EN BANC
A.C. No. 11256, March 07, 2017
FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
A lawyer who causes the simulation of court documents not only violates the court and its processes, but also betrays the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client and must be disbarred to maintain the integrity of the Law Profession.
MS. RACHEL M. ROXASAs a result, the complainant faced criminal charges for violation of the Philippine Passport Act in the RTC in Tuguegarao City.12 She claims that she had relied in good faith on the representations of the respondent; and that he had taken advantage of his position in convincing her to part with her money and to rely on the falsified court documents.13
Officer-in-Charge
Regional Consular Office
Tuguegarao City
Madam:
This is in reply to your letter dated June 23, 2011 inquiring on whether Civil Case No. 6149 for the Annulment of Marriage between Flordeliza Argonza Madria and Juan C. Madria was filed and decided by this Court.
As per records of this Court, the above-entitled case was filed on April 25, 2003 but was dismissed as per Order of this Court dated April 6, 2004.
The signature of the [sic] Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino as appearing in the alleged decision attached to your letter is a blatant forgery.
For your information and guidance.
Very truly yours,
(sgd)
AURA CLARISSA B. TABAG-QUERUBIN
Clerk of Court V11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2015-242
CDB Case No. 14-4315
Flordeliza A. Madria vs. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED AND APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", considering violation of his lawyers' oath as a lawyer and a member of the Bar by preparing a simulated Court decision granting the petition for annulment of marriage of complainant and a certificate of finality of the annulment petition. Hence, Atty. Carlos P. Rivera is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.16chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.The respondent would shift the blame to his client. That a lay person like the complainant could have swayed a lawyer like the respondent into committing the simulations was patently improbable. Yet, even if he had committed the simulations upon the client's prodding, he would be no less responsible. Being a lawyer, he was aware of and was bound by the ethical canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly those quoted earlier, which would have been enough to deter him from committing the falsification, as well as to make him unhesitatingly frustrate her prodding in deference to his sworn obligation as a lawyer to always act with honesty and to obey the laws of the land. Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his Lawyer's Oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission."17 Indeed, the ethics of the Legal Profession rightly enjoined every lawyer like him to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law.18 As we have observed in one case:19Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
xxxxRule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should determine his conduct by acting in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility as the relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.Also, Canon 1520 and Rule 18.0421 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility required the respondent be true to the complainant as his client. By choosing to ignore his fiduciary responsibility for the sake of getting her money, he committed a further violation of his Lawyer's Oath by which he swore not to "delay any man's cause for money or malice," and to "conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients." He compounded this violation by taking advantage of his legal knowledge to promote his own selfish motives, thereby disregarding his responsibility under Canon 17.22
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer's Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law not only for acts and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly connected with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the privilege to practice law confers upon him. Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity. The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryWHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS Atty. CARLOS P. RIVERA guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and VIOLATION OF THE LAWYER'S OATH; and, ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS his DISBARMENT. Let his name be STRICKEN from the ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 5-6.
2 Id. at 6.
3 Id. at 13.
4 Supra note 2.
5Rollo, p. 14.
6 Id. at 7.
7 Id. at 15-16.
8 Supra note 6.
9Rollo, p. 17.
10 Id. at 44.
11 Id. at 18.
12 Supra note 10.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 23-26.
15 Id. at 72-76.
16 Id. at 70.
17The Lawyer's Oath, as stated in Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
18Arroyo-Posidio v. Vitan, A.C. No. 6051, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 1, 8.
19Nakpil v. Valdes, A.C. No. 2040, March 4, 1998, 286 SCRA 758, 774.
20 Canon 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
21 Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
22 Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
23 Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension. (As amended by SC Resolution dated February 13, 1992.)
24In re Avanceña, A.C. No. 407, August 15, 1967, 20 SCRA 1012, 1014.
25Manzano v. Soriano, A.C. No. 8051, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 1, 9.
26Flores v. Chua, A.C. No. 4500, April 30, 1999, 306 SCRA 465, 483.
27 A.C. No. 7123, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 248.
28Kara-an v. Pineda, A.C. No. 4306, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 143, 146.
29 A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013, 708 SCRA 1.
30 Id. at 10-11.