A.C. No. 8471 - Drilon vs. Maglalang

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8471)

Key Dates

Alleged forged order dated August 2, 2006.
Complaint-Affidavit filed September 2, 2019.
Clerk of Court certificates verifying absence of any docketed case (July 16, 2008; April 16, 2009).
IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation dated August 10, 2022.
IBP-Board of Governors Extended Resolution dated May 8, 2023.
Supreme Court En Banc decision adopted and promulgated August 22, 2023.

Nature of the Complaint

Judge Drilon and Atty. Romero charged Atty. Maglalang with fabrication and use of a forged court Order (the “Forged Order”) purportedly signed by “Presiding Judge ALAN RAY DRILON” in Civil Case No. 206-16977, entitled Jodee P. Andren v. Ruby S. Madrinian, declaring the presumptive death of Ruby Madrinian. The Forged Order was alleged to be non-existent in the court’s docket.

Substance of the Forged Order

The Forged Order declared the respondent “absentee” and “presumed dead for all legal purposes,” citing Article 390 of the Civil Code (presumption of death after seven years’ absence). It directed that a copy be served to the National Statistics Office and to the Office of the Solicitor General. The language, formatting, and the judge’s name in the order were later identified as inconsistent with the court’s authentic documents.

Verification by the Court’s Clerk and Observations

The Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Bacolod City, issued certificates confirming that Civil Case No. 206-16977 was not filed or docketed in that court. Judge Drilon and Atty. Romero observed multiple anomalies in the Forged Order: the case number did not conform to the court’s chronological numbering; the signature did not match Judge Drilon’s genuine signature; the judge’s name appeared as “Alan Ray Drilon” rather than “Ray Alan T. Drilon”; the writing style differed from the judge’s typical orders; and the heading and caption format differed from the court’s standard.

NBI Investigation and Witness Statements

The complainants secured NBI assistance. The NBI report and sworn statements of Jodee Andren and Nenita Kho-Artizano corroborated that Atty. Maglalang gave Andren a copy of the purported order in November 2006. Andren’s statement recounted payments to Atty. Maglalang (initial Php 30,000; Php 70,000 for alleged NSO correction; additional Php 50,000 package) and related assurances that documents and annulment would be secured without personal appearances. Andren averred that the order she received was later found to be fake when her NSO record remained unchanged. Kho-Artizano corroborated witnessing Maglalang deliver the order at Andren’s residence and her subsequent discovery at NSO that the record was not corrected.

Documentary Evidence from Civil Registry and Court Records

The National Statistics Office issued a certification (May 15, 2008) showing that as of April 30, 2008 Andren was still recorded as married to Ruby Sabandal Madrinian. The RTC Clerk issued certificates (July 16, 2008; April 16, 2009) attesting that no civil case numbered 206-16977 or related annulment petition was filed or docketed in Judge Drilon’s sala.

IBP Investigation, Findings, and Recommendation

Pursuant to the referral, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines — Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) conducted proceedings and required mandatory conference briefs. Atty. Maglalang submitted a brief denying personal knowledge of Andren and Kho-Artizano, claiming relocation to Manila and contesting the completeness of submitted copies. The IBP-CBD, after considering testimonial and documentary evidence, found indicia of fabrication (five specific points: name order, signature mismatch, writing style, clerk certifications, heading/caption format) and concluded Maglalang furnished his client a non-existent order. The IBP-CBD recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law.

IBP Board of Governors Action

The IBP-Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD’s factual findings but increased the recommended sanction to disbarment in view of the respondent’s deceitful conduct in falsifying judicial papers and in light of precedents imposing disbarment for similar conduct.

Supreme Court’s Standard, Applicable Ethical Rule, and Procedural Posture

The Supreme Court, exercising its constitutional duty to discipline members of the bar under the 1987 Constitution, adopted the IBP-CBD factual findings and the IBP-BOG penalty recommendation. The Court applied the newly promulgated Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which took effect May 29, 2023 and, to the extent feasible, governs pending cases. The CPRA provisions invoked include Canon II (Propriety), with Sections on Proper Conduct (no unlawful, dishonest, immoral, deceitful conduct), Dignified Conduct, Observance of Fairness and Obedience, and Prohibition against Misleading the Court; and Canon III (Fidelity), Section 2 regarding the responsible and accountable lawyer.

Evidentiary Assessment and Legal Presumptions

The Court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Atty. Maglalang authored and used the Forged Order. Key evidentiary points: direct identifications by Andren and Kho-Artizano that Maglalang supplied the Order; the NBI’s confidential letter confirming the Forged Order was given by Maglalang to Andren; the clerk certificates showing no filed case; Judge Drilon’s unequivocal disclaimer and detailed comparison showing disparities in signature, name order, style, and format. The Court noted the well-settled rule cited in the record that, absent satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is presumed to be its forger. The respondent’s general and perfunctory denials were deemed insufficient to

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8471)

Procedural Posture and Panel

Case decided En Banc, A.C. No. 8471, Decision dated August 22, 2023, Per Curiam.
Complainants: Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon (Judge Drilon) and Clerk of Court V Atty. Corazon P. Romero (Atty. Romero), both of Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Bacolod City.
Respondent: Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang.
Relief sought: disciplinary action against respondent for alleged fabrication and use of a forged court order.

Complaint and Allegation

Complaint-Affidavit dated September 2, 2019 charged Atty. Maglalang with fabrication of an Order dated August 2, 2006 in Civil Case No. 206-16977 (the "Forged Order").
The Forged Order purportedly was docketed in Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City although the case was non-existent.

Contents and Purported Effect of the Forged Order

The Forged Order, signed as "Presiding Judge ALAN RAY DRILON," declared the presumptive death of Ruby S. Madrinian upon petition of his wife, Jodee Andren.
The order contained language invoking Article 390 of the Civil Code, stating that after an absence of seven years one shall be presumed dead for all purposes, and ordered that a copy be served to the National Statistic Office and the Office of the Solicitor General.
Emphases and typographical errors (as quoted in the source) were present in the Forged Order.

Initial Verification by RTC Bacolod City

Sometime in July 2008, Judge Drilon and Atty. Romero retrieved a copy of the Forged Order and sought verification.
The Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Bacolod City issued a Certificate dated July 16, 2008 confirming there was no Civil Case No. 206-16977 entitled "Jodee P. Andren versus Ruby S. Madrinian."
Observations by Judge Drilon and Atty. Romero regarding the Forged Order included:
- The case number was inconsistent with the chronological numbering of cases in the Clerk's Office.
- The signature on the Forged Order was not Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon's signature.
- The judge’s full name was incorrectly presented as "Alan Ray Drilon" instead of "RAY ALAN T. DRILON."
- The style and manner of writing differed markedly from how Judge Drilon writes orders or resolutions.
- The heading and caption format differed from the court’s standard format.

NBI Investigation and Sworn Statements

The complainants sought assistance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate the matter; the NBI submitted a report containing sworn statements.
Sworn Statement of Jodee Andren (dated April 2, 2009) included:
- Referral to Atty. Ariel Maglalang in late February 2006 to handle an annulment; March 2006 agreement to handle for Php 100,000, with 50% down payment requested; Andren paid Php 30,000 in March 2006.
- Repeated follow-ups with Atty. Maglalang who made excuses; assurances that Judge Drilon was busy and promised to arrange a meeting that never happened.
- In August 2006, Maglalang purportedly asked for Php 70,000 to "correct" NSO records and expedite matters; Andren paid Php 70,000 and received an acknowledgement receipt.
- Maglalang arranged a wedding in Manila set for August 22, 2006; Maglalang was present as a witness at the Manila City Hall ceremony on August 20, 2006.
- After the wedding, Andren requested a copy of her annulment order; Maglalang gave her an annulment order signed by Judge Drilon in November 2006.
- In March 2008, upon attempting to file for an immigrant visa and asking her caretaker Nenita Kho-Artizano to secure corrected NSO records, the NSO record was not corrected; the prior marriage still remained despite the purported annulment order.
- Andren engaged Atty. Bimbo Lavidez, who verified that no petition for annulment had been filed in Judge Drilon’s sala and that the order given to Andren by Maglalang was fake.
- Andren identified Maglalang’s photograph taken after her wedding reception.
Sworn Statement of Nenita Kho-Artizano (dated April 3, 2009) corroborated Andren’s account:
- Kho-Artizano observed Maglalang go to Andren’s home in November 2006 and give Andren the Order purportedly from Judge Drilon.
- Kho-Artizano later (March 2008) discovered at NSO that Andren’s records remained uncorrected.
- On instruction by Andren, Kho-Artizano sought a lawyer; Atty. Bimbo Lavidez discovered no annulment petition filed in Judge Drilon’s sala and no order issued by Judge Drilon in respect of such a case.

Documentary and Official Records

Andren identified an Acknowledgement Receipt dated August 11, 2006 issued by Atty. Maglalang for Php 70,000 received for "correction of [her] public records."
Andren identified a photograph of herself with Atty. Maglalang taken at her wedding.
The National Statistics Office (NSO) issued a Certification dated May 15, 2008 stating that as of April 30, 2008 their records showed Andren was married to Ruby Sabandal Madrinian.
The Clerk of Court, RTC Bacolod City issued Certificates (dated July 16, 2008 and April 16, 2009) confirming that Civil Case No. 206-16977 was not filed nor docketed at that court.

IBP Referral, Proceedings, and Recommendations

By Resolution dated August 14, 2019, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The IBP-CBD required mandatory conference briefs from the parties and allowed opportunity to submit Replies upon receipt of the other party’s brief.
Atty. Maglalang’s Mandatory Conference Brief (dated March 7, 2021) averred:
- He had relocated to Manila for several years and had not received a copy of the complaint.
- Documents submitted were merely copies, blurred and incomplete.
- He did not personally know Andren or Kho-Artizano.
- There was no engagement contract showing Andren retained him for an annulment.
No Reply by the complain