Can a disbarred lawyer be re-admitted to the Philippine bar?

Yes. Re-admission, however, would depend greatly on the discretion of the Supreme Court, who would first evaluate whether the applicant's re-entry as counselor-at-law would preserve public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice.

This was the ruling in Julieta Narag vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag, A.C. No. 3405, 18 March 2014, where, in denying Atty. Narag's Petition for Re-admission to the Philippine Bar, the Supreme Court explained -

"Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The action will depend on whether or not the Court decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will continue to be preserved even with the applicant's reentry as a 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/s 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.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In Julieta Narag, Atty. Narag was disbarred in the year 1998 after being found guilty of gross immorality when he abandoned his family in order to live with a 17-year old paramour. 

On 29 November 2013, Atty. Narag filed a Petition for Re-admission alleging that he has already expressed extreme repentance and remorse to his wife and their children for his misgivings. Atty. Narag further claimed that his wife and his six children had already forgiven him on 10 June 2010 and presented an undated affidavit of his son, Dominador, Jr., attesting to the truth of Atty. Narag's claim.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Supreme Court still DENIED Atty. Narag's petition for re-admission to the Philippine Bar.

In denying his petition, the Supreme Court found that Atty. Narag has not really reformed, contrary to his claim of repentance. In fact, the Supreme Court found that Atty. Narag still lives with his paramour and that he has not rid himself of the grossly immoral act which made him inept to practice law.

As to the supposed forgiveness extended by his wife and children, the Supreme Court found the same to be mere hearsay, considering that only Dominador, Jr. submitted an affidavit to this effect. Nevertheless, the fact of forgiveness is immaterial to his re-admission as Atty. Narag is still committing a grossly immoral conduct (still living with a woman other than his wife).

Because of the foregoing, and despite the fact that Atty. Narag had engaged himself in various civic, social, and community activities, as well as bequeathed all his properties to his legal wife and children, the Supreme Court chose to uphold the disbarment of Atty. Narag and still deny him the privilege of practicing law in the country.

Just goes to show the high standards of moral integrity expected of those who practice law in the country, which, according to Supreme Court, should be "enjoyed only by those who continue to display unassailable character."