4. Jutta Krursel vs Atty.

Lorenza Abion

AC # 5951, July 12, 2016

FACTS: Jutta Krursel (complainant) charged Atty. Lorenza Abion (respondent) with forgery, swindling, and
falsification of a public document. She also asks respondent to be disbarred.

Complainant acquired the services of respondent in filing a case against Robinsons Savings Bank (RSB)
and its officers in relation to the RSB’s illegal withholding/blocking of her account. Respondent filed a
complaint against RSB before the Monetary Board (MB) of the BSP. However, without complainant’s
knowledge, respondent withdrew the complaint with prejudice through a letter addressed to the MB.
Complainant alleged that her signature and a certain William Coleman was forged in the letter signifying the
withdrawal of her case. In addition, she never allowed respondent to do such an act.

Complainant was further shocked to discover 2 SPAs which appear to have her and Coleman’s
signatures as principals. The SPAs allowed respondent to receive and sign in their behalf papers, checks,
remittances and the like for retrieval and unblocking the peso and dollar savings accounts with RSB.
Complainant alleges that their signatures were forged and denies the execution of the SPAs.

Respondent, for filing a “Writ of Preliminary Prohibitive and Mandatory Injunction with Damages”,
charged complainant a total of P330,000 for his services and various court fees. Respondent failed to account
for such amount despite complainant asking for a receipt. Instead, respondent presented a document
purporting to be an Order from the Court’s First Division with a favorable resolution for complainant. It was
allegedly signed by Atty. Virginia Soriano, “division clerk of the SC First Division”, but Atty. Soriano denied
signing such a document when asked by Atty. Abelardo Aportadera (a lawyer whom complainant sought
advice from).

When complainant was hospitalized, respondent asked for her German passport to have it renewed
from the German embassy. She charged her a total of P450,000 for said service. This sum and the
abovementioned were not properly accounted for despite demand by complainant. Respondent showed a
renewed German passport to complainant, but complainant rejected it since it was obviously fake. She later
found out that her original passport was in RSB’s possession.

The Court required respondent to file her comment, but the resolution was unserved since the
respondent could not be found with the provided various addresses even with the NBI’s help. The Court
referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation, but the Notice of Mandatory
Conference remained unserved since both parties were stated to have “moved out”. The IBP Investigating
Commissioner Peter Corvera recommended disbarment for respondent for her actions against complainant and
for violation of Canons 1 (Rule 1.01), 16 (Rule 16.01), and 17 of the CPR.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for committing forgery, falsification, and swindling.

HELD: YES. The mere act of evading the service of the Court’s resolution is already a ground for disbarment,
as the SC held.

The SC affirmed that the alleged documents with the forged signatures were indeed forgeries since
there was a difference in stroke, form, and general appearance of the two signatures. The SC also noted that
the respondent is the culprit behind the forgeries since jurisprudence created a presumption that a person who
was in possession of, or made use of, or benefitted from the forged/falsified documents is the forger.
While the first SPA was inconclusive as to its forged status, the SC held that the second SPA had
elements of deceit in it since respondent declared under oath that she caused the preparation of the letter of
withdrawal of the complaint with prejudice. She declared under oath that she also caused the conforme of her
clients after informing them of the facts, both as counsel and attorney-in-fact.
 Thus, respondent committed serious acts of deceit in: (1) withdrawing the complaint with prejudice,
without the knowledge and consent of complainant; and (2) forging complainant's signature or causing her
signature to be forged in the April 15, 2002 letter, thus making it appear that complainant conformed to the
withdrawal of the complaint.

The appearance of the purported May 10, 2002 Order in G.R. No. 152946 is markedly different from
the orders and resolutions of this Court. Indeed, it was later confirmed through the letter issued by Atty.
Soriano, Clerk of Court of the First Division, that there was no such order issued, that the signature there was
not hers, and that the format did not follow this Court's format.

Complainant avers that she paid substantial amounts of money to respondent in relation to the filing of
the complaint for injunction in G.R. No. 152946, though respondent did not issue any receipt or accounting
despite her demands. Instead, respondent allegedly furnished complainant with the fabricated May 10, 2002
Order purportedly ruling in her favor. Complainant later found out that no such order existed. The case was
already dismissed.

Respondent's acts amount to deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office as an attorney. She
violated her oath to "do no falsehood" and to "conduct herself as a lawyer ... with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to her clients."

Respondent's unethical and unscrupulous conduct proves her unworthy of the public's trust and
confidence. She shamelessly transgressed all the things she swore to uphold, which makes her unfit to
continue as a member ofthe bar. Hence, we find no hesitation in removing respondent from the Roll of
Attorneys.