Spouses Umaguing vs. Atty. De Vera

A lawyer who knowingly submits a falsified document to a court violates the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law, regardless of any waiver executed by the complainant, because disciplinary proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare and not for the redress of private grievance.

Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing engaged the legal services of Atty. Wallen R. De Vera to file an election protest before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36, on behalf of their daughter Mariecris Umaguing, who lost the Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman race in the 2007 elections by one vote. The administrative complaint before the Supreme Court arose from Atty. De Vera's handling of that election protest, specifically his procurement of falsified witness affidavits and his alleged extortion of additional fees purportedly to bribe the presiding judge.

Mariecris Umaguing ran for the position of Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman in the 2007 SK Elections but lost to her rival Jose Gabriel Bungag by one vote. Her parents, spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing, engaged Atty. Wallen R. De Vera to file an election protest before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36. On November 7, 2007, Atty. De Vera asked the complainants to pay his acceptance fee of P30,000.00 plus P30,000.00 in court appearance fees and miscellaneous expenses, for a total of P60,000.00. Despite having ample time to prepare, Atty. De Vera moved slowly and only acted when the November 8, 2008 filing deadline was imminent.

In his rush to meet the deadline, Atty. De Vera prepared the necessary documents, including the affidavits of material witnesses Mark Anthony Lachica and Angela Almera. When the time came for Lachica and Almera to sign, they were unavailable. Atty. De Vera allegedly instructed Abeth Lalong-Isip and Hendricson Fielding to look for the nearest kin or relatives of the two witnesses and ask them to sign over the names. Christina Papin signed over Lachica's name, and Elsa Almera-Almacen, Angela Almera's sister, signed over Almera's name. Atty. De Vera then had all the documents notarized before Atty. Donato Manguiat.

Lachica later discovered the falsification and disowned the signature on his affidavit, submitting his own affidavit declaring that he had not authorized Papin to sign on his behalf. When Lachica's affidavit was presented to the MeTC, Presiding Judge Edgardo Belosillo ruled that the affidavits filed by Atty. De Vera were falsified. Although Atty. De Vera filed an Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion seeking to withdraw the affidavits, Judge Belosillo observed that this was a mere flimsy excuse, since Atty. De Vera had ample time to have the affidavits personally signed but still hastily filed the election protest with full knowledge that the affidavits were falsified.

The complainants further alleged that Atty. De Vera failed to appear before the MeTC for a December 11, 2007 hearing without offering any explanation. When confronted, Atty. De Vera explained that he was hesitant to handle the case because of alleged favoritism by Judge Belosillo, claiming the judge had received P60,000.00 from defense counsel Atty. Carmelo Culvera to secure a favorable decision. Atty. De Vera stated he would only appear if the complainants gave him P80,000.00, which he would in turn give to Judge Belosillo. On December 12, 2007, for lack of trust and confidence in Atty. De Vera's integrity and competency, the complainants asked him to withdraw as counsel and to reimburse the P60,000.00 in fees he had collected, noting he had only appeared twice for the case.

In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. De Vera denied all accusations. He claimed the signing of Lachica's falsified affidavit was done without his knowledge and that Christina Papin should be held responsible. He asserted that he sought to rectify his mistakes by filing the motion to withdraw the affidavits and that he withdrew from the case because he felt he could no longer serve the complainants with loyalty. He also pointed out that the complainants had executed a "Release Waiver & Discharge" which he claimed discharged him from all causes of action, including the administrative case. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found credible the testimony of Elsa Almera-Almacen, who attested that Lalong-Isip approached her to sign the affidavit, that Atty. De Vera was present during the signing, and that Lalong-Isip declared to Atty. De Vera that she was not Almera. The Commissioner noted that Atty. De Vera deliberately omitted to comment on the falsification of Almera's affidavit, and that the timing—one day before the filing deadline—showed he was pressed for time and resorted to having relatives sign for the absent affiants.

• Falsification of Affidavits: Complainants alleged that Atty. De Vera betrayed their trust and committed gross misconduct by instructing campaigners to find relatives of the material witnesses to sign the affidavits on the witnesses' behalf, and by submitting these falsified documents to the court.
• Non-Appearance and Extortion: Complainants pointed out that Atty. De Vera failed to appear for a December 11, 2007 hearing without explanation, and that he attempted to extort P80,000.00 from them, purportedly to bribe Judge Belosillo for a favorable decision.
• Excessive Fees: Complainants sought reimbursement of P60,000.00 in fees collected by Atty. De Vera, considering he only appeared twice for the case, and asked for his disbarment.

• Denial of Participation in Falsification: Atty. De Vera vehemently denied all accusations, claiming the signing of Lachica's falsified affidavit was done without his knowledge and that Christina Papin should be indicted. He asserted he had no knowledge of the falsification and did not notarize the documents himself.
• Rectification of Mistakes: Atty. De Vera argued that he sought to rectify the situation by filing an Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion to withdraw the affidavits, and that he withdrew from the case because he could no longer serve the complainants with loyalty.
• Release Waiver: Atty. De Vera maintained that the "Release Waiver & Discharge" executed by the complainants discharged him and his law firm from all causes of action, including the instant administrative case.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable for his handling of the election protest case, specifically for the submission of falsified affidavits to the court.
• Effect of Release Waiver: Whether the "Release Waiver & Discharge" executed by the complainants bars the administrative proceeding against Atty. De Vera.
• Reimbursement of Fees: Whether Atty. De Vera should be ordered to return the P60,000.00 he received from the complainants.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Atty. De Vera was found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for knowingly submitting a falsified affidavit before the court, and was suspended for six months.
• Effect of Release Waiver: No. The "Release Waiver & Discharge" does not deny the Court its power to sanction Atty. De Vera administratively, because disciplinary proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare and involve no private interest.
• Reimbursement of Fees: Yes. Atty. De Vera was ordered to return P60,000.00 to the complainants, being fees intrinsically linked to his professional engagement, the receipt of which he admitted before the IBP.

• Administrative Liability: The Court adopted and approved the IBP's findings, which were duly substantiated by the records. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found credible the testimony of Elsa Almera-Almacen, who attested that Lalong-Isip approached her to sign the affidavit, that Atty. De Vera was present during the signing, and that Lalong-Isip declared to Atty. De Vera that she was not Angela Almera. The Court sustained this credibility assessment, recognizing that the IBP and its officers are in the best position to assess witness credibility during disciplinary proceedings, as they observe demeanor firsthand. Atty. De Vera's failure to specifically deny the falsification of Almera's affidavit—offering only a general denial that he did not notarize the documents and had no knowledge of the falsification—could not overcome Almera-Almacen's positive testimony. The belated retraction of the questioned affidavits through the Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion was deemed a mere afterthought prompted by the discovery of the falsification, as it was highly improbable for Atty. De Vera to have remained ignorant of the authenticity of documents he himself submitted. The Court applied Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR, which prohibits lawyers from doing any falsehood or consenting to the doing of any in court, and the Lawyer's Oath, which enjoins lawyers to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court." Relying on Samonte vs. Atty. Abellana, where a lawyer was suspended for six months for filing a spurious document in court, the Court found the same penalty appropriate here.

• Effect of Release Waiver: The Court clarified that the "Release Waiver & Discharge" could not bar the administrative proceeding. Citing Ylaya vs. Gacott, the Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings are not civil actions where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Such proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance; they are undertaken and prosecuted solely for public welfare, to preserve courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice. The complainant is in no sense a party and has no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Accordingly, the waiver could not deprive the Court of its power to sanction Atty. De Vera.

• Reimbursement of Fees: The Court granted the prayer for reimbursement of P60,000.00, comprised of Atty. De Vera's acceptance fee and other legal expenses intrinsically related to his professional engagement. Atty. De Vera had admitted receipt of this amount in his Answer before the IBP. The Court directed him to return the amount within ninety days from finality of the decision, warning that failure to comply would warrant further administrative penalties.

• Nature of Disciplinary Proceedings — Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are not civil actions and involve no private interest; they are undertaken and prosecuted solely for public welfare to preserve courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice. The complainant is in no sense a party and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. A waiver or release executed by the complainant therefore cannot bar the Court from exercising its disciplinary authority. The Court applied this doctrine to reject Atty. De Vera's reliance on the "Release Waiver & Discharge" as a defense.

• Lawyer's Duty of Candor to the Court (Rule 10.01, Canon 10, CPR) — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. This rule, together with the Lawyer's Oath, imposes on every lawyer the obligation to be honest, trustworthy, and imbued with integrity in dealings with clients and courts. The Court found Atty. De Vera in violation by knowingly submitting a falsified affidavit to the MeTC.

• IBP's Role in Assessing Witness Credibility — The IBP and its officers are in the best position to assess a witness's credibility during disciplinary proceedings, as they are given the opportunity to firsthand observe the witness's demeanor and comportment, similar to trial courts. The Court sustained the IBP Commissioner's appreciation of Elsa Almera-Almacen's credibility, finding nothing on record to belie it.

• "A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven." — This passage, quoted from Ylaya vs. Gacott, articulates the fundamental nature of disciplinary proceedings as actions for public welfare, not private redress, and explains why a complainant's waiver cannot bar the Court's disciplinary power.

• "Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in this country should remain faithful to the Lawyer's Oath. Only thereby can lawyers preserve their fitness to remain as members of the Law Profession." — This passage, echoing Samonte vs. Atty. Abellana, states the Court's rationale for imposing stern disciplinary sanctions on lawyers who resort to falsehood or deception.

• "It is highly improbable for Atty. De Vera to have remained in the dark about the authenticity of the documents he himself submitted to the court when his professional duty requires him to represent his client with zeal and within the bounds of the law." — This passage explains why the Court rejected Atty. De Vera's claim of ignorance regarding the falsified affidavits, emphasizing the lawyer's professional duty to know the contents of documents submitted to court.

• Samonte vs. Atty. Abellana, A.C. No. 3452, June 23, 2014 — Controlling precedent on penalty. The Court suspended a lawyer for six months for filing a spurious document in court. The Court found the same penalty appropriate for Atty. De Vera's submission of a falsified affidavit, and quoted its exhortation on the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.

• Ylaya vs. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452 — Controlling precedent on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. The Court quoted this case for the proposition that disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare and may proceed regardless of the complainant's interest, thereby rendering the "Release Waiver & Discharge" ineffectual as a bar to administrative sanctions.

• Pitcher vs. Gagate, A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013, 707 SCRA 13 — Cited in support of the reimbursement order, for the principle that fees intrinsically related to a lawyer's professional engagement may be ordered returned.

• Bautista vs. Atty. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236 (2006) — Cited within Ylaya vs. Gacott for the principle that disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.

• Lawyer's Oath — The oath taken upon admission to the Philippine Bar, which enjoins every lawyer to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court" and to conduct himself "with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients." Atty. De Vera was found to have violated this oath by sanctioning the submission of a falsified affidavit.

• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice." This was the specific provision Atty. De Vera was found guilty of violating.

• Canon 18, Rule 18.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from handling any legal matter without adequate preparation. The Court cited this provision in noting that Atty. De Vera's rushed preparation of the election protest documents fell short of professional standards.

• Canon 19, Rule 19.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from allowing his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case. The Court cited this provision in reinforcing the lawyer's independent professional duty.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concurred.