Case 118 guarantee of his ability to render adequate service to his prospective
Application for Reinstatement clients; the Court resolved that respondent movant Carlos C. Rusiana
In re: Rusiana
FACTS: On May 29, 1959, court found out that Atty Rusiana committed
acts of misconduct as a notary public and "has exhibited such a frame of
mind and observed such a norm of conduct as is unworthy of a member of
the legal profession," and ordered his disbarment.
Respondent has intermittently filed with this Court petitions for re-
admission, supported by resolutions from members of the Bench and Bar,
labor unions, newspaper editors and reporters, members of professional and
civic organizations of the Province of Cebu, attesting to respondent's good
conduct and moral character since his disbarment, and petitioning for his
reinstatement to the legal profession.
ISSUE: w/n respondent can be reinstated?
HELD: YES. The sole object of the Court upon an application for
reinstatement to practice, by one previously disbarred, is to determine
whether or not the applicant has satisfied and convinced the Court by
positive evidence that the effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of his
character has been successful, and, therefore, he is entitled to be re-admitted
to a profession which is intrinsically an office of trust.
[A] cling on the respondent's prayer for reinstatement as a member of the
Philippine Bar, and considering (a) that respondent movant had been
disbarred as of May 29, 1959; (b) that since then the said respondent may be
considered as having undergone adequate punishment; (c) that he has
observed exemplary conduct since then, according to credible certifications
attesting to his repentance for the offense committed by him thirteen (13)
years ago, and may be reasonably expected to scrupulously observe the
Canons of Legal Ethics in the future; (d) but that, in view of the numerous
changes in the law since 1959, respondent movant should offer some
be, as he is hereby required, to enroll in, and pass, regular fourth year
review classes in a recognized law school, and that upon his filing with
the Clerk of this Court of sworn certificates by the individual
professors of the review classes attesting to his having regularly
attended and passed their subjects, under the same conditions as
ordinary students said movant Carlos C. Rusiana be readmitted as a
member of the Philippine Bar, upon his taking anew the lawyer's oath
and signing the Roll of Attorneys in the custody of the Clerk of this
Supreme Court."
Case 119
Application for Reinstatement
Prudential Bank vs. Atty Grecia
FACTS: Respondent Benjamin Grecia was disbarred and thereafter sought
a reconsideration of the said Resolution on 14 December 1987, but was
denied for lack of merit. Several MR were filed by respondent on different
time which was denied.
On 21 May 1990, Mrs. Maria Luisa B. Grecia, wife of respondent wrote a
letter addressed to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court
stating that she has long wanted to write and if it need be, on bended knees,
to ask the Court sincerely to forgive her husband and permit him to practice
his profession; that it is not only he who is suffering the anguish and shame
caused by his disbarment but his family.
On 17 October 1990, the Quezon City Chapter of the Integrated Bar,
submitted to the Bar Confidant for the Court's consideration payed that
the Court extend its judicial clemency to respondent Grecia and reinstate
him as a member of the Philippine Bar, reasoning among others, that he has
been "sufficiently punished," has reformed and rehabilitated himself, and
can again be entrusted with the exercise of the noble profession of law.
In a letter, dated 21 November 1990, addressed to the Chief Justice and
Associate Justices of the Court respondent Grecia pleaded anew that once
the Court restores him to the practice of law, he "unreservedly bind(s)"
himself "henceforth to act and behave carefully as a worthy member of the
Philippine Bar."
ISSUE: w/n respondent’s reinstatement may now be warranted
HELD: YES "The sole object of the Court upon an
application for reinstatement to practice, by one previously disbarred, is to
determine whether or not the applicant has satisfied and convinced the
Court by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward the
rehabilitation of his character has been successful, and, therefore, he is
entitled to be re-admitted to a profession which is intrinsically an office of
trust. (In Re: Rusiana, Adm. Case No. 270, 29 March 1974, 56 SCRA
240).
"The criterion for reinstatement has been stated as follows: Whether or
not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a great extent in the sound
discretion of the court. The court action will depend, generally speaking, on
whether or not it decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial
administration of justice will be conserved by the applicant's participation
therein in the capacity of an attorney and counselor at law. The applicant
must, like a candidate for admission to the Bar, satisfy the Court that
he is a person of good moral character---a fit and proper person to
practice law. The Court will take into consideration the applicant's
character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of
the charge for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the
disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the
application for reinstatement." (5 Am. Jur., Sec. 301, p. 443, cited
in In Re: Juan T. Publico, February 20, 1981, 102 SCRA 721).
The testimonials submitted in respondent's favor are from well-
respected and prominent members of the legal community. All their
testimonials attest to respondent's good moral character and to the fact
that he has mended his ways towards the rehabilitation of his character
such that his reinstatement "will not only be an act of compassion but
also of justice"
Cognizant, therefore, "that the power to discipline, especially if amounting
to disbarment, should be exercised on the preservative and not on the
vindictive principle," respondent's plea for reinstatement was heeded. His
expiation subsequent to his disbarment; his realization of his mistake and
the gravity of his offense; the testimonials from exemplary members of the
Bar as to his fitness to resume the practice of law; and his solemn pledge to
the Court that if his disbarment is lifted, he will always closely and
faithfully abide by the ideals, canons and ethics of the legal profession, call
for this affirmative response.
Case 120
Application for Reinstatement
Cui vs. Cui
FACTS: The Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, was established by the
spouses Don Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui for the care and support, free
of charge, of indigent invalids, and incapacitated and helpless persons.” The
founders of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili must have established the
foregoing test advisely, and provided in the deed of donation that if not a
lawyer, the administrator should be a doctor or a civil engineer or a
pharmacist, in that order; or failing all these, should be the one who pays
the highest taxes among those otherwise qualified.
Plaintiff Jesus Ma. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. Cui are brothers, being
the sons of Mariano Cui, one of the nephews of the spouses Don Pedro and
Dona Benigna Cui. In 1960, the then incumbent administrator of the
Hospicio, resigned in favor of Antonio Cui pursuant to a “convenio”
entered into between them that was embodied on a notarial
document. Antonio was reinstated by resolution promulgated on 10
February 1960, about two weeks before he assumed the position of
administrator of the Hospicio de Barili. Upon the death of Dr. Teodoro Cui,
Jesus Cui wrote a letter to his brother Antonio, demanding that the office be
turned over to him. When the demand was not complied, Jesus filed this
case and argued that he was apt to hold the position since he was a degree
holder of LLB and that Antonio disbarred as a lawyer is not apt to the
position.
ISSUE: w/n Antonio’s reinstatement is meritorious in considering him to
be apt in the position.
HELD: YES Jesus’s possession of the law degree itself is not
indispensable; completion of the prescribed courses which may be shown
on some other way. Antonio’s einstatement to the roll of attorneys wipes
out the restrictions and disabilities resulting from a previous disbarment.

Whether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a great extent in the
sound discretion of the court. The applicant must, like a candidate for
admission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a person of good moral
character — a fit and proper person to practice law. The court will take
into consideration the applicant's character and standing prior to the
disbarment, the nature and character of the charge for which he was
disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has
elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement. (5
Am. Jur., Sec. 301, p. 443)

Evidence of reformation is required before applicant is entitled to

reinstatement, notwithstanding the attorney has received a pardon
following his conviction, and the requirements for reinstatement have
been held to be the same as for original admission to the bar, except
that the court may require a greater degree of proof than in an original
admission. (7 C.J.S., Attorney & Client, Sec. 41, p. 815.)

The decisive questions on an application for reinstatement are whether

applicant is "of good moral character" in the sense in which that phrase is
used when applied to attorneys-at-law and is a fit and proper person to be
entrusted with the privileges of the office of an attorney, and whether his
mental qualifications are such as to enable him to discharge efficiently his
duty to the public, and the moral attributes are to be regarded as a separate
and distinct from his mental qualifications. (7 C.J.S., Attorney & Client,
Sec. 41, p. 816).