A.C. No. 13475 - Dela Cruz vs. Peralta

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13475)

Factual Background: Execution of the Money Judgment and Respondent’s Conduct

After the judgment in the criminal case became final and executory, complainants filed an omnibus motion for execution on October 2, 2014. During the hearing held on October 10, 2014, respondent tendered payment consisting of P100,000.00 in cash and the P30,000.00 cash bond posted by Gitalan. Respondent further manifested that he would settle the remaining P83,750.00 within one month. Complainants agreed to respondent’s propositions on the condition that, in case of default, they would file the appropriate motion.

Despite this agreement, respondent subsequently approached the presiding judge and falsely claimed that he had already fully paid the damages awarded to complainants. Respondent allegedly presented a falsified acknowledgment receipt to support his representation. When complainants learned of the matter, they raised the issue before the presiding judge, who promptly issued a subpoena directing Gitalan to explain the situation.

Under subpoena, Gitalan testified that on June 20, 2012, he had handed respondent a manager’s check in the name of Rodolf James Dela Cruz as payment of the monetary judgment in complainants’ favor. Gitalan stated that respondent in turn provided him an acknowledgment receipt. The acknowledgment receipt was notarized by respondent and purportedly signed by Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz.

Respondent denied the allegations. He asserted that he never received any check from Gitalan, that he did not notarize the acknowledgment receipt, and that he did not hand any such receipt to Gitalan or complainants. He also claimed he had been out of town during the relevant period and learned only later, after complainants filed their motion, about the acknowledgment receipt’s existence. According to respondent, he confronted his secretary, Era S. Vidal (Vidal), who executed an affidavit admitting receipt of the check from Gitalan, encashment, and issuance of the questioned receipt.

Respondent further contended that the complaint was an afterthought because complainants waited nearly two years before filing it. He also claimed that complainants coerced him to tender payment during the October 10, 2014 hearing by demanding P1,000,000.00, such that failure to pay that amount supposedly led to the filing of the disbarment case.

Notwithstanding these defenses, respondent eventually tendered the remainder of the monetary award on January 22, 2015. Still, complainants proceeded to file the present disbarment complaint on December 5, 2016.

IBP Proceedings: Findings of Guilt and Recommended Penalty

In the IBP proceedings, the Investigating Commissioner found the evidence presented by complainants sufficient to prove respondent’s violation of the CPR through repetitive dishonesty and with impunity. The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended a penalty of suspension for three years.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of guilt but modified the penalty from suspension to disbarment. In its Extended Resolution, the Board explained that the evidence, particularly respondent’s actions after receiving the Motion for Execution and his attempts to present the questioned acknowledgment receipt, convinced it that respondent had acted dishonestly under the circumstances. It therefore held respondent liable for violations of specific CPR provisions, including Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Canon 16, Rule 16.01.

The Board reasoned that the gravity of respondent’s deceit was not properly met by suspension. It emphasized that respondent allegedly kept for himself the proceeds of the check in the amount of P213,750.00 entrusted for payment of Gitalan’s judgment obligation to complainants, and then compounded the wrongdoing by forging the payee’s signature and abusing his position as a notary public to cover up the act. The Board also noted that these acts occurred in relation to a case pending execution before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Pagadian City, Branch 2, and that respondent attempted to conceal the misconduct during the hearing on the Motion for Execution dated October 10, 2014. Additionally, the Board found that respondent committed fraud against the IBP by submitting an affidavit executed by his secretary whose contents were allegedly fabricated in respondent’s favor, and it viewed respondent’s attempt to pass blame on the secretary as a belated afterthought raised only in his answer.

Respondent sought reconsideration, but the IBP Board denied it in its Resolution dated January 22, 2022.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed two issues: first, whether respondent was guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR; and second, whether disbarment was the appropriate penalty under the circumstances.

Parties’ Contentions on Guilt and Sanctions

Complainants maintained that respondent engaged in a dishonest and deceitful series of acts during the execution stage of the monetary judgment. They argued that respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and breached multiple CPR duties by fabricating and presenting false proof of payment, including the allegedly falsified acknowledgment receipt and the forged signature of complainants’ payee. They also challenged respondent’s defenses, including the claim that complainants demanded money to prevent filing of the case and the contention that the complaint was merely belated.

Respondent, on the other hand, denied receiving any check from Gitalan, denied notarial participation and delivery of the acknowledgment receipt, and insisted that he became aware only after complainants filed the motion. He relied on the affidavit of his secretary, Vidal, to support the narrative that his secretary handled the check and issued the receipt. He also argued that the filing of the complaint was delayed and claimed coercion by complainants during the hearing by reason of an alleged demand for P1,000,000.00.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Substantial Evidence of Deceit and Gross Misconduct

The Court reiterated that in disbarment and suspension proceedings, it would impose disciplinary sanctions when a lawyer was found to have violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR, but it would also refrain from punishment when the accusations were not duly proven. The Court emphasized the presumption of innocence in favor of lawyers until proven otherwise, and it held that the burden of proof rested on the complainants. It stated that the required standard was substantial evidence, defined as the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Applying that standard, the Court concluded that substantial evidence existed to establish respondent’s violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR through deceit and gross misconduct. The Court described deceitful conduct as conduct involving moral turpitude, including acts contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals, and characterized it as baseness, vileness, or depravity in duties owed to society. It described gross misconduct as any inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct prejudicial to parties’ rights or the proper determination of a cause, generally driven by a deliberate, obstinate, or intentional purpose.

The Court found that the evidence substantially showed respondent received a manager’s check from his client (Gitalan) for payment of the monetary liability to complainants. It held that respondent violated client trust and placed the client in a precarious position by creating a fake acknowledgment receipt and forging Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz’s signature. The Court also found that respondent attempted to persuade the trial court that everything was properly settled in good faith, and it considered respondent’s lack of remorse, his continued denial despite evidence, and his presentation of the fake acknowledgment receipt to the presiding judge as aggravating circumstances. The Court further held that respondent attempted to use his secretary as a scapegoat by causing her to execute an affidavit containing falsehoods.

On the basis of these findings, the Court held respondent liable for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the CPR. It anchored those violations on the prohibitions against unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; scandalous conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law; falsehood and misleading the court; and the duty to maintain respect for courts and judicial officers.

The Court also held that respondent transgressed Canons 15, 16, and 17 of the CPR for lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty in dealings with clients; for failing to hold client money in trust; and for failing in fidelity to the case of his client. It further held that respondent’s acts led to delay in full satisfaction of complainants’ judgment even though Gitalan had already fully paid by 2012, and that the totality of conduct ran counter to the lawyer’s duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. This, the Court found, violated Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR, which prohibits undue delay, impeding execution of judgments, or misuse of court processes. Finally, the Court held that respondent violated his Lawyer’s Oath to do no falsehood, delay no man for money or malice, and conduct himself with all good fidelity to both courts and client.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Appropriateness of Disbarment

On the penalty, the Court treated lawyer fitness as a continuing requirement measured against the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR. It invoked recent jurisprudence to stress that lawyers must uphold the ethical standards of the profession to preserve public confidence in the integrity of legal practice. The Court held that violati

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13475)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainants were Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz, Rodolf John G. Dela Cruz, and Rodolf James Dela Cruz, who jointly filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The respondent was Atty. Glen Eric Peralta, who was charged with violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found the evidence sufficient to establish respondent’s guilt and recommended a three-year suspension.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings on liability but modified the penalty to disbarment.
The IBP Board of Governors denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated 22 January 2022.
The Court resolved two issues, namely whether respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR, and whether disbarment was the proper penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainants filed a criminal complaint for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide against Lito Gitalan, Jr. (Gitalan) for the death of their loved one, Rodolfo Dela Cruz.
After trial, the court rendered Judgment finding Gitalan guilty and ordering him to pay complainants damages of P213,750.00.
After Gitalan successfully applied for probation, the Judgment became final and executory on June 28, 2011.
On October 2, 2014, complainants filed an omnibus motion seeking execution of the money judgment against Gitalan.
During the hearing on October 10, 2014, respondent tendered P100,000.00 cash and a P30,000.00 cash bond posted by Gitalan, and he manifested he would pay the remaining P83,750.00 within one month.
Complainants agreed to respondent’s proposal on the condition that they would file appropriate action upon default.
Respondent subsequently falsely claimed to the presiding judge that he had fully paid the damages, and he presented a falsified acknowledgment receipt as proof.
When complainants disputed receipt of payment and the receipt’s issuance, the presiding judge issued a subpoena directing Gitalan to explain.
Gitalan testified that on June 20, 2012, he handed respondent a manager’s check in the name of Rodolf James Dela Cruz, representing payment of the monetary judgment.
Gitalan testified that respondent gave him an acknowledgment receipt, which was notarized by respondent and purportedly signed by Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz.
Respondent denied receipt of any check from Gitalan and denied notarizing the acknowledgment receipt or handing it to either Gitalan or complainants.
Respondent claimed he was out of town when the events transpired and asserted he only learned of the acknowledgment receipt when complainants filed the motion.
Respondent confronted his secretary, Era S. Vidal (Vidal), whose Affidavit respondent submitted, and Vidal allegedly admitted receiving the check, encashing it, and issuing the receipt.
Respondent asserted that complainants’ complaint was an afterthought because complainants waited two years before filing the disbarment complaint.
Respondent claimed complainants allegedly coerced him during the October 10, 2014 hearing by demanding P1,000,000.00 to prevent the filing of the disbarment case.
Respondent tendered the remaining monetary award on January 22, 2015, yet complainants still pursued the disbarment complaint, which they filed on December 5, 2016.

IBP Findings and Modifications

The IBP Investigating Commissioner concluded that complainants substantially proved respondent’s repetitive dishonesty and found that the charged acts violated the CPR.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for three years.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings as to respondent’s guilt but modified the penalty from suspension to disbarment.
The IBP Board of Governors reasoned that, based on Gitalan’s statements and respondent’s actuations after receipt of the Motion for Execution, respondent acted dishonestly.
The IBP Board of Governors found that respondent’s misconduct included keeping for himself proceeds of the check entrusted for payment of the judgment obligation.
The IBP Board of Governors found that respondent also attempted to cover up his acts through forgery of the payee’s signature and abuse of position as a Notary Public.
The IBP Board of Governors emphasized that the deceit occurred in relation to a case pending execution before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Pagadian City, Branch 2, and it further described respondent’s attempt to hide his misdeeds during the motion hearing on October 10, 2014.
The IBP Board of Governors also found that respondent submitted an affidavit of Vidal whose contents were fabricated in respondent’s favor.
The IBP Board of Governors noted that respondent’s defense of blaming Vidal was raised for the first time in his Answer, and thus it was treated as afterthought.
The IBP Board of Governors concluded that the gravity of the offenses required disbarment rather than suspension.

Issues Presented

The first issue wa