Case Digest (A.C. No. 8471)
Facts:
In a Complaint-Affidavit dated September 2, 2019, Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon and Clerk of Court V Atty. Corazon P. Romero, both of Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 41, Bacolod City, charged Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang with the fabrication of an Order dated August 2, 2006 in purported Civil Case No. 206-16977, a non-existent case. The spurious order, falsely signed “Presiding Judge ALAN RAY DRILON,” declared the presumptive death of Ruby S. Madrinian upon petition of his wife, Jodee P. Andren, citing Article 390 of the Civil Code. In July 2008, the complainants obtained a Certificate from the RTC Clerk confirming no such case was ever filed, and noted material anomalies in the case number format, judge’s name, signature style, and order caption. The complainants then sought an NBI investigation, which in April 2009 secured sworn statements from Andren and her caretaker, Nenita Kho-Artizano, both identifying Atty. Maglalang as the source of the forged order and recounting payments totCase Digest (A.C. No. 8471)
Facts:
- Complainants and Allegation
- Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon and Clerk of Court VI Atty. Corazon P. Romero of RTC-41, Bacolod City filed a Complaint‐Affidavit on September 2, 2019 against Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang.
- They alleged that Atty. Maglalang fabricated an “Order” dated August 2, 2006 in a non‐existent Civil Case No. 206-16977, purportedly signed by “Presiding Judge ALAN RAY DRILON,” declaring Ruby S. Madrinian presumed dead upon petition of his wife, Jodee Andren.
- Verification and Initial Findings
- In July 2008, the Office of the Clerk of Court issued a July 16, 2008 Certificate confirming no record of Civil Case No. 206-16977.
- Judge Drilon and Atty. Romero observed that:
- The case number did not match the court’s chronological docketing;
- The signature and name format (“Alan Ray Drilon”) were inconsistent with the judge’s;
- The writing style and heading format differed from official orders.
- NBI Investigation and Witness Statements
- The NBI report (April 7, 2009) included sworn statements by Andren and Nenita Kho-Artizano.
- Andren’s April 2, 2009 statement recounts that:
- She hired Atty. Maglalang in early 2006 for an annulment case, paid fees totaling ₱150,000;
- Maglalang gave her the forged order in November 2006 and handled her wedding formalities;
- She discovered the annulment order was fake in March 2008 when NSO records remained unchanged.
- Kho-Artizano’s April 3, 2009 statement corroborated the delivery of the forged order at Andren’s home and its later discovery as fake.
- The NSO issued a May 15, 2008 Certification showing Andren’s marriage to Ruby S. Madrinian remained on record with no annulment.
- IBP Proceedings and Findings
- The Court referred the matter to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) via August 14, 2019 Resolution. Atty. Maglalang denied knowledge of the complainants and claimed lack of engagement contract.
- The IBP-CBD’s August 10, 2022 Report found that Maglalang “resorted to shortcuts” by fabricating and furnishing a non‐existent order, based on:
- Incorrect judge name and signature;
- Discrepancies in writing style;
- RTC certificates attesting no such case filed.
- The IBP-CBD recommended a one-year suspension; the IBP Board of Governors, by May 8, 2023 Extended Resolution, adopted the facts but increased the penalty to disbarment.
Issues:
- Did Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang fabricate and use a forged court order?
- What is the appropriate disciplinary penalty under the CPRA for such conduct?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)