Reyes, Jr. vs. Rivera

A lawyer who fabricates the filing of a court petition, simulates official court processes, and drafts a fake court decision to deceive a client commits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and merits the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

Complainant Jose R. Reyes, Jr. engaged the legal services of Atty. Socrates R. Rivera for the purpose of filing a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The engagement was for a total fee of P150,000.00, payable on installment basis, with an initial acceptance fee and subsequent payments for filing fees and related expenses. The administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleged that Atty. Rivera falsely represented that the petition had been filed and later produced a fabricated court decision, acts that struck at the integrity of the legal profession and the judicial system.

Sometime in 2003, Jose R. Reyes, Jr. sought the legal assistance of Atty. Socrates R. Rivera for the filing of a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Atty. Rivera agreed to handle the case for a total fee of P150,000.00, payable on installment basis. He initially demanded P20,000.00 as acceptance fee and thereafter P10,000.00 to cover filing fees and other related expenses, for a total of P30,000.00.

Upon receipt of the P30,000.00, Atty. Rivera prepared the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and had complainant sign the verification portion. Complainant was thereafter furnished a copy of the petition, which bore markings indicating it had been filed before Branch 215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City. On various subsequent occasions, Atty. Rivera demanded additional sums, and at one point complainant gave him a further P70,000.00. Sometime in 2004, Atty. Rivera instructed complainant to prepare the remaining balance of P50,000.00, to be paid upon receipt of the decision in the case.

During the last quarter of 2004, Atty. Rivera furnished complainant with a Decision dated August 9, 2004, purportedly rendered by the Presiding Judge of Branch 206 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Hon. Patria A. Manalastas-De Leon, granting the petition for nullity. Complainant grew suspicious because he had never attended a single hearing and because the petition had supposedly been filed before Branch 215, yet the decision was rendered by Branch 206. He accordingly withheld payment of the remaining balance and undertook to verify the authenticity of the decision.

Upon verification, complainant discovered that no Civil Case No. 04-SPL-05677 had been filed before Branch 215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, and that Branch 215 did not in fact exist. He further learned, as certified by the Office of the Clerk of Court of Muntinlupa City, that no such case had been filed with Branch 206 either. The stamp of the Office of the Clerk of Court appearing on the petition had been simulated by Atty. Rivera to make it appear that the petition had been officially received.

In his Answer, Atty. Rivera claimed that his former driver had assured him that the petition had already been filed. He stated that he had no intention of deceiving the complainant and that he had instructed a common friend, Jesma Uesa, to inform complainant that the decision was spurious, claiming he had lost complainant's contact number. He denied having accepted the case for P150,000.00 but admitted receiving P30,000.00, which he expressed willingness to return. He proposed to re-file the case at his own expense and asked for understanding, insisting that he was also a victim.

• Filing of the Petition: Atty. Rivera argued that it was his former driver who assured him that the Petition had already been filed before the RTC of Muntinlupa, shifting responsibility for the misrepresentation regarding the filing.
• Lack of Intent to Deceive: Atty. Rivera maintained that he had no intention of deceiving the complainant, claiming he had already instructed their common friend Jesma Uesa to inform complainant that the decision he received was spurious. He asserted that he lost complainant's contact number and that his only means of communication was through Jesma.
• Amount of Fees Received: Atty. Rivera denied having accepted the case for a fee of P150,000.00, though he admitted receiving P30,000.00 and expressed willingness to return that amount.
• Proposed Remedy: Atty. Rivera proposed to re-file complainant's case at his own expense, asked for understanding for his infractions, and insisted that he was also a victim in the case.

• Gross Misconduct / Deceitful Conduct: Whether Atty. Rivera's acts of falsely representing the filing of a nullity petition, simulating the clerk of court's receiving stamp, and furnishing a fake court decision constitute unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR warranting disbarment.
• Amount of Legal Fees to be Returned: Whether Atty. Rivera received P100,000.00 from the complainant, as the latter asserted, or only P30,000.00, as the former admitted, and whether the return of the full amount with legal interest is warranted.

• Gross Misconduct / Deceitful Conduct: Yes. Atty. Rivera's series of fraudulent acts—misrepresenting the filing of a petition before a non-existent court branch, simulating the clerk of court's stamp, and fabricating a court decision—constituted unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
• Amount of Legal Fees to be Returned: Yes. The complainant's positive and categorical assertion that he paid a total of P100,000.00 prevailed over Atty. Rivera's bare denial and self-serving statements. The full amount of P100,000.00 was ordered returned, with legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from receipt of the decision until full payment.

• Gross Misconduct / Deceitful Conduct: Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR commands that lawyers, as officers of the court, shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and are bound to maintain a high standard not only of legal proficiency but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Atty. Rivera fell egregiously short of this standard. He misrepresented that a petition had been filed before Branch 215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City when no such petition was filed and when Branch 215 does not even exist. He simulated the stamp of the Office of the Clerk of Court to create the appearance of official receipt. He then furnished complainant with a fake court decision purportedly penned by the Presiding Judge of Branch 206, granting a petition that was never filed. These acts were disrespectful, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession, displaying moral unfitness to practice law. The Court found direct parallels in Taday vs. Apoya, Jr., where a lawyer was disbarred for drafting a fake court decision in an annulment case, and in Billanes vs. Latido, where a lawyer was disbarred for procuring a spurious court decision granting a petition for annulment. In both cases, the ultimate penalty of disbarment was imposed for the same category of misconduct.
• Amount of Legal Fees to be Returned: The OBC recommended that Atty. Rivera be ordered to return P100,000.00 rather than the P30,000.00 he admitted receiving. The Court agreed, finding that in the face of the complainant's positive and categorical assertion that he paid the total amount of P100,000.00, Atty. Rivera's bare denial and self-serving statements crumbled. The Court further imposed legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the amount, to accrue from the time of Atty. Rivera's receipt of the decision until full payment, pursuant to the principle applied in San Gabriel vs. Sempio.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. In this case, the fabrication of a court filing, simulation of official court processes, and drafting of a fake court decision constituted the gravest form of deceitful conduct, warranting disbarment.
• Disbarment as the Ultimate Penalty for Fabrication of Court Processes — When a lawyer fabricates court filings and decisions, thereby deceiving both the client and the public and undermining confidence in the legal system, disbarment is the appropriate penalty. The Court applied this principle by analogy to Taday vs. Apoya, Jr. and Billanes vs. Latido, where lawyers were disbarred for similar acts of fabricating or procuring spurious court decisions in annulment cases.
• Credibility of Positive Assertion over Bare Denial — In administrative proceedings against lawyers, the positive and categorical assertion of a complainant regarding payments made prevails over the bare denial and self-serving statements of the respondent. The Court applied this rule to uphold the finding that Atty. Rivera received P100,000.00, not merely the P30,000.00 he admitted.

• "These acts are disrespectful, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession and clearly displayed Atty. Rivera's disgusting moral unfitness to practice law and his ineptitude to discharge the duties of a member of the bar. His disbarment is thus in order." — This passage articulates the Court's ratio decidendi for imposing the ultimate penalty, characterizing the respondent's conduct as demonstrating moral unfitness incompatible with membership in the bar.

• "In the face of the positive and categorical assertion by the complainant that he paid Atty. Rivera the total amount of P100,000.00, the bare denial and self-serving statements of the latter crumble." — This passage establishes the evidentiary principle governing the determination of fees received in administrative cases, giving weight to the complainant's positive assertions over the respondent's unsubstantiated denials.

• "Instead of being an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice. His reprehensible acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the legal profession. Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment must be imposed upon him." — Quoted from Taday vs. Apoya, Jr., this passage was adopted by the Court as directly applicable to Atty. Rivera's case, encapsulating the rationale for disbarment when a lawyer fabricates judicial processes.

• Taday vs. Apoya, Jr., A.C. No. 11981, July 3, 2018 — Controlling precedent followed. The Court disbarred a lawyer for drafting a fake court decision in connection with a client's annulment case. The Court found the facts directly analogous and adopted the reasoning that such acts constitute unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct warranting the ultimate penalty.
• Billanes vs. Latido, A.C. No. 12066, August 28, 2018 — Followed. The Court disbarred a lawyer who procured a spurious court decision granting a petition for annulment, finding a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. The Court cited this case as further support for disbarment in cases involving fabrication of court decisions.
• Spouses Lopez vs. Limos, 780 Phil. 113, 122 (2016) — Cited for the proposition that lawyers, as officers of the court, are bound to maintain a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.
• San Gabriel vs. Sempio, A.C. No. 12423, March 26, 2019 — Cited as basis for the imposition of six percent (6%) per annum legal interest on the amount ordered returned, accruing from receipt of the decision until full payment.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." Applied as the foundational canon under which Atty. Rivera's conduct was evaluated.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." This was the specific provision Atty. Rivera was found guilty of violating. The Court applied it to his acts of misrepresenting the filing of a petition, simulating the clerk of court's stamp, and fabricating a court decision, all of which constituted deceitful and dishonest conduct.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred. Baltazar-Padilla, J., was on leave.