More than three years after taking and passing the 2022 Bar examinations, a successful examinee was finally allowed to take her oath as a lawyer by the Supreme Court (SC).

In a decision, the SC granted the petition of Marivic Antonio Taloma and directed the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to set the schedule of the oath taking for her to be a full-fledged lawyer.

After passing the Bar exams, Taloma was not allowed to take her oath due to pending criminal cases filed against her.

On April 19, 2023, the OBC received a letter from Nora A. Aldea who informed the SC that Taloma has two pending criminal cases before the Tuguegarao City Prosecutor’s Office.

In her petition to take the lawyer’s oath, Taloma told the SC that she received the summons from the OBC on May 9, 2023 informing her of the two criminal cases filed against her. She was required to file a comment in five days.

Taloma told the OBC that only then did she discover that a complaint for perjury and falsification of public documents was filed against her by Aldea.

She said the charge for perjury was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office but the complaint for falsification of private documents was filed before the court and is pending trial.

The OBC recommended to the SC the denial of Taloma’s petition to take the lawyer’s oath. With the OBC’s recommendation, Taloma elevated the issue before the SC.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC granted the petition as it pointed out: “To be clear, however, the mere filing alone of a charge involving moral turpitude against an applicant to the Bar is not a ground to disqualify or defer his or her oath-taking. An accusation alone does not constitute proof of guilt.”

At the same time, the SC said “the filing of a criminal case involving moral turpitude against a lawyer does not automatically merit the latter's suspension from the practice of law…”

Thus, it also said “the filing of such a case against an applicant should also not automatically prevent his or her admission to the Bar.”

In previous rulings, the SC said that moral turpitude cases refer to acts of baseness, vileness or depravity that violate accepted social standards of justice, honesty or good morals. Examples are estafa, falsification, robbery, theft, forgery, smuggling, seduction, bigamy and concubinage.

The SC stressed that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, “but the conditions that may be imposed by the Court cannot be unconstitutional.”

The SC said the practice of law “is a profession and not a business," and the practical reality is that “it is a source of livelihood for those in the practice.”

It noted the time, hard work, and resources put into having a law degree in the Philippines is so much more compared to most other professions, requiring on the average at least eight years of study at institutions of higher learning.

It said: “The Court takes judicial notice that cases may remain pending in the courts for years. For the Court to deprive an applicant to the Bar, after having hurdled not just the required degrees but the Bar Examinations itself, the opportunity to practice law during those years when the case is pending simply because there is an accusation would be to exercise the Court's powers in an unreasonable and unconstitutional manner.”

But the SC said that should Taloma be convicted by final judgment in the criminal cases involving moral turpitude, “disciplinary proceedings which may result in suspension or disbarment are, and would always be available, as all lawyers are subject to the Court's supervision.”

It reminded all Bar exams applicants that Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court imposes a duty upon all applicants to disclose the pendency of any criminal case involving moral turpitude filed against them.

It assured that the applicant's disclosure, however, “shall not automatically be taken against him or her.”