A.C. No. 11256 - Madria vs. Rivera

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11256)

Petitioner / Complainant Facts

The complainant consulted the respondent in November 2002 to seek annulment of her marriage to Juan C. Madria. She provided the relevant background facts and was accompanied by her daughter, Vanessa Madria, and a nephew, Jayson Argonza. The respondent advised she had a strong case and quoted a total fee of P25,000.

Respondent Engagement and Initial Transactions

On November 19, 2002 the respondent presented a petition for annulment to the complainant and asked her to sign it; she paid an initial P4,000 and received a handwritten receipt. She subsequently made further payments on December 16, 2002 and completed payment on December 28, 2002, for which the respondent issued a receipt. The respondent assured the complainant she need not appear in court, representing that court notices would be sent to his office and that he would apprise her of developments.

Allegedly Simulated Court Documents and Subsequent Reliance

In late April 2003 the respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been granted. The complainant (through her daughter) received what purported to be a trial-court decision dated April 16, 2003 signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino, RTC Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, and later received a document purporting to be a certificate of finality dated September 26, 2003. Relying on those documents, the complainant changed her voter registration status to "single" and used the documents to apply for passport renewal.

Discovery of Forgery and Criminal Investigation

The complainant became subject to an NBI investigation after a third party accused her of fabricating the annulment decision. A letter from the Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 4 (responding to a June 23, 2011 inquiry) stated that Civil Case No. 6149 (Madria v. Madria) was filed on April 25, 2003 but was dismissed by order dated April 6, 2004, and expressly declared the signature attributed to Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino on the alleged decision to be a "blatant forgery." As a result of the falsified documents, the complainant faced criminal charges under the Philippine Passport Act.

Respondent’s Answer and Defense

In his answer the respondent admitted preparing the annulment petition and the simulated decision and certificate, but asserted that the complainant had repeatedly urged him to prepare those simulated documents for confidential use and had requested a draft to show a foreign fiancé. He claimed the complainant had agreed to keep the simulated documents confidential, that she ignored information that the petition had been filed and failed to appear at hearings, and that she had not returned to his office.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation through an investigating commissioner who found violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and recommended suspension for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the sanction to disbarment, issuing a resolution concluding that the respondent prepared a simulated court decision and certificate of finality, and recommending that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Applicable Law and Governing Standards

Applicable constitutional framework: the 1987 Constitution (as the case decision postdates 1990). Professional and procedural authorities applied include the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 1 — Rules 1.01 and 1.02; Canon 15 — Rule 15.07; Canon 17; Canon 18 — Rule 18.04), the Lawyer’s Oath (Section 3, Rule 138, Rules of Court), and the disciplinary provisions of Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court (grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the oath). The Court relied on these authorities in assessing ethical breaches and the appropriate sanction.

Supreme Court Findings on Factual and Ethical Issues

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings. The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition and the simulated decision and certificate. The Court held that simulation of court documents constitutes forgery/falsification and amounts to conduct involving moral turpitude. The respondent’s claim that he acted only upon the client’s persistent urging did not absolve him; as a lawyer he was bound by ethical canons that prohibit unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and forbid counseling or abetting conduct that lessens confidence in the legal system. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s oath and the canons require refusal of such conduct and protection of the public and judiciary.

Legal Characterization of the Misconduct

The Court characterized the respondent’s preparation and delivery of simulated court documents as deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office — all grounds for discipline under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The falsification evidenced a high degree of moral turpitude, betrayal of fiduciary duties to the client, and an erosion of public confidence in the administration of justice. The respondent’s conduct was found to contravene Canon 1 (Rules 1.01 and 1.02), Canon 15 (Rule

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11256)

Citation and Panel

Reported at 806 Phil. 774, En Banc, A.C. No. 11256, Decision dated March 07, 2017; Per Curiam.
Case caption: Flordeliza A. Madria, complainant, vs. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, respondent.
Decision rendered and circulated with Notice of Judgment indicating the Supreme Court’s Decision/Resolution dated March 7, 2017 was received by the Clerk of Court on March 17, 2017 at 10:40 a.m. (Signed Felipa G. Borlongan-Anama, Clerk of Court).

Antecedents and Factual Background

In November 2002, complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted respondent Atty. Carlos P. Rivera in his law office in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, to inquire about the annulment of her marriage to Juan C. Madria.
During the consultation, respondent assessed that complainant had a strong case and guaranteed he could obtain a decree of annulment; he quoted legal fees of P25,000.00 and asked her to return on November 19, 2002 for preparation of the complaint.
Complainant was accompanied at the initial consultation by her daughter Vanessa Madria and her nephew Jayson Argonza.
On November 19, 2002, the complainant returned; respondent showed a petition for annulment, asked her to sign it, and she paid an initial amount of P4,000.00, which respondent acknowledged by a handwritten receipt.
Complainant made another visit on December 16, 2002 to deliver a partial payment and to follow up. Respondent advised her to wait for resolution and assured her that she need not appear in court because notices and processes would be sent to his office and he would regularly apprise her of developments.
On December 28, 2002, complainant returned to complete payment and respondent issued a receipt for the payment.
Complainant’s daughter Vanessa made multiple follow-ups thereafter. In late April 2003, respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been granted.
Vanessa obtained from respondent a copy of a purported trial court decision dated April 16, 2003, signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino of RTC Branch 4, Tuguegarao City.
Respondent allegedly advised the complainant to allow five months to lapse after release of the decision before claiming single status; after such lapse complainant declared herself single in her Voter’s Registration Record (VRR).
Through Vanessa, the complainant received a purported certificate of finality dated September 26, 2003, signed by Jacinto C. Danao of the RTC (Branch 4).
Believing the documents authentic, the complainant relied on the purported decision and certificate of finality when applying for passport renewal.

Discovery of Forgery, Criminal Exposure, and Court Records

The complainant later became subject to an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) after Andrew Dowson Grainge filed a complaint alleging she had fabricated the annulment decision.
A letter from Atty. Aura Clarissa B. Tabag-Querubin, Clerk of Court of RTC Branch IV, Tuguegarao City, stated that Civil Case No. 6149 (Madria v. Madria) was filed on April 25, 2003 but dismissed per Order dated April 6, 2004, and that the signature of Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino appearing in the alleged decision was a “blatant forgery.”
As a result of possessing and using the falsified documents, the complainant faced criminal charges for violation of the Philippine Passport Act in the RTC in Tuguegarao City.
The complainant asserts she relied in good faith on the respondent’s representations and that the respondent took advantage of his position to convince her to part with money and to rely on falsified court documents.

Respondent’s Denials and Explanations

In his answer, respondent denied the complainant’s allegations in their terms.
He alleged he had informed the complainant he was still reviewing grounds to support the petition.
He claimed the complainant had insisted he prepare a draft petition she could show to her foreign fiancé.
He asserted the complainant prevailed upon him to simulate the court decision and to fabricate the certificate of finality, and that she had assured him such simulated documents would be kept strictly confidential.
He maintained that he informed the complainant that the petition had been filed in April 2003, but alleged she paid no attention to such information and did not appear at scheduled hearings despite notice.
He further averred he had not heard from her since and that she had not returned to his office.

IBP Investigation, Findings, and Recommendation

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation through Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, who submitted a Report and Recommendation concluding the respondent violated his Lawyer’s Oath and recommending suspensio