Case Summary (A.C. No. 6732)
Factual Background
Atty. Oscar L. Embido initiated administrative action after court records revealed an anomalous document. A solicitor in the United Kingdom, Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, sought a copy of a February 12, 1997 decision purportedly rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela in Special Proceedings Case No. 084 titled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, petitioner Shirley Quioyo. The Branch 64 files showed no such decision or case; the authentic Special Proceedings No. 084 concerned the declaration of presumptive death of Rolando Austria, petitioner Serena Catin Austria. Mr. Hunt then forwarded, on October 12, 2004, a machine copy of the purported Rey Laserna decision as presented in proceedings abroad. Comparison disclosed that the document was falsified. Judge Penuela informed Mr. Hunt, and the Clerk of Court communicated the discovery to the NBI, which opened an investigation.
Investigative Findings and Affidavits
During the NBI inquiry, Dy Quioyo executed an affidavit dated March 4, 2005, stating that Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. had facilitated issuance of the falsified decision for a fee of P60,000.00. Mary Rose Quioyo corroborated these allegations in an affidavit dated March 20, 2005. The NBI summoned the respondent, who invoked his constitutional right to remain silent. The NBI subsequently transmitted its investigative records to the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas, recommending prosecution for falsification under Article 171, Revised Penal Code, and violation of Section 3(a), RA 3019. The NBI also recommended disciplinary proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Respondent’s Explanation
In a counter-affidavit filed after the Supreme Court required a comment, Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. denied participation in the falsification. He asserted that Dy Quioyo had sought his legal opinion on Shirley Quioyo’s marital annulment, that he had advised on relevant law and grounds for annulment, and that Dy Quioyo later presented a copy of a document which he said Dy Quioyo admitted having caused to be falsified. The respondent claimed he advised Dy Quioyo that the falsified decision would not withstand scrutiny. He further alleged that information from other counsel indicated that one Mrs. Florencia Jalipa had implicated her deceased husband, Manuel Jalipa, in producing the falsified document.
Proceedings Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
The case was referred to the IBP for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, issued a report dated June 14, 2006 finding the respondent guilty of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorneys Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommending suspension from the practice of law for one year. The Investigating Commissioner concluded that the respondent had forged the purported decision by altering names and dates to create a non-existent Special Proceedings No. 084 concerning Rey Laserna and by receiving P60,000.00 from Dy Quioyo. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified the report in Resolution No. XVII-2007-063 dated February 1, 2007, imposing a six-year suspension from the practice of law. On December 11, 2008, the IBP denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration and forwarded the record to the Supreme Court in accordance with Section 12(b), Rule 139-B.
The Supreme Court’s Review and Procedural Disposition
The Supreme Court treated the respondent’s comment as his appeal by petition for review and required transmission of the original IBP records. After review, the Court affirmed the IBP findings. The Court evaluated evidentiary weight, timing of submissions, and the credibility of competing explanations. The Court noted that the respondent filed his counter-affidavit only after the Court’s en banc directive, which diminished the credibility of his denials.
The Parties’ Contentions on Credibility and Authorship
The complainant relied on the NBI investigation, Judge Penuela’s comparison of the documents, and the sworn affidavits of Dy Quioyo and Mary Rose Quioyo to establish authorship and monetary consideration. The respondent countered with denials, the claim of prior legal consultation, and the sworn statement attributed to Mrs. Jalipa implicating her deceased husband. The IBP and the Court found the respondent’s defenses unconvincing. The Court characterized Dy Quioyo’s categorical attribution as positive evidence not overcome by the respondent’s negative assertions. The Court also found the alleged statement by Mrs. Jalipa to be hearsay and thus unreliable to prove authorship. The near-verbatim reproduction of the authentic decision, altered only in names and dates, further undercut the respondent’s explanation and supported the inference of deliberate forgery.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court grounded its decision on the ethical canons and rules of the legal profession. It held that deliberate falsification of a judicial decision constitutes grave misconduct and demonstrates moral turpitude. The Court cited Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and reiterated the obligations of the Attorneys Oath to support the Constitution, obey the laws, and refrain from falsehood or assisting in unlawful suits. The Court emp
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 6732)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, WESTERN VISAYAS, REGIONAL OFFICE (NBI-WEVRO), FOR SAN PEDRO, ILOILO CITY filed a complaint for disbarment against ATTY. SALVADOR N. PE, JR., ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE.
- The complaint followed an NBI investigation that recommended prosecution for falsification under Article 171, 1 and 2, Revised Penal Code, and for violation of Section 3(a), Republic Act 3019.
- The Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas received the NBI report and the Court Administrator endorsed the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant.
- The Integrated Bar of the Philippines conducted investigation and issued a report and recommendation that culminated in Board resolutions suspending the respondent and forwarding the record to the Court pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B, Rules of Court.
- The Court treated the respondent’s counter-affidavit as his comment, treated the IBP action as appeal, required pleadings and directed transmission of records before resolving the matter en banc.
Key Factual Allegations
- A foreign solicitor requested on July 7, 2004 and September 9, 2004 a copy of a purported February 12, 1997 decision in Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna purportedly authored by Judge Rafael O. Penuela.
- Court records disclosed that Branch 64 actually decided Special Proceedings No. 084 concerning the presumptive death of Rolando Austria with petitioner Serena Catin Austria, and no decision for Rey Laserna existed on the file.
- A machine copy of a purported decision in the Rey Laserna matter was later presented to the RTC and deemed a falsified court document.
- Dy Quioyo executed an affidavit on March 4, 2005 implicating the respondent in facilitating issuance of the falsified decision for a fee of P60,000.00.
- Mary Rose Quioyo corroborated Dy Quioyo’s affidavit in a sworn statement dated March 20, 2005.
- The respondent denied participating in the falsification and asserted alternative explanations involving Dy Quioyo, prior assistance by third parties on Recto Avenue, and a sworn statement by Mrs. Florencia Jalipa attributing authorship to her late husband.
Investigation and Evidence
- The NBI investigated the matter after the RTC clerk reported the discovery of the falsified decision and forwarded its findings to the Office of the Ombudsman and to the Court Administrator.
- The respondent invoked his constitutional right to remain silent when invited by the NBI to explain his side.
- The NBI obtained sworn statements from Dy Quioyo and Mary Rose Quioyo, and secured the machine copy of the purported decision as documentary evidence.
- The RTC compared the authentic decision and the purported decision and found the falsified document to be an almost verbatim reproduction of the authentic decision except for substituted names and dates.
- The sworn statement of Mrs. Florencia Jalipa was pres