Tiongson vs. Flores

A lawyer who knows that a document in his possession is falsified and shares it with a client who uses it to perpetrate fraud upon another person violates Rule 19.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and may be suspended from the practice of law, even absent proof that the lawyer authored the falsification or derived any benefit from it.

Atty. Michael L. Flores served as counsel of record for Arthur Tenorio in a matter involving the segregation survey of land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30875 in the name of Jacinta R. Tenorio, Arthur's predecessor. Ma. Herminia T. Tiongson was the registered owner against whom Arthur, et al. asserted a claim to the same property. The administrative case arose from the use of a falsified court order purportedly issued in Civil Case No. 1445-13 before the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon — a case that did not exist.

In 2014, a former court employee named Vincent gave Atty. Michael Flores a document purporting to be an Order issued by the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 1445-13, entitled "Heirs of Jacinta R. Tenorio, Represented by Arthur R. Tenorio, versus Ma. Herminia T. Tiongson and Register of Deeds-Bukidnon." The supposed Order directed the subdivision or segregation of the remaining balance of Title No. T-30875, registered in the name of Jacinta R. Tenorio, among all legitimate compulsory heirs equally, and required the submission of a survey report upon completion. It bore the signature of one Judge Josefina Gentiles Bacal and listed "Deticio/Flores Law Centrum" among those furnished copies. Atty. Flores knew the document was falsified but nonetheless shared it with his client, Arthur Tenorio.

On March 9, 2014, Arthur, together with Beverly Tenorio and Leonard Sena, presented the falsified Court Order to Rogelio Lira, the caretaker of Herminia Tiongson's property. They told Rogelio to refrain from planting on the land because it would be subdivided and that Herminia was no longer its owner. Upon verification, Herminia discovered that no such Civil Case No. 1445-13 was pending before the RTC and that the judge's signature was forged. She filed a criminal complaint for falsification against Arthur, et al., supported by certifications from the clerk of court and the legal researcher confirming that the Order and its contents were fake. The public prosecutor found probable cause for three counts of falsification of public documents and grave coercion, and the corresponding informations were filed before the Municipal Trial Court.

Subsequently, Leonard Sena filed a separate criminal complaint for falsification against Atty. Flores, as he was the one who handed the fake document to Arthur. In his counter-affidavit, Atty. Flores claimed that a person named Vincent had given him the falsified Court Order and that he merely shared it with Arthur without instructing him to use it. He maintained that the fake Order was inexistent, useless, and without value, that it was not implemented, and that no one was prejudiced. The public prosecutor nevertheless found probable cause against Atty. Flores for falsification of public document, and the informations against Arthur, et al. were amended to include Atty. Flores as a conspirator.

Meanwhile, Herminia filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Flores before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, docketed as CBD Case No. 15-4595, alleging that he committed gross misconduct, malpractice, and deceit when he obtained a forged Court Order and shared it with his client, who then used it to coerce her caretaker. Atty. Flores did not file any answer and did not attend the mandatory conference. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Flores authored the fake Court Order and recommended disbarment, a recommendation adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. The Supreme Court, however, found the evidence insufficient to establish authorship or benefit, and instead held Atty. Flores liable under Rule 19.02 of the CPR for failing to call upon his client to rectify the fraud and for carelessly entrusting a forged document to his client despite knowledge of its falsity.

• Gross Misconduct and Deceit: Complainant Herminia Tiongson argued that Atty. Flores committed gross misconduct, malpractice, and deceit when he obtained a forged Court Order and shared it with his client, who then used it to coerce her caretaker into refraining from planting on the land and into believing that Herminia was no longer its owner.

• Lack of Authorship: Atty. Flores maintained that a former court employee named Vincent gave him the falsified Court Order and that he merely shared it with Arthur without any instruction to use it.
• No Damage or Prejudice: Atty. Flores argued that the fake Order was inexistent, useless, and without value, that it was not implemented, and that no one was prejudiced by it.

• Authorship of Falsification: Whether the evidence sufficiently establishes that Atty. Flores authored or falsified the court order, warranting the penalty of disbarment.
• Liability Under Rule 19.02 of the CPR: Whether Atty. Flores violated Rule 19.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to promptly call upon his client to rectify the fraud and by failing to terminate the professional relationship.
• Disobedience to IBP Orders: Whether Atty. Flores should be penalized for failing to file an answer and attend the mandatory conference before the IBP despite due notice.

• Authorship of Falsification: No. The evidence was insufficient to presume that Atty. Flores authored the falsification or forged the judge's signature, as he denied authorship, attributed the document to a person named Vincent, and there was no showing he used or benefited from the fake order.
• Liability Under Rule 19.02 of the CPR: Yes. Atty. Flores violated Rule 19.02 by knowingly sharing a falsified document with his client and then failing to promptly call upon the client to rectify the fraud or to terminate the professional relationship, warranting suspension from the practice of law for one year.
• Disobedience to IBP Orders: Yes. Atty. Flores disobeyed the IBP Commission's orders without justifiable reason by failing to file an answer and attend the mandatory conference, warranting a fine of P5,000.00.

• Authorship of Falsification: The IBP recommended disbarment based on the principle that one who possesses a forged or falsified document and makes use of and benefits from it is deemed the forger or falsifier. However, the facts were insufficient to support that presumption against Atty. Flores. Herminia failed to show that Atty. Flores was directly or indirectly involved in the falsification or the forgery of the judge's signature. Atty. Flores vehemently denied authorship and explained that a former court employee named Vincent gave him the document. At most, he admitted possession of the spurious document and knowledge of its falsity. There was also no evidence that he used the fake order or benefited from it; he even stated that the document was inexistent, useless, and without value. The Court distinguished this case from Sitaca vs. Palomares, where the presumption of authorship was applied because the respondent used the falsified documents to secure his son's liberty — an essential requisite absent here. The fact that Atty. Flores was Arthur's counsel of record and that he did not explain Vincent's identity or file a case against him were minor considerations inadequate to warrant the presumption.

• Liability Under Rule 19.02 of the CPR: Although authorship was not established, Atty. Flores was penalized for his carelessness in entrusting a forged document to his client despite the danger of it being used for a wrongful purpose. Rule 19.02 of the CPR requires that a lawyer who has received information that his client has perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which, shall terminate the relationship. Upon knowledge of the falsification, Atty. Flores should have immediately alerted the trial court or reported the matter to the authorities. His negligence encouraged Arthur, et al. to assert their supposed claim against Herminia. Worse, he remained indifferent and did not confront Arthur to rectify the fraudulent representation. Considering this was his first infraction and that there was no clear showing his malpractice was deliberately done in bad faith or with deceit, suspension for one year was deemed proper.

• Disobedience to IBP Orders: Atty. Flores disobeyed the orders of the IBP Commission without justifiable reason when he failed to file an answer and failed to attend the mandatory conference despite due notice. Such disobedience warranted a fine of P5,000.00.

• Presumption of Authorship of Falsification — The principle that one who possesses a forged or falsified document and makes use of and benefits from it is deemed the forger or falsifier. The Court declined to apply this presumption against Atty. Flores because the essential requisites — use and benefit — were absent. He merely shared the document with his client and did not utilize or derive any benefit from it.

• Rule 19.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which, shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Court applied this rule to hold Atty. Flores liable for his failure to report the falsification, to alert the trial court or authorities, and to confront his client to rectify the fraudulent representation.

• Separate and Distinct Nature of Disbarment and Criminal Proceedings — A disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer; the two may proceed independently. A conviction in the criminal case does not necessarily mean a finding of liability in the administrative case, and the dismissal of a criminal case does not automatically exculpate the respondent from administrative liability. The quantum of evidence differs: proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, preponderant evidence in administrative cases.

• Caution in the Exercise of Disbarment Power — The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. The supreme penalty of disbarment is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.

• "A lawyer who has received information that his clients has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court." — This is the text of Rule 19.02 of the CPR as quoted in the decision, the controlling provision under which Atty. Flores was found guilty and suspended.

• "In no case shall an attorney allow a client to perpetrate fraud upon a person or commit any act which shall prejudice the administration of justice. The lawyer and client alike must only employ fair, honest, and honorable means to advance their interests." — This passage articulates the overarching ethical duty that underpinned the Court's finding of liability, even though authorship of the falsification was not proven.

• "the facts are insufficient to presume that Atty. Flores authored the falsification." — This statement marks the critical distinction between the IBP's recommendation of disbarment and the Supreme Court's modified disposition, clarifying that mere possession and knowledge of a falsified document, without use or benefit, does not trigger the presumption of authorship.

• Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. vs. Atty. Naldoza, 374 Phil. 1 (1999) — Cited as a case where the Court disbarred a lawyer who falsified an official receipt from the Court to conceal misappropriation. Distinguished from the present case because there were sufficient circumstances and admissions showing the respondent committed falsification and benefited from the fake document.

• Tan vs. Diamante, 740 Phil. 382 (2014) — Cited as a case where the respondent falsified a court order to misrepresent to his client that a remedy was still available. Distinguished; the respondent's acts were considered so reprehensible as to warrant disbarment.

• Sitaca vs. Palomares, A.C. No. 5285, August 14, 2019 — Cited as the case in which the presumption of authorship was applied against the respondent who used falsified bail bond and release order documents to secure his son's liberty. Explicitly distinguished from the present case because the essential requisites of use and benefit were absent.

• Madria vs. Atty. Rivera, 806 Phil. 774 (2017) — Cited for the doctrine that falsifying or simulating court papers amounts to deceit, malpractice, or misconduct sufficient for disbarment, where the respondent acknowledged authorship of simulated court documents.

• Rule 19.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer who learns that a client has perpetrated a fraud to promptly call upon the client to rectify it, and failing which, to terminate the professional relationship. Applied as the basis for Atty. Flores's suspension.

• Rule 10.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Referenced by the IBP Commission as among the provisions violated; concerns a lawyer's obedience to lawful orders of courts and tribunals. The Court's dispositive focused on Rule 19.02 and the fine for IBP disobedience.

• Canon 1, Rules 1.01, 1.02, 1.03; Canon 7, Rule 7.03; Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Cited by the IBP Commission as provisions violated by Atty. Flores. The Supreme Court's ruling did not sustain all these findings, focusing instead on Rule 19.02.

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