FACTS:

In 2003, there was a rumored leakage in the Mercantile Law bar examination. Chief Justice Davide and the other members of the Court recommended nullifying the examination and conducting an investigation. The Court decided to cancel the examination and spread out the weight of Mercantile Law among the other subjects. An Investigating Committee was formed to investigate the leakage and suggest measures to protect the integrity of future bar examinations.

Justice Vitug, the chairman of the Bar Examinations Committee, was informed about a leaked copy of the test questions before the examination. The leaked questions were found to be the same ones prepared by the examiner, Atty. Balgos. Chief Justice Davide and Justice Vitug received reports of the leakage from other sources as well.

One of the law clerks in Justice Vitug's office testified that the leaked questions came from a co-bar reviewee at the Garden Plaza Hotel who was also enrolled in a review class at Lex Review Center.

Atty. Balgos, the examiner in Mercantile Law, prepared the test questions on his computer. He entrusted the sealed envelope containing the questions to Justice Vitug's assistant. It was later discovered that one of Balgos' assistant attorneys, Danilo De Guzman, downloaded the questions from Balgos' computer and leaked them to a fraternity brother. De Guzman ultimately resigned from his position in October 2003.

De Guzman, during the investigation, denied being part of any clandestine group planning to defame the law firm he worked for and claimed that the documents presented against him were fabricated.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Atty. De Guzman leaked the test questions for the bar examinations.

2. Whether or not Atty. De Guzman should be held liable for the leakage of the test questions.

3. Whether or not Garvida received the leaked test questions in mercantile law from Attorney De Guzman.

4. Whether or not Garvida distributed the leaked test questions to his fraternity brothers.

5. Whether or not Dean Abella obtained and distributed the leaked test questions to the bar reviewees in the Lex Review Center.

6. Whether the leaked test questions originated from Atty. Balgos' office and if his assistant, Atty. Danilo De Guzman, was responsible for the theft and distribution of the test questions.

7. Whether Atty. De Guzman's actions constituted larceny, violated Atty. Balgos' right to privacy and security of his papers, and violated ethical and professional standards.

8. Whether other individuals, such as Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, and those who received and distributed the leaked test questions, conspired with Atty. De Guzman.

9. Whether Atty. Balgos' negligence in the preparation and safekeeping of the proposed test questions for the bar examination was the proximate cause of the 'bar leakage.'

10. Whether Atty. De Guzman should be disbarred for his involvement in the bar examination leakage.

11. Whether there was a leakage in the 2003 Bar Examination.

12. Whether the Court should investigate the participation and accountabilities of the individuals involved in the leakage.

13. Whether the Court should investigate how Danilo De Guzman obtained a copy of the Court's CALR database.

RULING:

1. Atty. De Guzman admitted to faxing the test questions to his fraternity brothers and receiving acknowledgment from one of them. The evidence presented confirms that the leaked test questions were delivered to multiple individuals. This establishes a prima facie case that Atty. De Guzman leaked the test questions.

2. Atty. De Guzman's act of leaking the test questions constituted a breach of his professional responsibilities and violated the rules and regulations set by the Supreme Court. As an attorney, he is expected to maintain the integrity and confidentiality of bar examination questions. The leakage of the test questions compromised the credibility and fairness of the bar examinations. Atty. De Guzman should be held liable for his actions.

3. The Committee found that Garvida did receive the leaked test questions from Attorney De Guzman.

4. The Committee found that Garvida did distribute the leaked test questions to his fraternity brothers.

5. The Committee found no evidence to support the claim that Dean Abella obtained and distributed the leaked test questions.

6. The leaked test questions originated from Atty. Balgos' office and Atty. De Guzman was responsible for stealing and distributing the test questions.

7. Atty. De Guzman's actions constituted larceny, violated Atty. Balgos' right to privacy and security, and violated ethical and professional standards.

8. Other individuals, such as Cheryl Palma, Silvestre Atienza, and those who received and distributed the leaked test questions, may have conspired with Atty. De Guzman.

9. The negligence of Atty. Balgos in the preparation and safekeeping of the proposed test questions for the bar examination was determined to be the root cause but not the proximate cause of the 'bar leakage.'

10. Atty. De Guzman is disbarred from the practice of law due to grave dishonesty, lack of integrity, and criminal behavior.

11. Yes, there was a leakage in the 2003 Bar Examination.

12. Yes, the Court should investigate the participation and accountabilities of the individuals involved in the leakage.

13. Yes, the Court should investigate how Danilo De Guzman obtained a copy of the Court's CALR database.

PRINCIPLES:

• The integrity and confidentiality of bar examination questions must be maintained to ensure the credibility and fairness of the examinations.

• Attorneys have a professional responsibility to uphold the standards and ethics of the legal profession.

• Breach of professional responsibilities, such as leaking bar examination questions, may result in disciplinary actions.

• The leaking of test questions is a violation of the Bar Examination Rules.

• A person may be held liable for distributing leaked test questions even if they did not sell the questions.

• The act of obtaining and distributing leaked test questions is a grave offense that undermines the integrity of the bar examinations.

• Theft of intellectual property is a criminal act and violates the rights of the creator.

• The right to privacy of communication and security of papers and effects are protected by the Bill of Rights.

• Lawyers are expected to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

• Lawyers have an obligation to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

• Unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct is not allowed for lawyers.

• Cheating or dishonesty in examinations is a violation of ethical standards for lawyers.

• Due diligence should be exercised in safeguarding the secrecy of confidential information.

• Lawyers have a duty to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and any gross misconduct that diminishes the public's respect for the profession may warrant disciplinary action.

• Negligence and lack of due care in preparing and safeguarding test questions for the bar examination can result in disciplinary action, including reprimand and disentitlement from receiving any honorarium as an examiner.

• Further investigation and potential criminal prosecution may be pursued against individuals involved in the theft and leakage of test questions.

• Unauthorized use of the Court's computer system can lead to disciplinary action and further investigation.

• The Supreme Court has the authority to investigate and take appropriate actions on matters involving the integrity of the Bar Examinations.

• The Court has the duty to ensure the fairness and correctness of the Bar Examinations.

• The Court has the power to discipline members of the legal profession.

• The Court has the power to regulate the practice of law in the Philippines.

• The Court has the power to impose penalties for acts that undermine the integrity of the Bar Examinations.