Rivera vs. Corral

A lawyer who alters material dates on court records to mislead the court into believing that a pleading was timely filed commits dishonesty constituting grave misconduct, warranting suspension from the practice of law for one year.

Jose A. Rivera, a Baptist pastor based in Sta. Fe, Bacolod City, was the complainant in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 17473) before the Municipal Trial Court of Bacolod City, where Atty. Napoleon Corral appeared as counsel for the adverse party. The administrative complaint arose from Corral's conduct in connection with the appeal of the ejectment decision rendered by Presiding Judge Gorgonio Y. Ybañez. The case implicates the Court's inherent power to discipline members of the Bar for conduct demonstrating unfitness to continue as officers of the court, as governed by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On February 12, 1990, Presiding Judge Gorgonio Y. Ybañez rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 17473 for Ejectment before the Municipal Trial Court of Bacolod City. The decision was received on February 23, 1990 by Annaliza Superio, identified as the secretary of Atty. Napoleon Corral, counsel for the adverse party. On March 13, 1990, Corral filed a Notice of Appeal — a date that placed the appeal clearly outside the reglementary period from the actual date of receipt.

The following day, March 14, 1990, at approximately 1:50 p.m., Corral went to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Branch 7, Bacolod City, and manually altered the date of receipt on the court's record from February 23, 1990 to February 29, 1990. Realizing afterward that February 1990 had no 29th day, he filed a "Reply to Plaintiff's Manifestation" claiming that he had received the decision not on February 29 but on February 28, 1990. The Branch Clerk of Court, Nilda P. Tronco, testified that the alteration was made surreptitiously and would have gone unnoticed but for its timely discovery, directly contradicting Corral's claim that the correction was made with the knowledge and consent of the Clerk of Court and other court employees.

On September 1, 1990, Jose A. Rivera filed a Complaint for Disbarment charging Corral with malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the Philippine Bar, alleging that Corral had violated proper norms of legal ethics by tampering with court records without the court's prior knowledge and permission, motivated by a desire to suppress the truth. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, where Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez scheduled multiple hearings from August 1993 through July 1994. Rivera, citing limited finances as a Baptist pastor, requested that the case be decided on the basis of submitted evidence without his personal appearance. Corral, despite being furnished copies of all notices and orders, repeatedly failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, filed a motion to dismiss, and then filed an answer with counter-allegations against Rivera's character. After Corral failed to appear at the final hearing on July 28, 1994, the investigator considered the case submitted for decision.

The Investigating Commissioner found that the alteration was made not to reflect the truth but to mislead the trial court into believing the Notice of Appeal was timely filed, and that Corral's claim of approval by court personnel was belied by the Branch Clerk's testimony. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigator's report recommending a six-month suspension. The Supreme Court found the facts fully supported by the evidence but determined that the recommended penalty was not commensurate to the misconduct.

• Tampering with Court Records: Complainant alleged that respondent violated proper norms and ethics as a lawyer by personally and manually changing entries in the court's record without the court's prior knowledge and permission, conduct unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar, motivated by the desire to suppress the truth.
• Untimely Appeal Concealed by Alteration: Complainant charged that respondent altered the date of receipt of the ejectment decision to make it appear that his Notice of Appeal, filed on March 13, 1990, was within the reglementary period.

• Correction on Own Pleading: Respondent claimed that the correction of the date was done on a paper prepared by him, not on court records, and that it was initiated and done in the presence and with the approval of the Clerk of Court and other court employees.
• Typographical Error: Respondent alleged that the correction was made because of a typographical error committed by his secretary, and that it was done in good faith.
• Denial of Secretary's Identity: Respondent denied that Annaliza Superio, who received the decision on his behalf, was his secretary.
• Denial of Due Process: Respondent argued that there was no due process or hearing, which he had requested from the beginning of the proceedings.
• Perjury by Complainant: Respondent alleged that complainant Rivera committed perjury when he claimed that respondent altered the court records.
• Misrepresentation by the Municipal Trial Court: Respondent alleged that the Municipal Trial Court in Bacolod City under Judge Ybañez committed misrepresentation of facts.
• Harassment and Complainant's Character: Respondent asserted that the complaint was a form of harassment, that complainant's use of the title "Reverend" was deceptive, and that complainant had been nearly stabbed to death by families he ejected from lands purchased using church donations in his own name.

• Due Process: Whether respondent was denied due process in the IBP investigation proceedings.
• Dishonesty and Misconduct: Whether respondent's alteration of the date of receipt on court records constituted dishonesty and misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the IBP-recommended penalty of six months' suspension was commensurate to respondent's misconduct.

• Due Process: No. Respondent was afforded ample opportunity to be heard, the IBP having repeatedly reset hearings to accommodate him despite his repeated failure to appear.
• Dishonesty and Misconduct: Yes. By altering material dates to make it appear that the Notice of Appeal was timely filed, respondent committed an act of dishonesty violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Appropriate Penalty: One year. The IBP's recommended six-month suspension was inadequate; a one-year suspension was imposed, consistent with penalties in comparable cases of dishonesty by lawyers.

• Due Process: The essence of due process is simply a reasonable opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side and adduce evidence in support of a defense. Due process does not necessarily require a hearing but simply a reasonable opportunity to be heard. A respondent in an administrative proceeding is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of an investigating committee; he is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges. The chronology of events demonstrated that the IBP Investigating Commissioner was lenient to a fault in accommodating respondent's numerous requests for continuance, scheduling hearings from August 1993 through July 1994. Respondent was furnished copies of all notices and orders yet repeatedly failed to appear. His prolonged silence, belated motion to dismiss, and subsequent answer were deliberately resorted to hinder the proceedings. Accordingly, respondent could not feign denial of due process.

• Dishonesty and Misconduct: The Investigating Commissioner found, and the Court agreed, that the correction was made not to reflect the truth but to mislead the trial court into believing the Notice of Appeal was timely filed. The decision in Civil Case No. 17473 was received by Corral's secretary on February 23, 1990; the Notice of Appeal filed on March 13, 1990 was clearly out of time. To extricate himself, Corral altered the date of receipt first to February 29, 1990 — a non-existent date — and then to February 28, 1990 via a reply pleading. His claim that the correction was made with the Clerk of Court's approval was directly contradicted by Branch Clerk Nilda P. Tronco, who testified that the alteration was surreptitiously made. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Rule 19.01 mandates that a lawyer employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. By altering material dates to mislead the court, respondent violated his solemn oath not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.

• Appropriate Penalty: The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish the erring individual but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting courts and the public from lawyer misconduct. While the facts did not warrant so severe a penalty as disbarment, the Court's inherent power to discipline errant members of the Bar had to be exercised. Dishonesty constitutes grave misconduct. In a recent case, a one-year suspension was imposed on a respondent for inserting a certification of non-forum shopping into case records and making it appear that it was already part of the records at the time of filing. A one-year suspension was similarly imposed in Reyes vs. Atty. Rolando Javier for deceiving a client into believing a petition was filed on time when it was not. Resorting to legal subterfuge to mislead the court and cover up failings toward a client is a disgraceful indictment of a lawyer's moral fiber and an embarrassment to the Bar, warranting a similar penalty.

• Due Process in Administrative Proceedings — The essence of due process is simply a reasonable opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side and adduce evidence in support of a defense. Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. A respondent in an administrative proceeding is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of an investigating committee; he is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and evidence presented during hearings. The Court applied this doctrine to reject respondent's claim of denial of due process, where the IBP had repeatedly scheduled and reset hearings to accommodate him.

• Disciplinary Power Over Members of the Bar — The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline erring individuals but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer's oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor.

• Dishonesty as Grave Misconduct — Dishonesty constitutes grave misconduct upon which the Court may impose suspension from the practice of law. The Court applied this principle by increasing the recommended penalty from six months to one year, consistent with penalties imposed in comparable cases where lawyers engaged in falsification or deception involving court records and client matters.

• "The quintessence of due process is simply that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side and to adduce any evidence he may have in support of his defense." — This passage articulates the controlling standard for due process in administrative proceedings against lawyers, framing the Court's rejection of respondent's claim.

• "By altering the material dates to make it appear that the Notice of Appeal was timely filed, respondent committed an act of dishonesty." — This sentence states the ratio decidendi connecting the factual finding of alteration to the legal conclusion of dishonesty under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• "The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer's oath have proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar." — This passage defines the dual purpose of the Court's disciplinary power and is frequently cited in subsequent legal ethics jurisprudence.

• Ong vs. Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, A.C. No. 2417, February 6, 2002 — Followed for the proposition that the ethics of the legal profession enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play, and nobility, and that a lawyer may be disciplined for any misconduct whether in his professional or private capacity.

• Reyes vs. Atty. Rolando Javier, A.C. No. 5574, February 1, 2002 — Followed as a comparable case where a one-year suspension was imposed for deceiving a client into believing a petition was filed on time when it was filed on a much later date, supporting the penalty imposed in the present case.

• Santos vs. Joyce Trinidad Arlegui-Hernandez, et al., February 22, 2002 — Followed as a comparable case where a one-year suspension was imposed for inserting a certification of non-forum shopping into case records and making it appear it was already part of the records at the time of filing.

• Pefianco vs. Moral, 322 SCRA 439 (2000) — Cited for the rule that a respondent in an administrative proceeding is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of an investigating committee, but only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges.

• Sevilla vs. Salubre, 348 SCRA 592 (2000) — Cited for the principle that the primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is to safeguard the administration of justice and remove unfit persons from the legal profession.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Applied to hold respondent's alteration of dates on court records as dishonest conduct warranting disciplinary action.

• Rule 19.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates that "a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain improper advantage in any case or proceeding." Applied to characterize respondent's conduct as a violation of the duty to employ only fair and honest means.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court — Enumerates grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer's oath, willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court, and willfully appearing as attorney for a party without authority. Cited as the statutory basis for the Court's disciplinary authority over respondent.

• Section 2, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Governs the procedure for elevation of IBP decisions to the Supreme Court, providing that the respondent's remedy from an adverse IBP Board resolution is to file a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court within fifteen days from notice. Cited by the IBP Board in denying respondent's motion for reconsideration filed with the Board rather than with the Court.

• Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1989 (Guidelines in the Application of Penalties in Administrative Cases) — Cited as the pertinent rules under which dishonesty constitutes grave misconduct, supporting the imposition of the one-year suspension penalty.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concurred.