A.C. No. 10525 - IN RE: Uy vs. Maghari III

On February 18, 1997, Lilia Hofileña filed a Petition before the Bacolod City Regional Trial Court (RTC) to be designated administratrix of the estate of her deceased common-law partner, Jose Uy (Spec. Proc. No. 97-241).
Hofileña was initially appointed administratrix.
Wilson Uy, one of Jose Uy's children, filed a Motion for Reconsideration on behalf of the spouse and other children of Jose Uy, challenging this appointment.
On June 9, 1998, the RTC designated Wilson Uy as administrator of Jose Uy's estate.
Subsequently, Hofileña’s claims in the estate settlement were granted, leading her to file a Motion for Execution on September 14, 2007.

Throughout the proceedings concerning the estate and conflicting claims, Hofileña was represented by Atty. Mariano L. Natu-El.
Atty. Natu-El’s pleadings bore specific professional details (IBP official receipt number, PTR number, Roll of Attorneys number, MCLE compliance number).
Wilson Uy’s counsel sought a subpoena ad testificandum against Magdalena Uy, alleged treasurer of several of Jose Uy’s businesses, which the RTC granted on April 20, 2010.

Magdalena Uy, through Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari III, filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena ad Testificandum with Alternative Motion to Cite the Appearance of Johnny K.H. Uy.
In signing this and subsequent pleadings, Maghari indicated professional details identical to those of Atty. Natu-El, including IBP official receipt number, PTR number, Roll of Attorneys number, and MCLE compliance number.
These pleadings spanned from 2010 to 2012, with Maghari repeatedly changing the professional details he indicated in various pleadings: some details initially matched those of Atty. Natu-El, later partially changed, and ultimately reflected his own details only in the last pleading.
Wilson Uy's counsel discovered these inconsistencies and alleged that Maghari appropriated another lawyer’s professional details improperly.

Wilson Uy filed a complaint for disbarment against Maghari on July 31, 2014, charging deceit and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
Maghari filed a Comment admitting the existence of errors but claimed they were inadvertent and without any sinister motive.
The Regional Trial Court declined to cite Magdalena Uy in contempt despite her non-compliance with the subpoena on procedural grounds.

Maghari failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his claim of proper payment of dues and compliance with professional requirements.
The court noted a clear pattern of deceit and deliberate manipulation of professional details in pleadings.
Maghari was found responsible for appropriating and misusing another lawyer’s professional data multiple times during litigation.

Whether respondent Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari III engaged in unethical, deceitful, and dishonest conduct by using false or appropriated professional details in pleadings.
Whether such acts constitute grave violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What disciplinary penalty is appropriate for respondent’s misconduct.