Krursel vs. Abion

A lawyer who forges a client's signature to withdraw a complaint without consent, fabricates a court order to mislead the client, and evades service of court resolutions in administrative proceedings is guilty of gross misconduct warranting disbarment, and such evasion constitutes a waiver of the right to present evidence and is itself a ground for disbarment as willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court.

Complainant Jutta Krursel, a German national, engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Lorenza A. Abion to pursue claims against Robinsons Savings Bank-Ermita Branch, which had allegedly blocked or withheld her peso and dollar savings accounts. The attorney-client relationship involved filing complaints before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Supreme Court, executing Special Powers of Attorney authorizing respondent to act on complainant's behalf, and purportedly securing the renewal of complainant's German passport. The disbarment complaint charged respondent with forgery, swindling, and falsification of a public document arising from these engagements.

Complainant Jutta Krursel, a German national, engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Lorenza A. Abion to assist in filing a case against Robinsons Savings Bank-Ermita Branch and its officers in relation to the bank's alleged illegal withholding and blocking of her accounts. In March 2002, respondent filed a complaint on complainant's behalf before the Monetary Board I of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas against Robinsons Savings Bank and its officers for "Conducting Business in an Unsafe and Unsound Manner in violation of Republic Act No. 8791." Without complainant's knowledge, respondent withdrew the complaint with prejudice through a letter dated April 15, 2002 addressed to the Monetary Board. Complainant claimed that respondent forged her signature and that of a certain William Randeli Coleman in the letter, and that she never authorized or acceded to the withdrawal.

Complainant was further surprised to discover two Special Powers of Attorney dated March 7, 2002 and March 24, 2002, which appeared to bear her and Coleman's signatures as principals. These documents constituted respondent as their attorney-in-fact to represent, receive, and sign on their behalf all papers, checks, accounts receivables, wired remittances, in their legal and extra-legal efforts to retrieve and unblock their peso and dollar savings accounts with Robinsons Savings Bank at its Ermita branch. Complainant again claimed the signatures were forged and denied ever having executed a special power of attorney for respondent.

On March 24, 2002, respondent filed before the Supreme Court a complaint for "Writ of Preliminary Prohibitive and Mandatory Injunction with Damages," docketed as G.R. No. 152946 and entitled Lingkod, Inc., et al. vs. Robinsons Savings Bank. For such services, respondent demanded and received on May 7, 2002 the following amounts: ₱225,000.00 for filing fee to the Supreme Court, ₱55,000.00 for Sheriff's Service Fee, and ₱50,000.00 for Atty. Soriano, Clerk of Court, to expedite matters, totaling ₱330,000.00. Respondent failed to account for these amounts despite complainant's demands for a receipt. Complainant's demand letter dated June 24, 2002 for accounting and receipts was attached to the Complaint as Annex E.

Instead of providing a receipt, respondent allegedly presented complainant a document purporting to be an Order dated May 10, 2002 from the Supreme Court's First Division, resolving the case in complainant's favor. The Order was purportedly signed by Atty. Virginia R. Soriano, "Division Clerk of the First Division of the Supreme Court." Complainant sought the advice of Atty. Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr., who wrote to Atty. Soriano on July 30, 2002 inquiring about the supposed Order. Atty. Soriano replied denying the signature as hers, stating that the Order did not follow the Court's format, and that the case had in fact been dismissed.

In April 2002, while complainant was sick and hospitalized, respondent asked for complainant's German passport to secure its renewal from the German Embassy. For this service, respondent asked for a total of ₱450,000.00 to cover processing of travel papers, additional fees, and release fees allegedly required by Atty. O. Dizon of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. These sums were allegedly not properly accounted for despite complainant's demand. Respondent eventually presented a purportedly renewed German passport, which complainant rejected because it was obviously fake. Complainant later found out that her original German passport was in the possession of Robinsons Savings Bank. Complainant and Coleman also filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City against respondent for the unlawful acts committed against them.

• Forgery of Signatures: Complainant alleged that respondent forged her signature and that of Coleman in the April 15, 2002 letter withdrawing the complaint before the Monetary Board, and in the two Special Powers of Attorney dated March 7, 2002 and March 24, 2002, without her knowledge, consent, or authorization.
• Falsification of Court Order: Complainant alleged that respondent fabricated a purported Supreme Court First Division Order dated May 10, 2002, bearing the forged signature of Atty. Virginia R. Soriano, to make it appear that the case had been resolved in her favor, when in fact the case had been dismissed.
• Swindling and Failure to Account: Complainant alleged that respondent demanded and received substantial sums totaling ₱330,000.00 for filing the injunction case and ₱450,000.00 for passport renewal, but failed to issue receipts or render an accounting despite demands.
• Fake Passport: Complainant alleged that respondent presented an obviously fake renewed German passport and that her original passport was later found in the possession of Robinsons Savings Bank.
• Prayer for Disbarment: Complainant averred that respondent's malicious acts warranted her removal from the roster of lawyers.

• Evasion of Service: Whether respondent's evasion of service of court resolutions constitutes a waiver of her right to present evidence and is itself a ground for disbarment.
• Forgery of Special Powers of Attorney: Whether respondent forged complainant's signature in the Special Powers of Attorney dated March 7, 2002 and March 24, 2002.
• Forgery of Withdrawal Letter: Whether respondent forged complainant's signature in the April 15, 2002 letter withdrawing the complaint before the Monetary Board with prejudice.
• Fabrication of Court Order: Whether respondent fabricated a Supreme Court Order dated May 10, 2002 and whether such act constitutes gross misconduct.
• Liability for Amounts Received: Whether complainant sufficiently proved the amounts allegedly demanded and received by respondent.

• Evasion of Service: Yes. Respondent is deemed to have waived her right to present evidence, and her evasive attitude is tantamount to willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court, which alone is a ground for disbarment or suspension under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
• Forgery of Special Powers of Attorney: No. Although the signatures appeared forged, there was insufficient evidence to presume respondent was the author, as there was no allegation or proof that respondent benefitted from or used the falsified document, and complainant herself had possession of the Special Power of Attorney.
• Forgery of Withdrawal Letter: Yes. Respondent committed serious acts of deceit by withdrawing the complaint with prejudice without complainant's knowledge or consent and by forging or causing the forgery of complainant's signature in the April 15, 2002 letter, as evidenced by her own Verification declaring she caused the conforme of her clients.
• Fabrication of Court Order: Yes. Respondent fabricated a Supreme Court Order, which was confirmed by Atty. Soriano as not bearing her signature and not following the Court's format; the case had already been dismissed. This amounts to deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office as an attorney.
• Liability for Amounts Received: No. The demand letter dated June 24, 2002 does not contain the date when the addressee received it, producing doubt as to whether it was actually sent or delivered, and is not competent proof of the actual amounts paid to and received by respondent.

• Evasion of Service: The Court noted its several attempts to serve the February 24, 2003 Resolution on respondent at her address on record and at different addresses provided by complainant and the IBP, all returned unserved. The Court also requested NBI assistance to locate respondent, to no avail. These circumstances revealed that respondent was either disinterested in contesting the charges or deliberately eluding service to evade consequences. Relying on Stemmerick vs. Mas, the Court held that a respondent lawyer cannot benefit from a disappearing act, cannot defeat the Court's jurisdiction, and cannot evade administrative liability by concealing whereabouts; since respondent herself rendered service of notice impossible, the notice requirement was deemed waived. The Court emphasized that lawyers must update their records with the IBP regarding any change in address, and that service on the address appearing in IBP records constitutes sufficient notice. Respondent's evasive attitude was held tantamount to "willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court" under Rule 138, Section 27, which alone is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

• Forgery of Special Powers of Attorney: A comparison of complainant's signature in her Complaint and Verification against her contested signature in the Special Power of Attorney dated March 7, 2002 visibly showed significant differences in stroke, form, and general appearance, leading to the conclusion that the signatures were not penned by one person. However, the Court found no other evidence pointing to respondent as the author of the forgery. While jurisprudence creates a presumption that a person who was in possession of, made use of, or benefitted from forged or falsified documents is the forger, the facts were insufficient to presume respondent forged the signature. The Special Power of Attorney authorized respondent only in relation to complainant's legal and extra-legal efforts to retrieve and unblock her accounts—authority given in furtherance of complainant's employment of respondent's legal services. There was no allegation or proof that respondent benefitted from or used the falsified document. Moreover, complainant had possession of the Special Power of Attorney, and in all likelihood may have conformed to its preparation.

• Forgery of Withdrawal Letter: The Court found that complainant's contested signature under the Conforme portion in the April 15, 2002 letter clearly appeared to have been forged. Critically, in the Verification attached to the letter, respondent declared under oath that she caused the preparation of the letter of withdrawal with prejudice and that she "caused the conforme of her clients after informing them of the facts, both as counsel and attorney-in-fact." This admission established that respondent committed serious acts of deceit: (1) withdrawing the complaint with prejudice without complainant's knowledge and consent, and (2) forging or causing the forgery of complainant's signature, making it appear that complainant conformed to the withdrawal. Relying on Sebastian vs. Calis, the Court held that deception and fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable, reveal moral flaws, and are unacceptable, as a lawyer's relationship with others must be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness, and candor. This constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a breach of fiduciary duty to the client.

• Fabrication of Court Order: The appearance of the purported May 10, 2002 Order in G.R. No. 152946 was markedly different from the orders and resolutions of the Court. Atty. Soriano, Clerk of Court of the First Division, confirmed that no such order was issued, that the signature was not hers, and that the format did not follow the Court's format. Respondent's acts of furnishing complainant with a fabricated order purportedly ruling in her favor, after receiving substantial sums for filing the injunction case without issuing any receipt or accounting, amounted to deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office. The Court found violations of the Lawyer's Oath ("do no falsehood" and to "conduct [her]self as a lawyer . . . with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [her] clients") and multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 1.01 (no unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct), Rule 7.03 (no conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), Canon 15 (candor, fairness and loyalty in dealings with clients), Canon 17 (fidelity to the cause of the client), and Rule 18.04 (keeping the client informed of the status of the case). The Court emphasized that respondent recklessly put Atty. Soriano's career in jeopardy and made a mockery of the judicial system, degrading the administration of justice and weakening public faith in the judicial system. Relying on Embido vs. Pe, Jr., where a prosecutor was disbarred for falsifying a court decision in a non-existent proceeding, the Court found respondent unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.

• Liability for Amounts Received: The Court found a dearth of evidence to support complainant's claim regarding the amounts demanded and received—₱330,000.00 in relation to G.R. No. 152946 and ₱440,000.00 (or ₱450,000.00) for passport renewal. The demand letter dated June 24, 2002 did not contain the date when the addressee received the letter, producing doubt as to whether it was actually sent or delivered to respondent. In administrative cases, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence, and this burden was not met as to the amounts.

• Evasion of Service as Waiver and Ground for Disbarment — A respondent lawyer who abandons their law office or conceals their whereabouts after committing misconduct cannot benefit from their disappearance. Since the lawyer rendered service of notice impossible, the notice requirement is deemed waived, and the lawyer is considered to have waived the right to present evidence. Such evasive attitude is tantamount to willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court under Rule 138, Section 27, which alone is a ground for disbarment or suspension. Lawyers must update their records with the IBP regarding any change in office or residential address; service on the address appearing in IBP records constitutes sufficient notice. Applied in this case to hold respondent deemed to have waived her right to present evidence after multiple attempts at service failed and NBI assistance could not locate her.

• Presumption of Forgery from Possession, Use, or Benefit — A person who was in possession of, made use of, or benefitted from forged or falsified documents is presumed to be the forger. However, this presumption requires sufficient factual basis. In this case, the Court found the facts insufficient to presume respondent forged the Special Powers of Attorney because there was no allegation or proof that respondent benefitted from or used the falsified document, and the authority granted was only in furtherance of the legal services complainant had employed respondent to perform.

• Burden of Proof in Administrative Cases — In administrative cases, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence. Applied to reject the claim for the amounts allegedly received by respondent, as the demand letter did not contain the date of receipt and was not competent proof of the actual amounts paid.

• Fiduciary Duty and Good Faith in Attorney-Client Relationship — A lawyer's relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness, and candor. Deception and fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable, reveal moral flaws, and are unacceptable practices. The lawyer's oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law but its continued possession is essential for remaining in the practice. Applied to hold respondent's withdrawal of the complaint without consent and forgery of the client's signature as gross violations of professional ethics and fiduciary duty.

• "Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act. He can neither defeat this Court's jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere ruse of concealing his whereabouts." — This passage, quoted from Stemmerick vs. Mas, articulates the doctrine that a lawyer cannot evade administrative liability by concealing their whereabouts, establishing that self-rendered impossibility of notice constitutes waiver of the notice requirement.

• "Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyer's relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyer's oath." — This passage, quoted from Sebastian vs. Calis, defines the standard of good faith and candor required of lawyers and establishes that deceptive conduct reveals moral flaws warranting disciplinary action.

• "The advocate for justice became the perpetrator of injustice." — This passage encapsulates the Court's condemnation of respondent's misconduct, emphasizing the gravity of a lawyer who abuses legal knowledge and training to defraud a client and falsify judicial processes.

• "Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can justify a lawyer's 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." — This passage, quoted from Embido vs. Pe, Jr., establishes that deliberate falsification of a court decision reflects moral turpitude and makes a mockery of the administration of justice, justifying disbarment.

• Stemmerick vs. Mas, 607 Phil. 89 (2009) — Controlling precedent on evasion of service in disbarment proceedings. The Court held that a respondent lawyer who abandoned his law office after committing embezzlement could not benefit from his disappearance, and that service on the lawyer's office was sufficient notice. Applied to hold that respondent's evasion constituted waiver of the right to present evidence and willful disobedience of a lawful court order.

• Sebastian vs. Calis, 372 Phil. 673 (1999) — Followed for the principle that deception and fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable, revealing moral flaws, and that a lawyer's relationship with others must be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness, and candor. Applied to condemn respondent's forgery and unauthorized withdrawal of the complaint.

• Embido vs. Pe, Jr., 720 Phil. 1 (2013) — Followed for the principle that deliberate falsification of a court decision reflects a high degree of moral turpitude and makes a mockery of the administration of justice, justifying disbarment. Applied to hold respondent's fabrication of a Supreme Court Order warranted removal from the Roll of Attorneys.

• PCGG vs. Jacobi, 689 Phil. 307 (2012) — Cited for the presumption that a person who was in possession of, made use of, or benefitted from forged or falsified documents is the forger. Distinguished on the facts, as the Court found insufficient evidence to presume respondent forged the Special Powers of Attorney.

• Rural Bank of Silay, Inc. vs. Pilla, 403 Phil. 1 (2001) — Cited in connection with the presumption of forgery from possession, use, or benefit. Distinguished, as respondent's appointment as attorney-in-fact was only in furtherance of the legal services employed, with no proof of benefit or use.

• Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court — Provides grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer's oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, and corruptly or willfully appearing as attorney for a party without authority. Applied to hold that respondent's evasive attitude was tantamount to willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court, and that her deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct warranted disbarment.

• Lawyer's Oath (Rules of Court, Appendix of Forms, Form 28) — Requires a lawyer to "do no falsehood" and to "conduct [her]self as a lawyer . . . with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [her] clients," and to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities." Applied to hold that respondent violated her oath by forging her client's signature, fabricating a court order, and evading service of court resolutions.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Applied to respondent's forgery, fabrication of a court order, and unauthorized withdrawal of the complaint.

• Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession." Applied to respondent's fabrication of a court order and defrauding of her client.

• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. Applied to respondent's fabrication of an order bearing the name of the Clerk of Court, which recklessly put Atty. Soriano's career in jeopardy and made a mockery of the judicial system.

• Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client." Applied to respondent's withdrawal of the complaint without the client's knowledge or consent.

• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." Applied to respondent's breach of fiduciary duty.

• Canon 18, Rule 18.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information." Applied to respondent's failure to account for funds and her presentation of a fabricated order instead of receipts.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ. (Mendoza and Reyes, JJ. on official leave.)