Case Digest (A.C. No. 6732)
Facts:
Embido v. Pe, A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. The complainant is Atty. Oscar L. Embido, Regional Director, National Bureau of Investigation, Western Visayas (NBI‑WEVRO); the respondent is Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr., then Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of San Jose, Antique.The factual sequence began when a Solicitor in the United Kingdom, Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, requested from Branch 64, Regional Trial Court (RTC) Bugasong, Antique a copy of a decision allegedly rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela on February 12, 1997 in Special Proceedings No. 084 titled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna with petitioner Shirley Quioyo. The RTC clerk, upon retrieval of the records, found no such file; the authentic Special Proceedings No. 084 related instead to Rolando Austria with petitioner Serena Catin Austria. Mr. Hunt later submitted a machine copy of a purported decision bearing the Rey Laserna caption that had been presented in UK court proceedings.
The RTC determined the document was falsified and informed Mr. Hunt and the NBI. The NBI investigated; Dy Quioyo (Shirley Quioyo’s brother) executed an affidavit stating that respondent had facilitated issuance of the falsified decision for P60,000; Mary Rose Quioyo corroborated in a separate affidavit. The NBI invited respondent to explain, but he invoked his right to remain silent; Dy Quioyo alone gave testimony to the NBI. The NBI forwarded its findings to the Office of the Ombudsman recommending criminal prosecution for falsification (Art. 171, Revised Penal Code) and graft (RA 3019), and recommended disciplinary (disbarment) proceedings to the Office of the Court Administrator and the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Respondent filed a counter‑affidavit denying participation and claiming Dy Quioyo confessed to having arranged the falsification through third parties; he also relied on a sworn statement by a Mrs. Florencia Jalipa blaming her late husband. The Court treated respondent’s submission as his comment and referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation under the disciplinary procedure.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, found respondent guilty of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorneys’ Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended one‑year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified the recommendation and imposed suspension for six years (Resolution No. XVII‑2007‑063), and later denied reconsideration (Resolution No. XVIII‑2008‑709). Pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139‑B of the Rules ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the respondent guilty of grave misconduct warranting disbarment for having falsified a court decision?
- Were the evidence and findings of the IBP and investigating bodies sufficient to overcome respondent’s denials and justify the disciplinary...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)