Case Summary (A.C. No. 12415)
Petitioner
The complaint was initiated by the three CA justices (complainants) who discovered a purported CA decision presented to the relatives of an accused and implicated their names; they filed a Joint Complaint‑Affidavit before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline seeking disciplinary action, including disbarment, against Atty. Ramon.
Respondent
Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon was accused of drafting and using a spurious CA decision that falsely bore the names of the complainant justices, representing that she could procure an acquittal for Tirso Fajardo in exchange for money, and demanding and receiving large sums from the accused’s relatives.
Key Dates and Events (operative, excluding decision date)
- December 16, 2015: Respondent allegedly engaged by Raymunda Fajardo to appeal her son’s conviction.
- Through March 2, 2016: Respondent allegedly solicited payments allegedly totaling about P1,000,000 for legal fees and representation.
- March 2, 2016: Meeting where respondent and an introduced Alex Rowales presented a purported CA decision dated February 19, 2016, and demanded a P150,000 payment to “hasten” promulgation and release.
- March 4, 2016: Complainants learned that De Jesus had sought verification of the purported CA decision at the CA Fifth Division clerk’s office; the case was actually raffled to another division and handled by a different justice.
- March 8, 2016: NBI entrapment operation at Jollibee (Kalaw Ave.) where respondent was caught accepting marked money from Aquino; NBI filed criminal charges thereafter.
Applicable Law and Professional Rules
- Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as the decision date is after 1990).
- Code of Professional Responsibility: Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 1 (Rules 1.01, 1.02), Canon 7 (Rule 7.03), Canon 10 (Rules 10.01–10.03).
- Rules of Court: Section 27, Rule 138 (grounds for removal or suspension of attorneys).
- Penal Law cited in the complaint: Revised Penal Code Articles 172 (falsification) and 315, paragraph 2 (estafa).
- Relevant jurisprudence cited: Luna v. Galarrita; Velasco v. Doroin; Goopio v. Maglalang; Jimenez v. Francisco; Office of the Court Administrator v. Indar; Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez; Sison, Jr. v. Camacho; Taday v. Apoya, Jr.; Billanes v. Latido.
Antecedents and Factual Findings
Complainants discovered that De Jesus had been given a document purporting to be a CA decision acquitting Tirso Fajardo. The document bore the names of the complainant justices, but CA records and the Clerk of Court’s certification showed the criminal case was raffled to a different division and assigned to another justice. Respondent allegedly represented to the relatives that promulgation of the purported decision depended on payment, and she allegedly received repeated payments totaling about P1,000,000 purportedly for legal fees. An NBI entrapment was executed after the relatives discovered the document was fake; during the sting, respondent was observed accepting marked money and was arrested.
Criminal Allegations and Evidence from Entrapment
The NBI filed a criminal complaint alleging estafa and falsification against respondent and an alleged accomplice. The NBI narrative—relied on by the IBP and the Court—describes respondent’s receipt of marked money from Aquino at the Jollibee meeting after presenting the purported decision and demanding payment to “hasten” its promulgation. Receipts signed by respondent documenting payments were among the documentary evidence.
IBP Proceedings and Respondent’s Non‑Participation
Respondent received notice from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline but did not file an answer and failed to appear at the mandatory conference. The IBP Commission, after considering the evidence and the complainants’ Joint Position Paper, recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation and the matter was forwarded to the Supreme Court.
Legal Standards for Disciplinary Liability
The Court reiterated controlling principles: membership in the bar is a privilege conditioned on good behavior; a lawyer is bound by the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code; the disciplinary power of the Court may suspend or strike an attorney for misconduct demonstrated by substantial evidence. While the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, in administrative disciplinary proceedings the complainant bears the burden to prove allegations by substantial evidence. The Court emphasized that lawyers must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, must avoid acts that lessen confidence in the legal system, and must not perpetrate falsehoods in court or in documents purporting to be court rulings.
Specific Violations Found
The Court adopted the IBP’s findings that respondent: (1) drafted a fake CA decision purporting to acquit Fajardo; (2) falsely included the names of the complainant justices despite the case being assigned to a different justice; (3) represented she could influence CA justices to secure acquittal; (4) presented the fake decision to the accused’s relatives in exchange for money; (5) exacted exorbitant fees totaling about P1,000,000 as evidenced by receipts; and (6) was caught accepting marked money in an NBI entrapment. These acts were found to contravene the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons/Rules cited (Canons 1, 7, and 10; Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01–10.03).
Grave Misconduct and the Element of Corruption
The Court analyzed the nature of the misconduct and concluded it constituted grave misconduct because respondent’s actions evidenced corruption and a clear intent to violate the law. The Court explained that corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, involves a fiduciary person unlawfully using their station or character to procure a benefit contrary to duty and the rights of others. Drafting and using a spurious court decision, falsely attributing it to sitting justices, and extracting money by representing the ability to influence judicial action satisfy the elements of corruption and willful disregard of established rules.
Precedential Support for Disbarment
The Court relied on analogous precedents where fabrication or procurement of fake court decisions, delivered to clients or used to mislead, warranted disbarment. Nota
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12415)
Antecedents and Factual Background
- The case originated from a Joint Complaint–Affidavit for disbarment filed by Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta (Chair, Sixth Division), Stephen C. Cruz (Senior Member, Fifth Division), and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (then Junior Member, Fifth Division), who are the complainants, against Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon (respondent).
- On March 4, 2016, complainants learned that Maria Rossan De Jesus (De Jesus) had gone to the Office of the Division Clerk of Court of the CA Fifth Division to verify the authenticity of an alleged CA decision said to have been authored by the complainants in the criminal case "People of the Philippines v. Tirso Fajardo y Delos Trino," docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 08005.
- The purported decision allegedly ordered the acquittal of Tirso Fajardo (Fajardo), who is a cousin of De Jesus.
- The purported decision was given to De Jesus by respondent, who acted as the clients’ counsel and represented that the promulgation of the decision depended on the payment of a large sum of money to respondent.
- Complainants checked their assigned cases and discovered that Fajardo’s criminal case remained in the completion stage and had been raffled to and assigned to former CA Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam of the CA Fourth Division, not to the complainants; this was affirmed by the CA Clerk of Court’s Certification.
Parties
- Complainants: CA Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta (Chairperson, Sixth Division), Stephen C. Cruz (Senior Member, Fifth Division), and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (then Junior Member, Fifth Division; later a member of the Supreme Court).
- Respondent: Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon, admitted to the bar on May 4, 2004, Roll No. 49050.
- Other persons implicated/fact witnesses: Maria Rossan De Jesus (recipient of purported decision), Tirso Delos Trino Fajardo (accused in underlying criminal case), Raymunda Fajardo (alleged to have engaged respondent), Carlos Aquino (friend of Fajardo and participant in entrapment), and Alex Rowales (introduced by respondent as a Court of Appeals sheriff).
Facts of the Alleged Scheme and Entrapment Operation
- According to the criminal complaint, on December 16, 2015, respondent was engaged by Raymunda Fajardo to appeal her son Tirso Fajardo’s conviction for violation of R.A. No. 9165.
- From that date through March 2, 2016, respondent allegedly repeatedly asked for money that eventually reached approximately P1,000,000.00 purportedly for legal fees and representation expenses; receipts signed by respondent evidencing payment were referenced in the record.
- On March 2, 2016, De Jesus and a friend (Aquilno/Aquino) met respondent and one Alex Rowales, who was introduced as a Court of Appeals sheriff; Rowales showed them a purported CA Decision dated February 19, 2016 acquitting Tirso Fajardo and demanded P150,000 to hasten release of the purported decision and the accused’s release.
- Complainants first paid half of the demanded amount, later verified the purported decision and discovered it to be fake, and reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Anti-Fraud Division.
- The NBI planned and carried out an entrapment operation on March 8, 2016 at Jollibee Restaurant, Kalaw Ave., Ermita, Manila, where De Jesus (as instructed) met respondent and Aquino to deliver the balance of P75,000.00 in marked money.
- During the operation, respondent arrived, conversed and ate, then accepted the brown envelope containing marked money from Aquino; respondent was immediately arrested and the marked money recovered.
Criminal Complaint and Criminal Charges
- Following the NBI operation, a Criminal Complaint was filed by the NBI with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila charging respondent and Alex Rowales with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, and falsification under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- The factual allegations in the criminal complaint describe extortion of money through representation of a fabricated CA decision, the introduction of a purported CA sheriff, and the receipt of marked money during the entrapment.
Administrative Complaint and Allegations Before the IBP Commission
- The three CA justices filed the present administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (the Commission), asserting that respondent should be disbarred for:
- Representing herself as able to influence CA Justices to secure an acquittal;
- Defrauding relatives of the accused to collect about P1,000,000.00;
- Showing disrespect toward complainants, the Court, and the Judiciary by involving complainants’ names in a fake decision; and
- Committing the crimes of estafa and falsification.
- Respondent did not file an answer to the IBP Commission’s order and failed to appear at the mandatory conference despite due notice.
- Only the complainants filed a Joint Position Paper dated July 27, 2016 with the IBP Commission.
IBP Commission and Board Proceedings and Recommendations
- The IBP Commission issued a Report and Recommendation dated September 26, 2016 recommending respondent’s disbarment for violations of her sworn duties and the Code of Professional Responsibility and for unreasonably involving the Justices to their damage and prejudice.
- The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution dated November 28, 2017, adopted the IBP Commission’s findings of fact and recommended penalty, namely disbarment.