test
IX.A.1–4 – PRACTICE OF LAW & ADMISSION (Batch 1 of 10) – SLIM Q&A BANK (v1)
Q1: OBJECTIONS TO JACTAR'S ADMISSION – GOOD MORAL CHARACTER (2013 BAR)
Question: Miguel Jactar, a fourth-year law student, drove his vehicle recklessly and hit the rear bumper of Simplicio Medroso's vehicle. Instead of stopping, Jactar accelerated and sped away. Medroso pursued Jactar and caught up with him at an intersection. In their confrontation, Jactar dared Medroso to sue, bragged about his connections with the courts, and even uttered veiled threats against Medroso. During the police investigation that followed, Medroso learned that Jactar was reviewing for the Bar examinations. Under these facts, list and justify the potential objections that can be made against Jactar's admission to the practice of law. (2013 BAR)
Type your answer layout (ALAC method) below:
Click to reveal Suggested Bar Answer & Legal Basis
SKELETON ALAC
[A] Yes, objection lies: Jactar lacks the good moral character required for admission.
[L] Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that every applicant for admission to the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident, and must produce satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges involving moral turpitude have been filed or are pending against him. Jurisprudence provides that conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals negates good moral character.
[A] In the case at bar, Jactar fled the scene, dared the offended party to sue, bragged of court connections, and uttered veiled threats. Each act is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and violates the private and social duties owed to fellowmen. The boast of influence and the threats bear on his fitness to practice, the CPRA requiring proper conduct and merit-based practice of admitted lawyers. He therefore fails the satisfactory-evidence requirement.
[C] Therefore, his admission may be objected to because his conduct demonstrates the absence of good moral character.
Note (L authorities used): In Re Basa, 41 Phil. 276 (conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals); Tak Ng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-13017, December 23, 1959 (violation of private and social duties); both reproduced as printed in the source and subject to downstream verification. The CPRA, A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, Canon II, Section 1 and Canon I, Section 2 (proper conduct; merit-based practice).