A.C. No. 12424 - Tiongson vs. Flores

In 2014, a former RTC employee named Vincent provided Atty. Michael L. Flores with a purported Court Order allegedly from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 1445-13.
The case involved the segregation survey of Jacinta R. Tenorio’s land, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30875, which was to be equally distributed among all legitimate compulsory heirs.
Despite knowing the document was falsified, Atty. Flores shared the Court Order with his client, Arthur Tenorio, without rectifying its fraudulence.

On March 9, 2014, Arthur Tenorio, together with Beverly Tenorio and Leonard Sena, presented the fake Order to Rogelio Lira, caretaker of Herminia T. Tiongson.
They advised Lira to refrain from agricultural activities on the land and to inform Herminia that she no longer owned the property.
Herminia T. Tiongson subsequently verified the authenticity of the document and discovered that no such Civil Case was pending and that the judge’s signature was forged.

Herminia filed a criminal complaint against Arthur Tenorio and his cohorts based on the forgery and falsification of the Court Order.
The public prosecutor found probable cause against Arthur and his associates for falsification of public documents and grave coercion, leading to the filing of corresponding informations before the Municipal Trial Court.
Leonard Sena subsequently filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Flores for handing over the falsified document.
In his counter-affidavit, Atty. Flores claimed that he received the fake document from a person named Vincent and maintained that the document was non-existent and useless, and that he merely shared it without any intention to cause harm.

Herminia T. Tiongson also filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Flores before the IBP alleging gross misconduct, malpractice, and deceit.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Flores violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), particularly emphasizing that as a lawyer, he must act promptly when informed of a client’s fraud.
The Commission noted that Atty. Flores’s negligence, by not alerting the court or taking steps to rectify the fraudulent document, indirectly led to the misapplication of the fake order by his client.

Atty. Flores admitted in his counter-affidavit that he received the document from “VINCENT,” shared it with his client, and was aware of its falsity.
Despite his admission, evidence revealed the document as a forgery: it contained a forged judge’s signature and referenced a non-existent case.
The misconduct was compounded by the fact that the document was later used to harass and defraud Herminia T. Tiongson.

The decision referenced previous cases where lawyers were disbarred for similar acts of simulating court documents, such as in Gatchalian Promotions, Tan, Krursel, Madria, Taday, Lampas-Peralta, and Sitaca.
Legal principles established in these cases held that obtaining and benefitting from a falsified document amounts to grave misconduct meriting the ultimate sanction of disbarment.
However, unlike in those cases, Atty. Flores did not derive direct benefit from the falsified document, as he maintained that it was non-existent and of no value.

Whether Atty. Michael L. Flores committed an act of professional misconduct by sharing a known falsified Court Order with his client.

Did Atty. Flores breach Rule 19.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to call upon his client to rectify the fraud?
To what extent does his act of merely sharing a falsified document, without directly benefiting from it, constitute a punishable offense warranting administrative sanctions?

The legal implications of the lawyer-client relationship in the context of fraudulent activities:

Can the mere possession and circulation of a forged document, even if not directly used by the lawyer for personal gain, be sufficient ground to impose a sanction such as suspension or disbarment?
How should the threshold for evidentiary proof in administrative cases versus criminal cases affect the decision on a lawyer’s fitness to continue practicing law?

Whether the prior related jurisprudence on falsification and forgery of court documents compels a different or similar handling of the present case, given its distinctive circumstances.