Madria vs. Rivera

A lawyer who simulates a court decision and certificate of finality commits gross misconduct, deceit, and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, warranting disbarment, even if the client allegedly prodded him to do so, because the acts exhibit moral turpitude, make a mockery of the administration of justice, and render the lawyer unworthy to continue as a member of the Bar.

In November 2002, Flordeliza A. Madria consulted Atty. Carlos P. Rivera at his law office in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, to inquire about annulling her marriage to Juan C. Madria. Rivera guaranteed that he could obtain a decree of annulment and quoted a fee of ₱25,000. Madria, accompanied by her daughter Vanessa and nephew Jayson Argonza, returned as instructed, signed a petition, and made payments totaling ₱25,000. In April 2003, Rivera informed her that the petition had been granted and later provided copies of a decision dated April 16, 2003, purportedly signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, and a certificate of finality dated September 26, 2003. Madria relied on these documents, declaring herself “single” in her voter’s registration record and using the decision and certificate to apply for a passport renewal. An investigation initiated by her former partner’s complaint revealed through a certification from the Clerk of Court that Civil Case No. 6149 had been filed only on April 25, 2003, was dismissed on April 6, 2004, and that the judge’s signature was a blatant forgery. Madria subsequently faced criminal charges for violation of the Philippine Passport Act.

• Consultation and Engagement: In November 2002, complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted Atty. Carlos P. Rivera at his law office in Tuguegarao City regarding the annulment of her marriage to Juan C. Madria. Rivera guaranteed that he could obtain a decree of annulment and quoted a fee of ₱25,000. He told her to return on November 19, 2002, as he would prepare the complaint.
• Payment and Receipt of Documents: Madria returned on November 19, 2002, signed the petition for annulment, and made an initial payment of ₱4,000, evidenced by a handwritten receipt. On December 16, 2002, she made an additional partial payment and was told to wait for the resolution and that she need not appear in court. She completed payment on December 28, 2002, receiving a receipt. In the latter part of April 2003, Rivera informed her the petition had been granted. Through her daughter Vanessa, she received a copy of a decision dated April 16, 2003, purportedly signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino of RTC Branch 4, Tuguegarao City. Rivera advised her to wait five months before declaring herself single. After that period, she declared herself “single” in her Voter’s Registration Record. Later, Vanessa received a certificate of finality dated September 26, 2003, signed by one Jacinto C. Danao.
• Discovery of Falsification: Madria used the decision and certificate of finality to renew her passport. Her former partner, Andrew Dowson Grainge, filed a complaint charging her with fabricating the annulment decision, prompting an NBI investigation. A certification from Atty. Aura Clarissa B. Tabag-Querubin, Clerk of Court of RTC Branch IV, Tuguegarao City, stated that Civil Case No. 6149 was filed on April 25, 2003 and dismissed on April 6, 2004, and that Judge Aquino’s signature on the decision presented by Madria was a blatant forgery. Consequently, Madria faced criminal charges for violating the Philippine Passport Act.
• Complainant’s Allegations: Madria asserted that she relied in good faith on Rivera’s representations, and that he took advantage of his position to convince her to part with her money and to rely on the falsified court documents.
• Respondent’s Defense: Rivera admitted simulating the decision and certificate of finality but claimed he did so at Madria’s persistent prodding, that she wanted to show the draft petition to her foreigner fiancé and assured him the documents would be kept confidential. He further averred that he had informed her the petition was filed in April 2003, that she failed to appear at any hearing despite notice, and that he had not heard from her since.

• Reliance on Lawyer’s Representations: Complainant argued that she relied in good faith on Rivera’s representations and that he had taken advantage of his position to convince her to part with her money and to depend upon the falsified court documents.
• Good Faith: Complainant maintained that she had no knowledge that the decision and certificate of finality were simulated and only learned of the falsification through the NBI investigation initiated by her former partner.

• Client Instigation: Respondent admitted simulating the decision and certificate of finality but argued that he did so only at the complainant’s persistent insistence, that she prevailed upon him to prepare a draft petition and to fabricate the documents, and that she assured him the simulated documents would be kept strictly confidential.
• Lack of Participation and Abandonment: Respondent contended that the complainant had paid no attention to his information that the petition was filed in April 2003, and that she had not appeared in any of the scheduled hearings despite notice and had never returned to his office thereafter.

• Grave Misconduct and Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath: Whether the respondent’s act of simulating a court decision and certificate of finality constitutes grave misconduct and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disbarment.
• Effect of Client’s Alleged Instigation: Whether the complainant’s alleged insistence that the respondent fabricate the documents exculpates the respondent from administrative liability.

• Grave Misconduct and Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath: Simulating a court decision and a certificate of finality amounts to outright criminal falsification or forgery. The acts constitute deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office, each an independent ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The respondent’s conduct directly contravened Rule 1.01 (prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct) and Rule 1.02 (prohibition against counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system) of Canon 1, as well as Rule 15.07 (duty to impress upon the client compliance with the laws and principles of fairness) of Canon 15. The simulations exhibited a high degree of moral turpitude, made a mockery of the administration of justice, and demonstrated baseness, lack of moral character, dishonesty, and general unworthiness to continue as an officer of the Court. Moreover, the respondent’s prior suspension for notarizing documents without a notarial commission in Cruz-Villanueva v. Rivera disclosed a predisposition to beguile persons into believing falsified or simulated documents.
• Effect of Client’s Alleged Instigation: The explanation that the client prodded the lawyer into committing the simulations was patently improbable and, in any event, legally unavailing. Even if true, the respondent, as a lawyer, was bound by the ethical canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer’s Oath, both of which command strict honesty and obedience to the law. These obligations should have deterred him from committing the falsification and compelled him to frustrate the client’s prodding. The fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship demands utmost fidelity and good faith, and a lawyer cannot shift the blame to a lay client when he chooses to participate in dishonest acts.

• Simulation of Court Documents as Gross Misconduct — The act of falsifying or simulating court papers constitutes deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office, any of which is a sufficient ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Such conduct reflects a high degree of moral turpitude, betrays the trust and confidence reposed by the client, makes a mockery of the administration of justice, and renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as a member of the Bar. Disbarment is the appropriate penalty to maintain the integrity of the Law Profession.
• Client Instigation Not a Defense — A lawyer cannot escape disciplinary responsibility by asserting that a client instigated the misconduct. As an officer of the court bound by the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the lawyer is expected to decline any request to engage in unlawful or dishonest conduct. The fiduciary character of the attorney-client relationship obligates the lawyer to act with candor, fairness, and loyalty, and to uphold the law rather than yield to a client’s improper wishes.
• Standard for Disbarment — The power to disbar is exercised with great caution, but it is wielded without hesitation where the misconduct is gross. 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. A lawyer may be disbarred not only for acts of malpractice and dishonesty in professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct that reveals unfitness for the office.

• “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.” — This opening declaration encapsulates the ratio decidendi: the simulation of court documents is intrinsically destructive of the judicial system and the fiduciary relationship, compelling the ultimate sanction of disbarment.
• “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.” — The Court reiterates the controlling standard for disbarment, emphasizing that the privilege to practice law is conditioned on the lawyer’s continued moral fitness.

• Embido v. Pe, A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013 — Followed; a disbarment case involving falsification of a court decision, quoted extensively for the principle that no lawyer is immune from disciplinary authority and that the privilege to practice law is extended only to the deserving.
• Cruz-Villanueva v. Rivera, A.C. No. 7123, November 20, 2006 — Cited as evidence of respondent’s prior unprofessional conduct (notarizing documents without a notarial commission), demonstrating a predisposition to deceive.
• Nakpil v. Valdes, A.C. No. 2040, March 4, 1998 — Cited for the observation that public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar.
• Arroyo-Posidio v. Vitan, A.C. No. 6051, April 2, 2007 — Cited for the ethical precept that the legal profession enjoins every lawyer to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play, and nobility.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Enumerates the grounds for disbarment, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer’s oath, willful disobedience of a lawful court order, and corruptly or willfully appearing without authority. The simulation of court documents was held to fall within deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.
• The Lawyer’s Oath (Section 3, Rule 138, Rules of Court) — The oath includes undertakings to “do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission,” to “not delay any man’s cause for money or malice,” and to conduct oneself “with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [the] clients.” Respondent’s acts violated each of these core promises.
• Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes; shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; and shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Respondent’s conduct directly contravened these duties.
• Canon 15, Rule 15.07, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with his client, and shall impress upon the client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. Respondent’s act of fabricating court documents constituted a fundamental betrayal of this obligation.
• Canon 17 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must keep the client informed of the status of the case. Respondent breached these duties by choosing to ignore his fiduciary responsibility for the sake of receiving the client’s money and by delivering falsified documents instead of truthful information.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza, and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa concurred. No separate concurring opinions were registered.