Dela Cruz vs. Peralta

A lawyer may be disbarred for deceitful conduct, gross misconduct, and multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including misappropriating a client's payment intended for a judgment obligation, forging a payee's signature, and misleading the trial court, where substantial evidence establishes unfitness to practice law.

Complainants Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz, Rodolf John G. Dela Cruz, and Rodolf James Dela Cruz were the loved ones of Rodolfo Dela Cruz, whose death gave rise to a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against Lito Gitalan, Jr. Respondent Atty. Glen Eric Peralta was Gitalan's counsel. The criminal case ended in a judgment against Gitalan for damages of P213,750.00, which became final and executory on June 28, 2011, after Gitalan was granted probation. The disciplinary dispute arose from the execution of that final money judgment.

Complainants Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz, Rodolf John G. Dela Cruz, and Rodolf James Dela Cruz filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against Lito Gitalan, Jr. for the death of their loved one Rodolfo Dela Cruz. After trial on the merits, the court rendered judgment against Gitalan, finding him guilty as charged and ordering him to pay complainants damages in the amount of P213,750.00. Gitalan successfully applied for probation, and the judgment became final and executory on June 28, 2011. Respondent Atty. Glen Eric Peralta acted as Gitalan's counsel in relation to the judgment obligation.

On October 2, 2014, complainants filed an omnibus motion seeking execution of the money judgment against Gitalan, among other things. During the hearing on October 10, 2014, respondent tendered payment of P100,000.00 in cash and the P30,000.00 cash bond posted by Gitalan. He also manifested that he would settle the balance of P83,750.00 within one month. Complainants agreed to respondent's propositions, subject to the filing of a proper motion in case of default.

Subsequently, respondent approached the presiding judge and falsely claimed that he had already fully paid the damages awarded by the court to complainants. He presented a falsified acknowledgment receipt as proof. Upon learning of the matter, complainants raised the issue to the presiding judge. They denied receipt of payment and the issuance of the acknowledgment receipt. The presiding judge promptly issued a subpoena directing Gitalan to shed light on the subject. Gitalan testified that on June 20, 2012, he handed respondent a manager's check in the name of Rodolf James Dela Cruz, representing payment of the monetary judgment in complainants' favor. Respondent, in turn, gave Gitalan an acknowledgment receipt. The document was notarized by respondent and purportedly signed by Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz.

Despite Gitalan's testimony, respondent vehemently denied the charges against him and gave his own version of the events. He claimed that he never received any check from Gitalan. Furthermore, he did not notarize the falsified acknowledgment receipt, let alone hand the same to Gitalan or complainants. He was supposedly out of town when the events transpired, and he was only alerted of the existence of the acknowledgment receipt when complainants filed the motion. Upon such knowledge, he confronted his secretary, Era S. Vidal, who executed an affidavit where she admitted receiving the check from Gitalan, encashing the same, and then issuing the subject receipt. Respondent further claimed that the case was a mere afterthought since complainants allowed the lapse of two years before filing the complaint against him. Moreover, he was allegedly coerced to tender payment during the hearing. Apparently, complainants demanded P1,000,000.00 so they would not file the case against him. When he failed to pay said amount, complainants filed the present complaint against him. On January 22, 2015, respondent tendered the remainder of the monetary award to complainants. Nevertheless, complainants still filed the instant case for disbarment against respondent on December 5, 2016.

• Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Complainants alleged that respondent engaged in a series of dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Falsified Acknowledgment Receipt: Complainants denied receiving payment and denied issuing the acknowledgment receipt, and raised the matter to the presiding judge after respondent claimed full payment.
• Payment Agreement and Default: Complainants agreed to respondent's tender of P100,000.00 and the P30,000.00 cash bond, with the P83,750.00 balance to be settled within one month, subject to a proper motion in case of default.

• Denial of Receipt and Notarization: Respondent denied receiving any check from Gitalan and denied notarizing or handing the falsified acknowledgment receipt to Gitalan or complainants.
• Alibi / Out of Town: Respondent claimed he was out of town when the events transpired and only learned of the acknowledgment receipt when complainants filed the motion.
• Secretary's Affidavit: Respondent claimed he confronted his secretary, Era S. Vidal, who executed an affidavit admitting she received the check from Gitalan, encashed it, and issued the subject receipt.
• Afterthought / Delay: Respondent argued the case was a mere afterthought because complainants allowed two years to lapse before filing the complaint.
• Coercion and Extortion: Respondent claimed he was coerced to tender payment during the hearing and that complainants demanded P1,000,000.00 so they would not file the case against him.

• Guilt for Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Whether respondent is guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether disbarment is the appropriate penalty under the circumstances.

• Guilt for Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Yes. Substantial evidence proved respondent's violation of his Lawyer's Oath and the CPR through deceit and gross misconduct.
• Appropriate Penalty: Yes. Disbarment is appropriate because respondent's deceitfulness, gross misconduct, and utter lack of remorse demonstrate his unfitness to practice law; the IBP Board correctly modified the recommended penalty from suspension to disbarment.

• Guilt for Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: In disbarment and suspension proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with their oath; the burden is on the complainant to prove the charges by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude, including any act contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals, and is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in private and social duties owed to fellowmen or society. Gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct by a person concerned with the administration of justice, i.e., conduct prejudicial to the parties' rights or the proper determination of the cause, generally with a deliberate, obstinate, or intentional purpose. Substantial evidence showed respondent received a manager's check from his client to pay the client's monetary liability to complainants; he violated the client's trust, created a fake acknowledgment receipt, forged Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz's signature, tried to mislead the trial court into believing the liability was being satisfied in good faith, lied to the presiding judge by showing the fake receipt, and attempted to use his secretary as a scapegoat through an affidavit containing falsehoods. These acts violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 11, Canons 15, 16, and 17, and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the CPR, as well as the Lawyer's Oath. His conduct also delayed full satisfaction of the monetary judgment despite Gitalan having paid as early as 2012.
• Appropriate Penalty: Fitness to be a lawyer is a continuing requirement measured against the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR. Lawyers must always live up to the ethical standards of the profession and comport themselves to promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Disbarment, though harsh, may be imposed to purge the Bar of unworthy members in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the Bar, or where the misconduct borders on the criminal or is committed under scandalous circumstances; where a lesser penalty corresponding to the infraction may suffice, the lesser penalty should be imposed. However, the Court has not hesitated to disbar lawyers found guilty of misrepresentation and deception of their clients, and numerous cases have imposed disbarment for violations of Rule 1.01. Respondent's deceitfulness, gross misconduct, and utter lack of remorse, including continuous denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, demonstrated his unfitness to practice law. The IBP Board of Governors correctly modified the recommended penalty from suspension to disbarment. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and when an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the privilege.

• Substantial Evidence in Disbarment Proceedings — In disbarment and suspension cases, attorneys are presumed innocent of the charges and presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with their oath. The complainant bears the burden of proof, and the required standard is substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The Court will not penalize a lawyer unless it is unmistakably shown that he or she is unfit to continue as a member of the Bar. Applied here: the Court found substantial evidence of respondent's deceit and gross misconduct.
• Deceitful Conduct — Defined as conduct involving moral turpitude, including any act contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties a man owes to his fellowmen or society, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Applied here: respondent's creation of a fake acknowledgment receipt and forgery of the payee's signature constituted deceitful conduct.
• Gross Misconduct — Any inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned with the administration of justice, i.e., conduct prejudicial to the parties' rights or the proper determination of the cause; the motive is generally a deliberate, obstinate, or intentional purpose. Applied here: respondent's attempts to mislead the trial court and use his secretary as a scapegoat constituted gross misconduct.
• Continuing Fitness Requirement and Disbarment for Misrepresentation and Deception — Membership in the Bar is a privilege bestowed only on individuals learned in law and known to possess good moral character. Fitness to be a lawyer is a continuing requirement measured against the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR. Disbarment may be imposed in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the lawyer's standing and character as an officer of the Court and member of the Bar, or where the misconduct borders on the criminal or is committed under scandalous circumstances; where a lesser penalty suffices, the lesser penalty should be imposed. However, the Court will not hesitate to disbar lawyers found guilty of misrepresentation and deception of their clients. Applied here: respondent's deceit, gross misconduct, and lack of remorse warranted disbarment.
• Lawyer's Duty of Candor, Fidelity, and Trust Accounting — Canons 15, 16, and 17 require a lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in dealings with clients, to hold in trust all moneys and properties of the client that come into his or her possession, and to owe fidelity to the client's cause while being mindful of the trust and confidence reposed. Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 prohibits unduly delaying a case, impeding execution of a judgment, or misusing court process. Applied here: respondent failed to account for the manager's check entrusted to him and delayed satisfaction of the judgment.

• "The standard of proof required is substantial evidence, or "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."" — This states the evidentiary threshold applied in disbarment proceedings and supports the finding that respondent's guilt was established despite the presumption of innocence.
• "Jurisprudence defines deceitful conduct as one involving moral turpitude, including any act contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals. It is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties a man owes to his fellowmen or society, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals." — This is the canonical definition of deceitful conduct used to characterize respondent's acts.
• "On the other hand, gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned with the administration of justice, i.e., conduct prejudicial to the patties' rights or the proper determination of the cause. The motive behind this conduct is generally a deliberate, obstinate, or intentional purpose." — This defines gross misconduct and was applied to respondent's attempts to mislead the trial court and shift blame to his secretary.
• "Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his [or her] clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same." — Quoted from Nava II vs. Atty. Artuz, this passage justifies the penalty of disbarment once respondent's unfitness was established.

• Armilla-Calderon vs. Lapore, A.C. No. 10619, September 2, 2020 — Cited for the principle that the Court will impose disciplinary sanctions on lawyers found to have violated the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR, while extending protection to lawyers if accusations are not duly proven.
• Tan vs. Atty. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 3, 2020 — Cited for the presumption that attorneys are innocent of charges until the contrary is proved and are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with their oath.
• Fajardo vs. Atty. Alvarez, 785 Phil. 303, 323 (2016) — Cited for the rule that the Court will not penalize a lawyer unless it is unmistakably shown that he or she is unfit to continue as a member of the Bar.
• Domingo-Agatan vs. Atty. Cruz, A.C. No. 11023, May 4, 2021 — Cited for the definition of deceitful conduct as involving moral turpitude and acts contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals.
• Tablizo vs. Golangco, A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020 — Cited for the definition of gross misconduct as inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct by a person concerned with the administration of justice.
• Guevarra-Castil vs. Trinidad, A.C. No. 10294, July 12, 2022 — Cited for the principle that fitness to be a lawyer is a continuing requirement measured against the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.
• Bondoc vs. Atty. Licudine, A.C. No. 12768, June 23, 2020 — Cited for the reminder that lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the CPR and comport themselves to promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
• Nava II vs. Atty. Artuz, A.C. No. 7253 & A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, February 18, 2020 — Quoted for the rule that membership in the legal profession is a privilege and that the Court has the right and duty to withdraw it when an attorney is no longer worthy of trust and confidence.
• Palacios vs. Atty. Amora, Jr., 815 Phil. 9, 25 (2017), citing Alitagtag vs. Atty. Garcia, 451 Phil. 420, 426 (2003) — Cited for the rule that disbarment should be imposed only in clear cases of serious misconduct, but a lesser penalty should be imposed where it suffices.
• Manalang vs. Atty. Buendia, A.C. No. 12079, November 10, 2020 — Cited for the rule that the Court will not hesitate to impose disbarment on lawyers found guilty of misrepresentation and deception of their clients.
• Reyes vs. Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 9114, October 6, 2020 — Cited for the principle that lawyers may be disbarred for falling short of Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
• Billanes vs. Atty. Latido, 839 Phil. 292 (2018) — Cited for the rule that lawyers may be disbarred when their misdeeds are unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession and reveal basic moral flaws making them unfit to practice law.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent violated this provision through his deceitful conduct.
• Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Respondent's conduct violated this provision.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he or she mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Respondent violated this provision by presenting a falsified receipt and lying to the presiding judge.
• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Respondent violated this provision by misleading the trial court.
• Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his or her dealings and transactions with clients. Respondent violated this provision by lying to his client and failing to account for the proceeds of the manager's check.
• Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his or her client that may come into his or her possession. Respondent failed to account for the manager's check entrusted to him.
• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his or her client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him or her. Respondent violated this provision.
• Rule 12.04, Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court process. Respondent delayed the full satisfaction of the monetary judgment.
• Lawyer's Oath — A lawyer must do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, delay no man for money or malice, and conduct himself or herself as a lawyer with all good fidelity, as well to the courts as to his or her client. Respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, Dimaampao, and Marquez, JJ., concur. Inting, J. Lopez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., were on official business leave.