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. (8%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Jactar's admission to the Bar can be objected to based on lack of good moral character.
Under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), an applicant for admission to the Bar must possess good moral character and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. Any act showing moral delinquency, lawlessness, arrogance, or disrespect for the law warrants denial of admission.
Here, Jactar demonstrated a lack of good moral character when he hit Medroso's vehicle and fled (hit-and-run), showing disregard for traffic laws. Furthermore, during the confrontation, Jactar bragged about judicial connections, uttered veiled threats, and arrogantly dared Medroso to sue, demonstrating unfit character to be a lawyer.
Therefore, objections based on the lack of good moral character and moral unfitness should be sustained to block Jactar's admission to the Bar.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Which of the following is an indispensable continuing requirement for admission to the Philippine Bar under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court?
Rule 138 mandates that applicants for admission to the Bar must possess and maintain good moral character.
What is the legal effect of a Bar applicant committing a hit-and-run after a vehicular accident?
Committing a hit-and-run demonstrates lawlessness and lack of good moral character, warranting an objection to Bar admission.
How does the Supreme Court view a Bar applicant who brags about judicial connections to intimidate a private citizen?
Bragging about judicial influence undermines public trust in the judiciary and shows moral unfitness to practice law.
Who has the ultimate authority to decide on objections to a candidate's admission to the practice of law in the Philippines?
Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court holds exclusive authority over admission to the practice of law.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, what standard of conduct is expected of law students reviewing for the Bar examinations?
Bar applicants are held to high standards of morality and respect for the law even before formal admission to the Bar.
Learn more about these topics
1. Good Moral Character
Under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, good moral character is a continuing requirement for admission to the practice of law. It requires an applicant to demonstrate honesty, integrity, and respect for the law. Engaging in hit-and-run reckless driving, uttering threats, and exhibiting arrogance demonstrate a lack of good moral character. Such conduct reflects a disregard for public safety and the legal system, which justifies the filing of an objection to the applicant's admission to the Philippine Bar.
2. Judicial Integrity Respect
Lawyers and Bar applicants are required to uphold the integrity and dignity of the judiciary. Bragging about judicial connections and using assumed influence with courts to intimidate litigants constitutes improper behavior that degrades public confidence in the administration of justice. Under CPRA standards, attempting to use real or perceived judicial influence for personal advantage or to threaten an aggrieved party is evidence of moral unfitness. Consequently, such misconduct serves as a valid ground to oppose the applicant's petition to take the Lawyer's Oath.
3. Hit-and-Run Misconduct
Fleeing the scene of a vehicular accident without stopping or assisting the victim demonstrates a conscious violation of traffic laws and basic civic duties under Article 2176 of the Civil Code and special penal laws. For a Bar applicant, committing a hit-and-run reflects a propensity for lawlessness and evading legal responsibility. The Supreme Court strictly scrutinizes acts of lawlessness committed by prospective lawyers, as individuals who flout statutory duties cannot be entrusted with the administration of justice or the protection of client rights.