View full case

DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING IN 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS

FACTS:

Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez filed a petition with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) seeking to disqualify Haron S. Meling from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and impose disciplinary penalties on him as a member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar. Melendrez alleged that Meling did not disclose three pending criminal cases against him in his petition to take the Bar Examinations. The cases stemmed from an incident where Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words and physically attacked Melendrez and his wife. Melendrez also claimed that Meling used the title "Attorney" in his communications despite not being a member of the Bar. Meling filed his answer with the OBC, explaining that he did not disclose the cases because he believed they would be settled due to the advice of a retired judge who was their former professor. He denied the charges and argued that the acts complained of did not involve moral turpitude. Regarding the use of the title "Attorney," Meling admitted that some of his communications contained the word but claimed they were typed by the office clerk. The OBC issued a report recommending the dismissal of Meling's non-disclosure defense and finding his use of the title "Attorney" unacceptable.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Meling should be disqualified from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and be imposed with the appropriate disciplinary penalty.

  2. Whether Meling's use of the title "Attorney" in his communications is acceptable.

RULING:

  1. Meling should be disqualified from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and be imposed with the appropriate disciplinary penalty. The Supreme Court held that Meling's non-disclosure of the pending criminal cases against him in his petition to take the Bar Examinations constituted dishonesty, which is a ground for disqualification. The court emphasized that petitions to take the bar examinations are made under oath and should not be taken lightly by an applicant. The court further stated that good moral character includes common honesty, and Meling's act of concealing the cases demonstrated dishonesty.

  2. Meling's use of the title "Attorney" in his communications is not acceptable. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no valid reason for Meling to sign as "attorney" despite being aware that he is not a member of the Bar. Although there was no showing that Meling was engaged in the practice of law, using the title "Attorney" in his communications created a misleading impression that he was authorized to practice law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in a petition to take the Bar Examinations constitutes dishonesty and can be a ground for disqualification.

  • Good moral character includes common honesty.

  • Using the title "Attorney" without being a member of the Bar is not acceptable and creates a misleading impression.