Bar exam review coach defies SC order to stop operating review program

Bar review coach Edgar Dizon continues selling review materials after SC ruling on unauthorized law practice and 2023 Bar Exams post.

A bar exam review coach found by the Supreme Court to have illegally practiced law continues to operate a paid review program despite the Court ordering him to stop.

Bar Law for Dummies (BLD), a Facebook page known for selling bar exam review courses and materials, was ordered to stop its operations after owner Edgar S. Dizon was found guilty of indirect contempt and ruled to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

In a decision promulgated July 15 but announced September 11, the Supreme Court cited Dizon for indirect contempt after a 2023 BLD post disrupted bar operations.

Days before the September 2023 Bar Examinations, BLD claimed the exams would be checked using artificial intelligence.

“ALWAYS START WITH YES or NO. Yan ang unang hahanapin ng AI Checking to sort out the correct answers,” part of the post read.

The original post that went viral has since been deleted, but a version of the post remains up on the BLD page.

2023 bar chair Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando then issued an advisory two days later saying the post’s claims were false and baseless, reassuring examinees that four examiners per subject would be checking the exams. Bar examiners often consist of retired or sitting magistrates and senior legal experts.

In its decision, the Court said the post disrupted 2023 bar operations since the Office of the Bar Chair had to track down the post and assess its impact on the public just days before the scheduled start of the exams. Additionally, the post “[caused] alarm and panic among the examinees,” according to the Court.

Aside from charging Dizon with indirect contempt, the Court also ruled that he had been engaging in the unauthorized practice of law through the operation of his paid review services.

Dizon passed the bar in 2016 but was unable to take the oath due to a pending murder case, thus making him unauthorized to practice law. The Court said Dizon’s teaching and writing of bar review materials qualified as practicing law.

“Dizon’s mentees enrolled in his Bar Law for Dummies Training Program precisely because they wanted to pass the bar. Providing coaching lessons to bar flunkers/reviewees definitely requires the application of legal knowledge,” the decision read.

The Court also gave Dizon the chance to respond to the allegations, to which he admitted to writing review materials and applying legal knowledge in his coaching classes. However, Dizon said he was merely exercising his master’s degree in education through the bar review sessions.

The Court ordered Dizon to pay a ₱30,000 fine for the indirect contempt charge, ordered his name removed from the list of 2016 Bar Examination passers, and warned him against “further engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.”

Upon release of the SC decision, Dizon said he would follow the decision. “Ok. I will abide. This 2026 bar exam will be my last performance. Thank you for everything and support,” he said in a post on the BLD page.

Dizon then appeared to contradict that statement in a separate post on the same day, saying he would continue to sell review materials on a subscription basis but would no longer offer coaching sessions.

On September 27, the BLD page then announced that its 2027 Bar Examination review materials were now accessible on its website. The free package includes recordings of previous coaching sessions and lectures where Dizon discusses case digests and bar topics.

The free materials listed on the BLD website appear to match the topics listed in the SC decision that Dizon admitted writing reviewers for.

However, the website also lists an upcoming “2027 Preweek Program” charging ₱6,000 for the course. The BLD announcement said the course would be updated beginning October 2026 and would include additional video lectures.

The unauthorized practice of law is also punishable as indirect contempt and can merit a ₱30,000 fine and/or imprisonment of up to 6 months.

READ: