DIao vs.

Martinez
A.C. # 244, March 29, 1963

FACTS: Two years following Telesforo Diao’s admission to the Bar, Atty. Diao was charged by private
complainant Severino Martinez for allegedly falsifying his application to take the Bar exams,
specifically his scholastic qualifications. The Solicitor-General, having established in the course of his
investigation that Diao did not complete the required pre-legal education prescribed by the
Department of Private Education (DPE) at the time he filed his application to take the bar. The Sol-
Gen, therefore, recommended the omission of his name from the roll of attorneys. Diao asserted that
he had entered military service, and passed the General Classification Test which is equivalent to a
high school diploma, and that he completed his Arts Degree at Arellano University in 1949 and due to
confusion, was mistakenly certified in his school records as a Quisumbing College graduate.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Diao can still continue to be admitted to the bar since he passed the bar
despite not completing pre-law requirements.

HELD: NO. Diao’s application disclosed that he began his law studies 6 months before he obtained his
pre-law degree, thereby disqualifying him from taking the bar exams under the rules. He was only able
to take the bar with the aid of false pretenses, and passing the bar is immaterial in the case on hand.
The SC held that passing the bar is not the only requirement to become an attorney-at-law, since taking
the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.
Hence, the SC ordered Diao to be stricken from the roll of attorneys, and ordered him to return
his lawyer’s diploma within 30 days.