A.C. No. 11981 - Taday vs. Apoya, Jr.

A Verified Complaint-Affidavit was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr.
The complaint alleged that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by issuing a fake decision of a court.

Leah B. Taday, an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) residing in Norway, sought legal assistance for the nullification of her marriage.
Her parents, Virgilio and Natividad Taday, contracted respondent’s legal services, executing a Retainer Agreement on April 17, 2011, with an acceptance fee of ₱140,000.00 payable on a staggered basis.
Despite being informed of her location, respondent assured complainant that her absence from the Philippines would not hinder the case resolution.

On April 20, 2011, respondent prepared and allegedly sent a Petition for Annulment of Marriage to complainant for her signature.
The petition was notarized by respondent and subsequently filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, assigned to Branch 131 (Civil Case No. C-22813).

On November 17, 2011, while complainant was on vacation in the Philippines and after paying respondent ₱14,500.00 in legal fees, respondent delivered a decision dated November 16, 2011, purporting to grant her annulment.
The decision, reportedly issued by Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles of an allegedly existing RTC Branch 162, raised suspicions due to discrepancies in branch and judge details.
Subsequent verifications revealed that neither Branch 162 nor Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles existed in the RTC.

Upon discovering the irregularities, complainant, through her parents, requested the withdrawal of respondent as counsel; however, respondent instead filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition.
The RTC Branch 131 granted this motion on June 25, 2012, resulting in the dismissal of the case from the docket.
Later, complainant engaged Atty. Alexander M. Verzosa, whose letter dated February 26, 2013, confronted respondent regarding both the attorney’s fees and the fake decision.

In his Answer, respondent denied any knowledge that complainant was an OFW, claiming instead she was in the Bicol province, and asserted he only drafted the petition and later received her signature.
Respondent also denied ever delivering a decision regarding the annulment, attributing the fake decision to a mere figment of complainant’s imagination.
He further claimed that he only prepared the motion to withdraw the petition and did not file it, contradicting the court’s record showing the case was indeed dropped.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that respondent committed multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01, 1.02, and Canon 1.
The Commission determined that respondent illegally notarized a document (the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping) despite complainant’s absence and authored a fake decision matching the format and errors of his earlier petition.
Based on these findings, the Commission recommended a two-year suspension, which was later modified by the IBP Board of Governors to disbarment following respondent’s unsuccessful motions for reconsideration.

Notarizing the petition’s Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping without the personal appearance of the complainant.
Authoring and delivering a fabricated or fake decision, thereby deceiving the complainant regarding the outcome of her annulment case.

Whether the irregularities committed by respondent, including the filing of an urgent motion to withdraw the petition, amounted to misconduct warranting the penalty of disbarment.

Whether such misconduct adversely affects the integrity and trust placed in the legal profession, thereby justifying the imposition of the utmost penalty available under the law.