G.R. No. 147043 - NBI vs. Microsoft Corp. vs. Hwang

The Martin spouses filed a verified complaint seeking the suspension of Attorneys Moreno and Ventura as members of the Philippine Bar.
They alleged that the respondents conspired to defraud them of compensation due to their deceased ward, Virgilio Martin, who died of tuberculosis while employed as a driver for BLU-CAR Taxi.

Investigative findings revealed that Virgilio was not the biological son, but rather under the guardianship of the complainants.
As a result, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the complainants were not entitled to the benefits they claimed.

The complainants, aware of the non-compensability issue, requested Attorney Moreno to negotiate an amicable settlement with BLU-CAR Taxi.
The settlement was embodied in a Motion to Dismiss that stated Virgilio had received P4,000.00 during his lifetime, thereby justifying a dismissal with prejudice.
The Motion also indicated that, for the settlement between the parties, the employer would pay P2,000.00 to the complainants.
Attorney Ventura, acting for BLU-CAR Taxi, explained the motion to the spouses and handed them a check for P2,000.00.

Accused Attorney Moreno of pocketing the alleged P4,000.00 that was stated in the Motion to Dismiss, which supposedly belonged to Virgilio Martin.
Alleged that both Attorneys Moreno and Ventura improperly diverted portions of the P2,000.00 settlement.

Confirmed that a payment of P2,000.00 was made, as indicated in the sworn Motion to Dismiss.
Noted discrepancies in the amount actually received by complainants—with one complainant claiming receipt of only P750.00 while records and statements indicated P2,000.00.
Concluded that there was insufficient competent evidence to support the charge that Moreno received an extra P4,000.00 that was then misappropriated.

Moreno admitted to inserting a false statement in the Motion to Dismiss regarding the payment of P4,000.00.
He explained that the falsification was done for legal and technical reasons.
His rationale was that, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a settlement providing only P2,000.00 would be insufficient when, by law, the maximum allowable compensation in this claim approached P6,000.00.
To reconcile this, Moreno maintained that portraying a pre-payment of P4,000.00 (adding up to P6,000.00 in all) was necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements.

Whether Attorney Juan Moreno committed an offense by knowingly including a false statement in the Motion to Dismiss.

Did the admission of falsification, despite being accompanied by an explanation for legal and technical reasons, warrant disciplinary action?

Whether the alleged misappropriation of funds, particularly the claim that P4,000.00 was pocketed by Moreno at the expense of the claimants, was supported by competent evidence.

Was the claim of misappropriation substantiated by the available documentary and testimonial evidence?

Whether the false statement in the pleading violated the lawyer’s oath and the ethical standards required by the legal profession.
How the mitigating factors (such as remorse and the absence of material damage) impacted the determination of the appropriate sanction.
The evaluation of conflicting testimonies concerning the actual amount received by the complainants and the proper interpretation of the settlement under the Workmen's Compensation Act.