4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

A.C. No. 5161. August 25, 2015.*

 
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A
MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.

Attorneys; Reinstatement to the Bar; When exercising its

inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court should see to it
that only those who establish their present moral fitness and
knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar.—“Membership
in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is not a
natural, absolute or constitutional right granted to everyone who
demands it, but rather, a special privilege granted and continued
only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual
attainment and in moral character. The same reasoning applies to
reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When exercising its inherent
power to grant reinstatement, the Court should see to it that only
those who establish their present moral fitness and knowledge of
the law will be readmitted to the Bar. Thus, though the doors to
the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred
attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as
to the general public to ensure that if the doors are opened, it is
done so only as a matter of justice.”
Same; Same; The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement
to the practice of law is whether the lawyer has sufficiently
rehabilitated himself or herself in conduct and character.—“The
basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law
is whether the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated
himself or herself in conduct and character. Whether the
applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a
great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The lawyer has
to demonstrate and prove by clear and convincing evidence that
he or she is again worthy of membership in the Bar. The Court
will take into consideration his or her character and standing
prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s
for which he or she was disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent
to the disbarment, and the time that has

_______________

*  EN BANC

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

 
 
150

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for

reinstatement.”
Same; Same; Judicial Clemency; Guidelines Laid Down by the
Supreme Court (SC) in Resolving Requests for Judicial Clemency.
—In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial
Clemency, 533 SCRA 534 (2007), the Court laid down the
following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to
wit: 1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or
testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent
members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A
subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same
or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of
non-reformation. 2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform. 3. The age
of the person asking for clemency must show that he still
has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good
use by giving him a chance to redeem himself. 4. There
must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual
aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal
scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as
potential for public service. 5. There must be other relevant
factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.
Same; Same; Same; The principle which should hold true not
only for judges but also for lawyers, being officers of the court, is
that judicial “[c]lemency, as an act of mercy removing any
disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of
public confidence in the courts.—While more than ten (10) years
had already passed since his disbarment on April 14, 2004,
respondent’s present petition has failed to show substantial proof
of his reformation as required in the first guideline above. The
principle which should hold true not only for judges but also for
lawyers, being officers of the court, is that judicial “[c]lemency, as
an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced
with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. Thus, the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited.

Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and
promise are indispensable.”

 
 

151

VOL. 768, AUGUST 25, 2015 151

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

Same; Same; It should be discerned that the root cause of

respondent’s disbarment was his fraudulent acts against his sister-
in-law, the complainant herein. However, no proof was presented
to show that he had reconciled or even attempted to reconcile with
her so as to show remorse for his previous faults.—More
significantly, it should be discerned that the root cause of
respondent’s disbarment was his fraudulent acts against his
sister-in-law, the complainant herein. However, no proof was
presented to show that he had reconciled or even attempted to
reconcile with her so as to show remorse for his previous faults.
The dismissal of the criminal complaint against him for estafa
Through Falsification of Public Documents, filed by complainant
is no proof of remorse since the same was based on lack of
probable cause. Likewise, its dismissal, could not prove that he
was actually innocent of the administrative charges against him,
since the parameters and considerations of an administrative case
are evidently different from that in a criminal case. As in this
case, the lack of probable cause against respondent as found by
the prosecutor does not negate his administrative liability already
adjudged by this Court. That the prosecutor found that
respondent “merely rendered legal services to the Ting siblings”
does not mean that he rendered the same in accordance with the
lawyer’s oath and ethical canons.
Same; Same; While the Court sympathizes with the
predicaments of disbarred lawyers — may it be financial or
reputational in cause — it stands firm in its commitment to the
public to preserve the integrity and esteem of the Bar.—While the
Court sympathizes with the predicaments of disbarred lawyers —
may it be financial or reputational in cause — it stands firm in its
commitment to the public to preserve the integrity and esteem of
the Bar. As held in a previous case, “in considering [a lawyer’s]
application for reinstatement to the practice of law, the duty of
the Court is to determine whether he has established moral
reformation and rehabilitation, disregarding its feeling of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

sympathy or pity.” Ultimately, with the above discussed

guidelines not complied with, the Court has to be objective and,
therefore, denies the petition.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Petition

for Reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

 
 

151

VOL. 768, AUGUST 25, 2015 151

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

RESOLUTION
 
PER CURIAM:
 
For resolution is the Petition1 filed by respondent
Rolando S. Torres (respondent) who seeks judicial clemency
in order to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.
Records show that respondent was administratively
charged by his sister-in-law, complainant Isidra Ting-
Dumali (complainant), for “presentation of false testimony;
participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against,
the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed
of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in
court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery.”2 The
particular charges are:

According to the complainant, the respondent took advantage

of his relationship with her and her brothers and used his
profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if
it involved the commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act.
She attributes to the respondent the following acts or omissions:

1. The respondent participated in,

consented to, and failed to advise against,
the perjury committed by his wife
Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam
when they executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate dated 11 November
1986, wherein the two made it appear that
they were the sole heirs of the late spouses
Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting, knowing
fully well that the same was false. He
presented that document to the Register of
Deeds of Cavite for the transfer of the title

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768
over Lot No. 1586 in the names of his wife
and Miriam. The lot was later sold to Antel

_______________

1  Dated June 11, 2015. Rollo, pp. 437-442.

2  Id., at pp. 241-242.

 
 
153

VOL. 768, AUGUST 25, 2015 153

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

Holdings[,] Inc. for P1,195,400.

Payment was already made to, and
received by, Felicisima and Miriam.
2. The respondent participated in,
consented to, and failed to advise
against, the forgery of complainant’s
signature in a purported Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement dated 17
March 1995 involving Lot 1603 when
he knew that she was in Italy at that
time working as an overseas contract
worker. He even presented the falsified
document to the Register of Deeds of
Cavite to transfer the title over the
property in favor of his wife Felicisima
and sister-in-law Marcelina. The
forgery or falsification was made to
enable them to sell Lot 1603 to Antel
Holdings, Inc. Payment was received
and misappropriated by Felicisima and
Marcelina.
3. In LRC Rec. No. 5964 entitled In
Re: Petition for Judicial Reconstitution
of the Original Copy and Owner’s
Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-1869
Covering Lot No. 1605 of the Registry of
Deeds for the Province of Cavite, filed
by complainant’s sisters Marcelina and
Felicisima on 24 October 1995, the
respondent made gross
misrepresentation and offered false
testimony to the effect that Marcelina
and Felicisima are the only children
and legal heirs of the late spouses
Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante for
the purpose of obtaining a new title in
their names. With the reconstituted

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

title, and with the express conformity

of the respondent, Felicisima and
Marcelina were able to sell Lot 1605 to
Antel Holdings, Inc., for P2,213,100
and profited from the sale to the
exclusion of their other siblings. Partial
payment was even received pending
the reconstitution proceedings.
4. On 20 November 1996, the
respondent made gross and false
misrepresentations

 
 

154

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

for the purpose of profiting therefrom

when he requested the buyer through a
certain Mrs. Ong to release the full
payment for Lot 1605 under the
pretense that the order of
reconstitution would be released within
a month when he knew that it would be
impossible because he presented
evidence in the reconstitution case only
on 12 August 1997. To facilitate the
release of the money, he even used the
stationery of the Philippine National
Bank, of which he was an employee.3

 
In a Resolution4 dated April 14, 2004, the Court found
merit in the complaint and, thus, held respondent guilty of
gross misconduct and of violating the lawyer’s oath, as well
as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, resulting in his disbarment from the
practice of law:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent

Atty. Rolando S. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of
the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered
DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.  
x x x x5

 
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

Aggrieved, respondent filed on May 20, 2004 a Motion

for Reconsideration6 of the aforesaid Resolution, which the
Court denied with finality in the Resolution7 dated June
29, 2004.

_______________

3  Id., at pp. 242-244.

4  Id., at pp. 241-252.  See also Ting-Dumali v. Torres, 471 Phil. 1; 427
SCRA 108 (2004).
5   Rollo, p. 251; emphases in the original. See also Ting-Dumali v.
Torres, id., at p. 15; p. 120.
6  Dated May 17, 2004. Rollo, pp. 254-281.
7   Id., at p. 296.

 
 
155

VOL. 768, AUGUST 25, 2015 155

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

Unperturbed, he filed on September 15, 2004 a Motion

for Leave to File and Admit Second Motion for
Reconsideration,8 which the Court denied for lack of merit
in the Resolution9 dated November 9, 2004, stating that
“[n]o further pleadings will be entertained.”
On January 26, 2006, respondent filed an Ex-Parte
Motion to Lift Disbarment10 begging that compassion,
mercy, and understanding be bestowed upon him by the
Court in that his disbarment be lifted. The same was,
however, expunged from the records in a Resolution11
dated June 13, 2006.
Still insistent, respondent wrote letters addressed to
former Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga12 and former
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban,13 reiterating his
pleas for compassion and mercy. However, these letters
were similarly expunged from the records in a Resolution14
dated September 5, 2006, considering the previous
directive that no further pleadings will be further
entertained in this case. These were followed by numerous
submissions either seeking his reinstatement to the bar15
or the reduction of his penalty of disbarment to
suspension,16 all of which were either expunged from the
records17 or denied18 by the Court.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

_______________

8   Dated September 13, 2004. Id., at pp. 303-344.

9   Id., at p. 345.
10  Dated January 26, 2006. Id., at pp. 346-349.
11  Id., at p. 355.
12  Dated August 1, 2006. Id., at pp. 356-357.
13  Id., at pp. 366-367.
14  Id., at p. 362.
15   See letter dated April 28, 2007 addressed to former Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno (id., at p. 376); Petition for Reinstatement dated October
30, 2009 (see envelope, id., at p. 386).
16   See Petition for Reduction of Penalty from Disbarment to
Suspension filed on January 14, 2011; id., at pp. 389-393.
17  Id., at pp. 383 and 388.
18  Id., at p. 417.

 
 
156

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

More than ten (10) years from his disbarment, or on

June 23, 2015, respondent filed the instant Petition once
more seeking judicial clemency from the Court to reinstate
him in the Roll of Attorneys.  
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
“Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. It is not a natural, absolute or constitutional
right granted to everyone who demands it, but rather, a
special privilege granted and continued only to those who
demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and
in moral character. The same reasoning applies to
reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When exercising its
inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court should
see to it that only those who establish their present moral
fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the
Bar. Thus, though the doors to the practice of law are never
permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the Court
owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to the general
public to ensure that if the doors are opened, it is done so
only as a matter of justice.”19
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

 “The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to the

practice of law is whether the lawyer has sufficiently
rehabilitated himself or herself in conduct and
character. Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in
the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound
discretion of the Court. The lawyer has to demonstrate and
prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is
again worthy of membership in the Bar. The Court will
take into consideration his or her character and standing
prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the
charge/s for which he or she was disbarred, his or her
conduct subsequent to the dis-

_______________

19   See Que v. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 7054, November 11, 2014, 739
SCRA 459; citations omitted.

 
 

157

VOL. 768, AUGUST 25, 2015 157

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

barment, and the time that has elapsed in between the

disbarment and the application for reinstatement.”20
In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for
Judicial Clemency,21 the Court laid down the following
guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to
wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and
reformation. These shall include but should not be
limited to certifications or testimonials of the
officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, judges or judges associations and
prominent members of the community with proven
integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in
an administrative case for the same or similar
misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of
non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition
of the penalty to ensure a period of reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must
show that he still has productive years ahead of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

him that can be put to good use by giving him a

chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as
intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen
or contribution to legal scholarship and the
development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as
well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and
circumstances that may justify clemency.22 (emphases
and underscoring supplied)

_______________

20  Id.; emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted.

21  560 Phil. 1; 533 SCRA 534 (2007).
22  Id., at pp. 5-6; p. 539.

 
 

158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court

finds that the instant petition is not meritorious.
While more than ten (10) years had already passed since
his disbarment on April 14, 2004, respondent’s present
petition has failed to show substantial proof of his
reformation as required in the first guideline above.
The principle which should hold true not only for judges
but also for lawyers, being officers of the court, is that
judicial “[c]lemency, as an act of mercy removing any
disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation
of public confidence in the courts. Thus, the Court will
grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof
of reformation and a showing of potential and
promise are indispensable.”23
In this case, the only ostensible proof of reformation that
respondent has presented is a Certification24 dated June 5,
2015 signed by Reverend Nelson D. Feranil, Administrative
Pastor of the Buenavista Evangelical Church in General
Trias, Cavite, which generally states that respondent,
“before and after his disbarment,” has been “assisting the
poor and indigent litigants in our community,” and that “he
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

has been very active in spreading the [w]ords and gospel of

the Almighty God[,] being an active member of the Couples
of Christ FFL.” Aside from these bare statements, no other
proof was presented to specify the actual engagements or
activities by which respondent had rendered free legal
services to indigents or had ministered to the members of
his community or church, hence, insufficient to
demonstrate any form of consistency in his supposed desire
to reform.
The other testimonials which respondent submits,
particularly that of Atty. Teofilo Pugeda Jr., who stated
that “[a]s a former law practitioner, [respondent] is
humble, simple,

_______________

23   Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of

Quezon City, Br. 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency, supra note 21 at p.
5; p. 538.
24  Rollo, p. 465.

 
 
159

VOL. 768, AUGUST 25, 2015 159

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

and respectful to fellow lawyers, Court Personnel, and the

Presiding Judge,” and that “[h]e used to give free legal
advice and assisted indigent litigants in their court
cases,”25 and that of Atty. Manuel Medina, retired City
Prosecutor of Cavite, who stated that “[d]uring my years as
Prosecutor x  x  x I always met him in the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite City where I can say in all honesty and
candor that he was an exemplary officer of the court,
punctual[,] and always prepared in handling his court
cases,”26 all relate to conduct or attributions prior to
respondent’s disbarment; hence, these are incompetent
evidence to prove his reformation which connotes
consistent improvement subsequent to his disbarment.  
In similar vein, the testimonials attached to his previous
Motion for Reconsideration27 filed on May 20, 2004 which
he now incorporates in support of his present
petition,28 is equally insufficient to conclude that he has
already reformed. This is because all these testimonials
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

were executed in May 2004.29 Thus, they can only attest to

respondent’s conduct or attributions a mere month
removed from his disbarment on April 14, 2004.
More significantly, it should be discerned that the root
cause of respondent’s disbarment was his fraudulent acts
against his sister-in-law, the complainant herein. However,
no proof was presented to show that he had reconciled or
even attempted to reconcile with her so as to show remorse
for his previous faults. The dismissal of the criminal
complaint against him for estafa Through Falsification of
Public Documents, filed by complainant is no proof of
remorse since the

_______________

25  See Certification dated May 29, 2015; id., at p. 463.

26  See Certification dated June 5, 2015; id., at p. 464.
27  Id., at pp. 254-281.
28  Id., at p. 440.
29  See various certifications dated May 17, 18, and 19, 2004; id., at pp.
283-295.

 
 
160

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

same was based on lack of probable cause.30 Likewise, its

dismissal, could not prove that he was actually innocent of
the administrative charges against him, since the
parameters and considerations of an administrative case
are evidently different from that in a criminal case. As in
this case, the lack of probable cause against respondent as
found by the prosecutor does not negate his administrative
liability already adjudged by this Court. That the
prosecutor found that respondent “merely rendered legal
services to the Ting siblings”31 does not mean that he
rendered the same in accordance with the lawyer’s oath
and ethical canons.
To add, no other evidence was presented in his Petition
to demonstrate his potential for public service, or that he —
now being 68 years of age32 — still has productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

chance to redeem himself. Thus, the third and fourth

guidelines were neither complied with.
While the Court sympathizes with the predicaments of
disbarred lawyers — may it be financial or reputational in
cause — it stands firm in its commitment to the public to
preserve the integrity and esteem of the Bar. As held in a
previous case, “in considering [a lawyer’s] application for
reinstatement to the practice of law, the duty of the Court
is to determine whether he has established moral
reformation and rehabilitation, disregarding its feeling of
sympathy or pity.”33 Ultimately, with the above discussed
guidelines not complied with, the Court has to be objective
and, therefore, denies the petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

_______________

30  Id., at pp. 440-441. See also Resolution dated June 27, 2007 of the
Department of Justice in I.S. Nos. 99-1995 to 99-1997, penned by then
Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez; id., at pp. 444-447.
31  Id., at p. 446.
32  Id., at p. 419.
33  Supra note 19.

 
 
161

VOL. 768, AUGUST 25, 2015 161

RE: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of
Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar

SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Perlas-Bernabe,
Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., On Leave.
Villarama, Jr., On Official Leave.
Mendoza, J., No part.
Reyes, J., On Leave.

Petition denied.

Note.—Given the gravity of respondent’s

transgressions, it becomes more imperative to require
factual support for respondent’s allegations of remorse and
reform. (Ali vs. Pacalna, 710 SCRA 632 [2013])
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
4/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 768

 
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171a46560fadc5b53ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14