Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

A.C. No.

6732
Facts:
On july 7, 2004, Atty. Rinel F. Sustituya, Clerk of Court of the RTC, received a
written communication from M. Ballam Delaney Hunt, a Solicitor General in the United
Kingdom requesting a copy of the decision dated February 12, 1997 rendered by Judge
Rafael O. Penuela in Special Proceedings Case no. 084 entitled In the Matter of the
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was one Shirley Quioyo.
On September 9, 2004, the RTC received another letter from Mr. Hunt, reiterating
the request for a copy of the decision of the said proceedings. Judge Penuela then instructed
the civil docket clerk to retrieve the records of the requested proceedings. It was then
discovered that the RTC had no record of Special Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley
Quioyo was the petitioner. Instead, the court files revealed that Judge Penuela had decided
Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death
of Rolando Austria, whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria.
The court then informed Mr. Hunt that such record does not exist. He then sent a
letter attaching a machine copy of the purported decision in Special Proceedings No. 084
entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna that had been
presented by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK.
It was then found out that the said document was falsified court documents. The
discovery of the falsified decision prompted the Clerk of Court to communicate on the
situation in writing to the NBI, triggering the investigation of the falsification.
After conducting its investigation, the NBI forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman
or Visayas the records of the investigation, with a recommendation that the respondent be
rosecuted for falsification of public document under Article 171, 1 and 2, of the Revised
Penal Code, and or violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act).10 The NBI likewise recommended to the Office of the Court
Administrator that disbarment proceedings be commenced against the respondent.
Upon being required by the Court, the respondent submitted his counter-affidavit,
hereby he denied any participation in the falsification. He insisted that Dy Quioyo had
sought his opinion on Shirleys petition for the annulment of her marriage; that he had
given advice on the pertinent laws involved and the different grounds for the annulment of
marriage; that in June 2004, Dy Quioyo had gone back to him to present a copy of what
appeared to be a court decision; that Dy Quioyo had then admitted to him that he had
caused the falsification of the decision; that he had advised Dy Quioyo that the falsified
decision would not hold up in an investigation; that Dy Quioyo, an overseas Filipino worker
(OFW), had previously resorted to people on Recto Avenue in Manila to solve his
documentation problems as an OFW; and that he had also learned from Atty. Angeles
Orquia, Jr. that one Mrs. Florencia Jalipa, a resident of Igbalangao, Bugasong, Antique, had
executed a sworn statement before Police Investigator Herminio Dayrit with the assistance
of Atty. Orquia, Jr. to the effect that her late husband, Manuel Jalipa, had been responsible
for making the falsified document at the instance of Dy Quioyo.
In a report and recommendation dated June 14, 2006,17 Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing,
the IBP Investigating Commissioner, found the respondent guilty of serious misconduct and
violations of the Attorneys Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended
his suspension from the practice of law for one year.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of falsification of the document in question and
shall be disbarred.

Held:

Yes. We affirm the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. The respondent was guilty
of grave misconduct for falsifying a court decision in consideration of a sum of money. In
light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for
having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7
of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all
times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Lawyers are further required by
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest
and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent
transactions can justify a lawyers disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act
that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery
of the administration of justice in this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which
was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person. He thereby became
unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.