A.C. No. 5951 - Krursel vs. Abion

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5951)

Factual Background

Complainant alleged that she engaged Atty. Lorenza A. Abion to prosecute a case against Robinsons Savings Bank — Ermita Branch and its officers regarding the alleged illegal withholding or blocking of her accounts. In March 2002, respondent filed a complaint before the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for “Conducting Business in an Unsafe and Unsound Manner in violation of Republic Act No. 8791.” Complainant discovered that respondent had, by a letter dated April 15, 2002, purportedly withdrawn that complaint with prejudice. Complainant denied authorizing any withdrawal and asserted that respondent forged her signature and that of William Randeli Coleman on the letter.

Documentary Allegations

Complainant attached two Special Powers of Attorney dated March 7, 2002 and March 24, 2002 that purportedly named respondent as attorney-in-fact with authority to retrieve, receive, sign for, and encash accounts and remittances held with Robinsons Savings Bank. Complainant asserted that she never executed such powers of attorney and that the signatures thereon were forged. Complainant also alleged that respondent presented a purported Supreme Court Order dated May 10, 2002 in G.R. No. 152946, allegedly signed by Atty. Virginia R. Soriano, Division Clerk, which proved to be fabricated.

Financial Transactions Alleged

Complainant alleged that respondent demanded and received sums in connection with the filing of a writ of preliminary prohibitive and mandatory injunction and for other services. The Complaint asserted payments totalling Php 330,000 for Supreme Court filing and related fees and totalling Php 440,000 for passport processing and travel papers. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to issue receipts or account for the funds and later presented a forged renewed passport which complainant rejected.

Initial Procedural Steps and Service Difficulties

The Court issued a Resolution dated February 24, 2003 requiring respondent to file a comment. Attempts to serve respondent at her record and alternative addresses yielded returns marked “Unclaimed,” “Party Moved Out,” and similar notations. On June 1, 2011 the Court requested the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation to locate respondent, but the effort was unsuccessful. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was later tasked to investigate under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

Integrated Bar Proceedings and Recommendation

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP conducted proceedings, including a mandatory conference that could not be effectuated because notices were returned unserved. The case was deemed submitted on the basis of the Complaint with attachments. Investigating Commissioner Peter Irving C. Corvera recommended disbarment for fabricating and forging Special Powers of Attorney and an order of the Court and for exacting money without receipt or accounting. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and recommendation on October 10, 2014 and transmitted its resolution to the Court on October 13, 2015.

Issue Presented

The sole issue presented was whether Atty. Lorenza A. Abion should be disbarred for committing forgery, falsification, and swindling.

Respondent’s Evasion and Waiver of Defense

The Court observed repeated failures to serve respondent with the February 24, 2003 Resolution and subsequent IBP notices, and respondent’s unavailability despite inquiries by the National Bureau of Investigation. Relying on precedent in Stemmerick v. Mas, the Court held that respondent’s disappearance or evasion constituted a waiver of the right to contest the charges and that service on the record office addresses sufficed where the lawyer made service impossible. The Court deemed respondent’s evasive conduct as willful disobedience of lawful orders and unbecoming of a member of the bar.

Findings on Forged Signatures and Withdrawal Letter

The Court compared complainant’s signatures in her Complaint and Verification with signatures on the March 7, 2002 Special Power of Attorney and found marked differences in stroke, form, and general appearance. The Court concluded that those signatures were not penned by the same person. The Court also found that the signature in the “Conforme” portion of the April 15, 2002 withdrawal letter clearly appeared forged. The Court, however, distinguished the evidence: while the April 15, 2002 letter bore respondent’s Verification that she caused its preparation and the clients’ “conforme,” establishing respondent’s culpability, the Court found insufficient evidence to prove that respondent authored the forgeries on the Special Power of Attorney because there was no showing that respondent benefitted from or used those particular documents.

Findings on Fabricated Supreme Court Order and Deceit

The Court found that the purported May 10, 2002 Order in G.R. No. 152946 markedly differed from the Court’s usual format. A letter from Atty. Virginia R. Soriano, Clerk of Court of the First Division, denied authorship of the signature and confirmed absence of such an order. The Court concluded that respondent fabricated the order and used it to mislead the complainant into believing she had prevailed, thereby engaging in deceit. The Court characterized these actions as deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct and noted that such falsification derided the administration of justice.

Precedents and Ethical Violations

The Court relied on prior decisions condemning falsification and deceit by lawyers, including Sebastian v. Calis, Embido v. Pe, Jr., and other cited authorities. The Court found respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03, Canon 15, Canon 17, Canon 18, and Rule 18.04. The Court emphasized that deception and fraudulent acts reflect moral unfitness for the practice of law.

Evidence on Monetary Claims

The Court found a paucity of competent evidence to prove the exact sums allegedly demanded or received by respondent. The demand letter attached to the Complaint was not competent proof of payment because it lacked a date stamp or other indication of actual delivery to respondent. The Court reiterated that the complainant bore the burden to prove allegations by substantial evidence in administrative proceedings.

Ruling and Relief

The Supreme Court found Atty. Lorenza A. Abion GUILTY of gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court DISBARRED respondent from the pract

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5951)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Jutta Krursel, Complainant, filed a verified complaint on January 23, 2003, charging Atty. Lorenza A. Abion, Respondent, with forgery, swindling, and falsification of a public document and seeking disbarment.
The complaint alleged respondent engaged in deceitful acts in the course of representing complainant in actions against Robinsons Savings Bank.
This Court required respondent to file a comment in a Resolution dated February 24, 2003, but service attempts returned unserved and respondent did not file a comment.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation and report under Rule 139-B, Rules of Court, and the Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted the recommendation and transmitted the resolution to this Court for final action.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant retained respondent to assist in filing a case against Robinsons Savings Bank for allegedly withholding or blocking complainant’s account.
In March 2002, respondent filed a complaint before the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas alleging violation of Republic Act No. 8791.
Respondent allegedly withdrew the Monetary Board complaint with prejudice by a letter dated April 15, 2002, without complainant’s knowledge, and the letter contained a forged "Conforme" signature of complainant and William Randell Coleman.
Two Special Powers of Attorney dated March 7, 2002, and March 24, 2002, were presented showing respondent as attorney-in-fact with purported signatures of complainant and Coleman, which complainant denied executing.
Complainant alleged respondent demanded and received PHP 225,000.00 for Supreme Court filing fees, PHP 55,000.00 for sheriff’s service, and PHP 50,000.00 for an expedited clerk-of-court fee totaling PHP 330,000.00 for the Supreme Court action docketed as G.R. No. 152946.
Complainant alleged respondent demanded and received PHP 440,000.00 to secure renewal of complainant’s German passport and later presented an obviously fake renewed passport while complainant’s original passport was discovered to be held by Robinsons Savings Bank.
Respondent allegedly furnished complainant a purported May 10, 2002 Order of this Court in G.R. No. 152946, which was later denied as genuine by Atty. Virginia R. Soriano, Clerk of Court of the First Division.

Service and Respondent’s Evasion

This Court’s attempts to serve the February 24, 2003 Resolution at respondent’s record addresses and alternative addresses resulted in returns marked "Unclaimed," "Party Moved Out," and similar notations.
The Court sought assistance from the National Bureau of Investigation to locate respondent but the NBI reported that respondent could not be found.
Notices for IBP mandatory conference were returned unserved and the Commission on Bar Discipline deemed the case submitted on the basis of the complaint.
The Court treated respondent’s disappearance and avoidance of service as a waiver of the right to litigate the proceeding and as a willful evasion of the judicial process.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent committed forgery and falsification of documents in the course of representing complainant.
Whether respondent committed swindling or improper exaction