the questions which the examiner, Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos, had prepared and submitted to Justice Jose C. Vitug, as chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee. The questions constituted 82% of the questions asked in the examination in Mercantile Law in the morning ofSeptember 21, 2003, Sunday, in some cases with slight changes which were not substantial and in other cases exactly as proposed by Atty. Balgos. Hence, any bar examinee who was able to get hold of the leaked questions before the mercantile law examination and answered them correctly, would have been assured of passing the examination with at least a grade of 82%!The circumstance that the leaked test questions consisted entirely of test questions prepared by Atty. Balgos, proves conclusively that the leakage originated from his office, not from the Office of Justice Vitug, the Bar ExaminationsChairman.Atty. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were prepared by him on his computer. Without any doubt,the source of the leaked test questions was Atty. Balgos computer. The culprit who stole or downloaded them from Atty. Balgos computer without the latters knowledge and consent, and who faxed them to other persons, was Atty. Balgos legal assistant, Attorney Danilo De Guzman, who voluntarily confessed the deed to the Investigating Committee. De Guzman revealed that he faxed the test questions, with the help of his secretary Reynita Villasis, to his fraternity brods, namely, Ronan Garvida, Arlan (whose surname he could not recall), and Erwin Tan.In turn, Ronan Garvida faxed the test questions to Betans Randy Iigo and James Bugain.Randy Iigo passed a copy or copies of the same questions to another Betan, Alan Guiapal, who gave a copy to the MLQU-Beta Sigma [Lambdas] Most Illustrious Brother, Ronald F. Collado, who ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies to the MLQUs 30 bar candidates.Attorney Danilo De Guzmans act of downloading Attorney Balgos test questions in mercantile law from the latters computer, without his knowledge and permission, was a criminal act of larceny. It was theft of intellectual property; the test questions were intellectual property of Attorney Balgos, being the product of his intellect and legal knowledge.Besides theft, De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of Attorney Balgos right to privacy of communication, and to security of his papers and effects against unauthorized search and seizure - rights zealously protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution (Sections 2 and 3, Article III, 1987 Constitution).He transgressed the very first canon of the lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that [a] lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, possibly for pecuniary profit and to given them undue advantage over the other examiners in the mercantile law examination, De Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the examination, which is violativeof Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar, which provide:Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conductCanon 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. He violated the law instead of promoting respect for it and degraded the noble profession of law instead of upholding its dignity and integrity. His actuations impaired public respect for the Court, and damaged the integrity of the bar examinations as the final measure of a law graduates academic preparedness to embark upon the practice of law.However, the Investigating Committee does not believe that De Guzman was solely responsible for the leakage of Atty. Balgos proposed test questions in the mercantile law examination. The Committee does not believe that he acted alone, or did not have the assistance and cooperation of other persons, such as:Cheryl Palma, Atty. Balgos private secretary, who, according to Atty. Balgos himself, was the only person who knew the password, who could open and close his computer; and who had the key to his office where his computer was kept. Since a computer may not be accessed or downloaded unless it is opened, someone must have opened Atty. Balgos computer in order for De Guzman to retrieve the test questions stored therein.Silvestre Atienza, also a fraternity brod of De Guzman, who was responsible for interconnecting Atty. Balgos computer with the other computers outside Atty. Balgos room or office, and who was the only other person, besides Cheryl Palma, who knew the password of Atty. Balgos computer.The following persons who received from De Guzman, and distributed copies of the leaked test questions, appear to have conspired with him to steal and profit from the sale of the test questions. They could not have been motivated solely by a desire to help the fraternity, for the leakage was widespread (kalat na kalat) according to Erwin Tan. The possible co-conspirators were:Ronan Garvida,Arlan,Erwin Tan,Randy Iigo,Ronald Collado, andAllan GuiapalThe Committee does not believe that De Guzman recklessly broke the law and risked his job and future as a lawyer, out of love for the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity. There must have been an ulterior material consideration for his breaking the law and tearing the shroud of secrecy that, he very well knows, covers the bar examinations.On the other hand, the Committee finds that the theft of the test questions from Atty. Balgos computer could have been avoided if Atty. Balgos had exercised due diligence in safeguarding the secrecy of the test questions which he prepared. As the computer is a powerful modern machine which he admittedly is not fairly familiar with, he should not have trusted it to deep secret the test questions that he stored in its hard disk. He admittedly did not know the password of his computer. He relied on his secretary to use the password to open and close his computer. He kept his computer in a room to which other persons had access. Unfamiliar with the use of the machine whose potential for mischief he could not have been totally unaware of, he should have avoided its use for so sensitive an undertaking as typing the questions in the bar examination. After all he knew how to use the typewriter in the use of which he is quite proficient. Atty. Balgos should therefore have prepared the test questions in his trusty typewriter, in the privacy of his home, (instead of his law office), where they would have been safe from the prying eyes of secretaries and assistant attorneys. Atty. Balgos negligence in the preparation and safekeeping of his proposed test questions for the bar examination in mercantile law, wasnot the proximate cause of the bar leakage; it was, in fact, the root cause. For, if he had taken those simple precautions to protect the secrecy of his papers, nobody could have stolen them and copied and circulated them. The integrity of the bar examinations would not have been sullied by the scandal. He admitted that Malisiguro ako, but that was what happened (43 tsn,Oct. 24, 2003).R E C O M M E N D A T I O NThis Honorable court in the case of Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002, 383 SCRA 276, pronounced the following reminder for lawyers: Members of the bar must do nothing that may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, the honesty and integrity of the profession. In another case, it likewise intoned: We cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He can do this by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. (Reyes v. Javier, A.C. No. 5574,February 2, 2002, 375 SCRA 538). It goes without saying that a lawyer who violates this precept of the profession by committing a gross misconduct which dishonors and diminishes the publics respect for the legal profession, should be disciplined.After careful deliberation, the Investigating Committee recommends that:1.Attorney Danilo De Guzman be DISBARRED for he had shown that he is morally unfit to continue as a member of the legal profession, for grave dishonesty, lack of integrity, and criminal behavior. In addition, he should make a written PUBLIC APOLOGY and pay DAMAGES to the Supreme Court for involving it in another bar scandal, causing the cancellation of the mercantile law examination, and wreaking havoc upon the image of this institution.2.Attorney Marcial O. T. Balgos should be REPRIMANDED by the Court and likewise be required to make a written APOLOGY to the Court for the public scandal he brought upon it as a result of his negligence and lack of due care in preparing and safeguarding his proposed test questions in mercantile law. As the Court had to cancel the Mercantile Law examination on account of the leakage ofAttorney Balgos test questions, which comprised 82% of the bar questions in that examination, Atty. Balgos is not entitled to receive any honorarium as examiner for that subject.3.FURTHER INVESTIGATION of Danilo De Guzman, Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Arlan, Erwin Tan, Randy Iigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado and Allan Guiapal by the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police, with a view to their criminal prosecution as probable co-conspirators in the theft and leakage of the test questions in mercantile law.With regard to recommending measures to safeguard the integrity of the bar examinations and prevent a repetition of future leakage in the said examinations, inasmuch as this matter is at present under study by the Courts Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, as an aspect of proposals for bar reforms, the Investigating Committee believes it would be well-advised to refrain from including in this report what may turn out to be duplicative, if not contrary, recommendations on the matter.[3]The Court adopts the report, including with some modifications the recommendation, of the Investigating Committee. The Court, certainly will not countenance any act or conduct that can impair not only the integrity of the Bar Examinations but the trust reposed on the Court.The Court also takes note that Mr. Jovito M. Salonga and Mr. Benjamin R. Katly, two of its employees assigned to the Management Information Systems Office (MISO), who were tasked by the Investigating Committee to inspect the computer system in the office of Atty. Balgos, found that the Courts Computer-Assisted Legal Research (CALR)database[4]was installed in the computer used by Atty. Balgos. Mr. Salonga and Mr. Katly reported that the system, which was developed by the MISO, was intended for the exclusive use of the Court. The installation thereof to any external computer would be unauthorized without the permission of the Court. Atty. Velasco informed the two Court employees that the CALR database was installed by Atty. De Guzman on the computer being used by Atty. Balgos. The matter would also need further investigation to determine how Atty. De Guzman was able to obtain a copy of the Courts CALR database.WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the recommendations of the Investigating Committee, hereby resolves to -(1)DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of law effective upon his receipt of this RESOLUTION;(2)REPRIMAND Atty. MARCIAL O.T. BALGOS and DISENTITLE him from receiving anyhonorariumas an Examiner in Mercantile Law;(3)Direct the National Bureau of Investigation (a) to undertake further investigation of Danilo De Guzman, Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, Ronan Garvida, Erwin Tan, Randy Iigo, James Bugain, Ronald Collado and Allan Guiapal with a view to determining their participation and respective accountabilities in the bar examination leakage and to conduct an investigation on how Danilo De Guzman was able to secure a copy of the Supreme Courts CALR database.Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of the records of Danilo De Guzman in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of thePhilippines, and copies to be furnished the Integrated Bar of thePhilippinesand circulated by the Office of the Court Administrator to all courts.SO ORDERED.