Drilon and Romero vs. Maglalang

A lawyer who fabricates a court order to deceive a client commits serious misconduct and is subject to disbarment. The act of falsifying a judicial document demonstrates unfitness to practice law, violates the canons of propriety and fidelity, and erodes public trust in the legal profession and the administration of justice.

Jodee Andren engaged the services of Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang in 2006 to handle an annulment case against her husband, Ruby S. Madrinian, for a fee of PHP 100,000.00. After receiving payments totaling PHP 100,000.00 for legal services and purported record corrections, the respondent provided Andren with a forged Order dated August 2, 2006, purportedly signed by "Presiding Judge ALAN RAY DRILON" of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 41. The order declared Madrinian presumptively dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code. Relying on this document, Andren remarried. In 2008, while processing an immigrant visa, Andren discovered through the National Statistics Office that her marital record was unchanged. An investigation revealed the order was fictitious; no such case (Civil Case No. 206-16977) had ever been filed in the court.

• Nature of the Complaint: Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon and Clerk of Court V Atty. Corazon P. Romero filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang for fabricating a court order.
• The Forged Order: The subject document was an Order dated August 2, 2006, in the non-existent "Civil Case No. 206-16977, Jodee P. Andren versus Ruby S. Madrinian." It declared Ruby S. Madrinian presumptively dead. The order contained several anomalies: the judge's name was inverted ("Alan Ray Drilon"), the signature was not authentic, the writing style and court format differed from standard practice, and the case number was inconsistent with the court's docketing system.
• Client's Testimony: Jodee Andren stated under oath that she hired the respondent for an annulment case, paid him PHP 100,000.00, and received the forged order from him in November 2006. She subsequently remarried based on this order.
• Corroborating Witness: Nenita Kho-Artizano, Andren's caretaker, corroborated seeing the respondent deliver the forged order to Andren.
• Official Certifications: The Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Bacolod City, issued certifications confirming that no case with the cited docket number and title existed on its records.
• Judge's Disclaimer: Complainant Judge Drilon confirmed he did not issue the order and was not involved in its preparation.
• Respondent's Defense: In his Mandatory Conference Brief, Atty. Maglalang denied the allegations, claimed he had relocated to Manila, did not know Andren or Kho-Artizano, and stated there was no engagement contract. He did not file a reply or present any countervailing evidence.

• Fabrication and Use of a False Document: Complainants argued that the respondent authored and utilized a forged court order, as evidenced by the client's direct testimony, the corroborating witness, the official certifications proving the case's non-existence, and the judge's own denial of authorship.
• Violation of Professional Ethics: The act constituted deceitful and dishonest conduct, disrespect for the courts, and a betrayal of the fiduciary duty owed to a client, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Pure Denial and Lack of Evidence: Respondent Atty. Maglalang countered that he did not know the complainants, had no engagement contract with Andren, and that the documentary evidence against him were merely blurred and incomplete copies. He offered no substantive refutation of the specific allegations regarding the forged order's anomalies or his role in its delivery.

• Liability for Fabrication: Whether substantial evidence exists to hold Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang administratively liable for fabricating a court order.
• Appropriate Penalty: What penalty should be imposed for such misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

• Liability for Fabrication: The complaint was merited. Substantial evidence established that the respondent authored and used the forged order. The positive identification by the client and a corroborating witness, coupled with the certifications from the Clerk of Court and the judge's disclaimer, created a preponderant case. The respondent's bare denial, without any supporting evidence, was insufficient to overcome this proof. The presumption that one found in possession of and who utters a forged document is the forger applied.
• Appropriate Penalty: Disbarment was the proper penalty. The falsification of a court order is a serious offense under the CPRA. Precedent (Reyes v. Atty. Rivera, Taday v. Apoya, Jr., Madria v. Rivera, Billanes v. Latido) dictates that lawyers who falsify court documents in connection with marriage nullity cases are meted disbarment. The respondent's deceitful conduct demonstrated unfitness to remain a member of the bar and brought the legal profession into disrepute.

• Presumption of Authorship of a Forged Document — In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger. The Court applied this evidentiary rule to infer the respondent's authorship based on his possession and delivery of the forged order to his client.
• Serious Offense under CPRA: Falsification of Court Documents — Under Section 33(b) of Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, falsification of documents such as court decisions or orders is classified as a serious offense. The Court relied on this classification to justify the imposition of the supreme penalty of disbarment, consistent with precedent.

• "Verily, members of the Bar are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession." — Cited from Vasco-Tamaray v. Atty. Daquis, this passage articulates the core ethical duty violated by the respondent's conduct.

• Vasco-Tamaray v. Atty. Daquis, 779 Phil. 191 (2016) — Cited to articulate the standard of conduct expected of lawyers and to support the finding that the respondent's acts blemished the integrity of the legal profession.
• Reyes v. Atty. Rivera (A.C. No. 9114, October 6, 2020), Taday v. Apoya, Jr. (835 Phil. 13 (2018)), Madria v. Rivera (806 Phil. 774 (2017)), Billanes v. Latido (839 Phil. 292 (2018)) — These cases, involving similar facts of lawyers falsifying court orders in nullity of marriage cases, were cited as controlling precedent for the imposition of disbarment.

• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Canon II, Sections 1, 2, 5, and 8 — These sections prohibit unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct; require respect for the law and courts; mandate observance of fairness and obedience to the law; and prohibit misleading the court. The respondent's fabrication and use of a forged order violated these provisions.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Canon III, Section 2 — This section mandates a lawyer to uphold the constitution, obey the laws, and, as an officer of the court, conscientiously assist in the administration of justice. The respondent's acts contravened this duty.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Canon VI, Section 33(b) — This provision classifies falsification of documents as a serious offense and enumerates the corresponding sanctions, including disbarment.

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

N/A (The decision was rendered Per Curiam with all participating justices concurring. Justice Inting was on leave.)