G.R. No. 244816 - Gonzaga vs. Commission on Audit

The disciplinary proceedings arise from a complaint filed by Judge Nimfa P. Sitaca, Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 35, Ozamiz City, against respondent Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr.
The complaint centered on the submission and use of a purported bail bond and accompanying release order, documents which were alleged to be falsified.

In September 1997, during the murder case “People of the Philippines v. Dunhill Palomares,” respondent represented his son, who was accused in a murder trial docketed under Criminal Case No. RTC-1503.
Respondent was present in court for securing the bail bond for his son’s temporary release.

The bail bond, purportedly amounting to P200,000.00, bore the signature of Hon. Nazar Chavez, Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 18, Cagayan de Oro City.
It was accompanied by an order of release signed by Atty. Glenn Peter Baldado, Branch Clerk of Court of RTC-Branch 18.

Shortly after Judge Sitaca approved the bond based on these documents, a letter from Atty. Baldado revealed that the alleged bail bond did not, in fact, exist and that Branch 18 had not processed any such bond.

Respondent countered the allegations in his September 2000 Comment by asserting that:

He had sought the assistance of his client’s contacts, including BHIC’s CEO Jonathan Bentley Stevens and Operations Manager Cristina Romarate, to expedite his son’s temporary release.
He was introduced to William Guialani, who allegedly processed the bail bond document that bore Judge Chavez’s signature.

It was further noted that Branch Clerk Atty. Roy Murallon, who reported the documents to Judge Sitaca, did not raise any questions regarding their authenticity and was not implicated in the preparation of the alleged falsified documents.
The investigation was formally referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) on March 19, 2003.
The IBP-CBD’s initial Report and Recommendation (dated July 24, 2003) found respondent liable for violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended an 18-month suspension.
Subsequent proceedings included:

Adoption of the initial IBP-CBD recommendation by the IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XVI-2003-81.
A remand of the case back to the IBP by the Court (Third Division, Decision dated April 14, 2004) due to non-compliance with the prescribed investigative procedures.
Continued IBP hearings despite Judge Sitaca’s non-attendance and respondent’s motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of evidence.
An Amended Report and Recommendation (dated March 27, 2009) by IBP Commissioner Jose dela Rama, Jr., which reiterated respondent’s manipulation in procuring the falsified bail bond and release order.
The IBP Board of Governors eventually increased the suspension penalty from 18 months to 3 years in Resolution No. XIX-2011-188 (May 14, 2011).
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied in February 2014.

Despite respondent’s denial and attempts to shift blame onto a purported third party (Guialani), the evidence consistently pointed to his direct involvement.
The records indicated that respondent, as counsel of record for his son in a non-bailable murder case, had both the motive and opportunity to verify and submit authentic documents; yet he presented falsified documents to secure his son’s temporary release.
The cumulative evidence—the fabricated bail bond, the release order, and respondent’s own contradictory affidavits—formed the basis for the imputation of guilt.

Whether the submission and use of a falsified bail bond and release order violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which mandates honesty, moral integrity, and adherence to the law by lawyers.
Whether the deliberate misrepresentation in court proceedings amounted to a breach of Rule 10.01, Canon 10, which prohibits doing or permitting any act of falsehood in or out of court.

Whether the act of possessing and presenting the falsified documents automatically presumes respondent as their author under the principle of presumption of authorship.
Whether respondent’s attempt to shift blame onto an allegedly independent third party (Guialani) is tenable in view of his direct involvement.

The appropriateness and sufficiency of the IBP-CBD’s investigation process vis-à-vis the prescribed investigative rules and procedures.
Whether the procedural lapses noted by the Court in the investigation (such as failure to serve the respondent timely) affected the determination of respondent’s guilt.