Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    In Re Vailoces, A.M. No. 439, September 30, 1982

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    This document summarizes a court case regarding an attorney, Quinciano D. Vailoces, petitioning for readmission to the practice of law after being disbarred. He had previously been convicted of falsifying a public document by notarizing a forged will. After serving his sentence, he was granted a full pardon by the president and had since sought readmission multiple times. The court ruled he should be readmitted, finding he had proven moral reform through his conduct and participation in his community in the 21 years since his disbarment. The court believed an adequate punishment had been served and he pledged to uphold his duties as an attorney if reinstated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In Re Vailoces, A.M. No. 439, September 30, 1982

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    53 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case regarding an attorney, Quinciano D. Vailoces, petitioning for readmission to the practice of law after being disbarred. He had previously been convicted of falsifying a public document by notarizing a forged will. After serving his sentence, he was granted a full pardon by the president and had since sought readmission multiple times. The court ruled he should be readmitted, finding he had proven moral reform through his conduct and participation in his community in the 21 years since his disbarment. The court believed an adequate punishment had been served and he pledged to uphold his duties as an attorney if reinstated.

    Original Description:

    .

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding an attorney, Quinciano D. Vailoces, petitioning for readmission to the practice of law after being disbarred. He had previously been convicted of falsifying a public document by notarizing a forged will. After serving his sentence, he was granted a full pardon by the president and had since sought readmission multiple times. The court ruled he should be readmitted, finding he had proven moral reform through his conduct and participation in his community in the 21 years since his disbarment. The court believed an adequate punishment had been served and he pledged to uphold his duties as an attorney if reinstated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views1 page

    In Re Vailoces, A.M. No. 439, September 30, 1982

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    This document summarizes a court case regarding an attorney, Quinciano D. Vailoces, petitioning for readmission to the practice of law after being disbarred. He had previously been convicted of falsifying a public document by notarizing a forged will. After serving his sentence, he was granted a full pardon by the president and had since sought readmission multiple times. The court ruled he should be readmitted, finding he had proven moral reform through his conduct and participation in his community in the 21 years since his disbarment. The court believed an adequate punishment had been served and he pledged to uphold his duties as an attorney if reinstated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    In Re: Vailoces, A.M. No.

    439, September 30, 1982

    FACTS: This is a petition filed by Quinciano D. Vailoces for readmission to the practice of law and the inclusion of his name in
    the roll of attorneys.

    The records disclose that the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental found petitioner guilty of falsification of public
    document, penalized under Article 117 of the Revised Penal Code. In its decision the court found that petitioner, as a member of
    the bar and in his capacity as a notary public, acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and
    testament of one Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus. The court, finding that the document was a forgery, denied probate to the will. The
    Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict of conviction; and upon finality thereof, petitioner commenced service of the sentence.
    Thereafter, Ledesma de Jesus-Paras, complainant in the criminal case, instituted before this Court disbarment proceedings against
    petitioner.

    On 1967, the President of the Philippines granted petitioner "absolute and unconditional pardon" and restored him "to full civil
    and political rights. Since August 23, 1968, petitioner had repeatedly sought readmission to the practice of law, the first of which
    was denied by this Court in a minute resolution dated August 30, 1968.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner should be reinstated or readmitted to the practice of law

    RULING: YES. The Court held that the petitioner has sufficiently proven himself fit to be readmitted to the practice of law.
    True it is that the plenary pardon extended to him by the President does not of itself warrant his reinstatement.

    Petitioner's conduct after disbarment can stand searching scrutiny. He has regained the respect and confidence of his fellow
    attorneys as well as of the citizens of his community. The favorable indorsements of both the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
    and its Negros Oriental Chapter, the testimonials expressed in his behalf by the provincial governor of Negros Oriental as well as
    the municipal and barrio officials of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, his active participation in civic and social undertakings in the
    community attest to his moral reform and rehabilitation and justify his reinstatement. Petitioner, now 69 years of age, has reached
    the twilight of his life. He has been barred from the practice of his profession for a period of 21 years. Adequate punishment has
    been exacted. Chastened by his painful and humiliating experience, he further "pledges with all his honor ... that if reinstated in
    the roll of attorneys he will surely and consistently conduct himself honestly, uprightly and worthily." Indeed, there is reasonable
    expectation that he will endeavor to lead an irreproachable life and maintain steadfast fidelity to the lawyer's oath.

    You might also like