Case Summary (A.C. No. 12353)
Factual Antecedents
In 2013, petitioner Santos engaged services to obtain a quick decree of nullity for her marriage. She paid Php 280,000, facilitated by Santos and respondent PaAa, who promised completion within six months along with National Statistics Office certifications. Petitioner received purported copies of an RTC Cotabato City Judgment dated March 18, 2010 and a Certificate of Finality dated April 14, 2010. These documents were later found fraudulent during a U.S. visa application in 2014, resulting in denial and the need to refile her petition and visa application. Respondent returned Php 260,000 only after repeated demands.
Procedural History and IBP Recommendations
Petitioner filed an administrative complaint alleging gross immoral conduct, violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a recommendation for disbarment, citing respondent’s deceitful falsification of judicial documents and the attendant attack on judicial integrity.
Issue Presented
Whether respondent Atty. Emilio S. PaAa, Jr. committed administrative malpractice warranting disbarment for his involvement in the falsification of court documents and violation of his oath and professional ethical rules.
Applicable Legal Standards
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court regulates and disciplines lawyers. The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), effective May 29, 2023, applies transitorily to pending cases. Key provisions:
• Canon II, Rule 1.01 – prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Canon II, Rule 7.03 – prohibition against conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law.
• Canon III, Rule 10.02a – prohibition against misleading the court regarding document authenticity.
Lawyer’s Oath – commitment to uphold truth, justice, and legal processes.
Court’s Analysis on Liability
The Court found substantial evidence that respondent received the professional fee, participated in securing and delivering spurious court documents, and knowingly misled petitioner. His own admission of facilitating a “shortcut” annulment procedure and apologies for the irregular referral dispelled his claim of mere referral. Documentary proof and prior disbarment of Judge Indar confirmed the inauthenticity of the judgment and certificate of finality.
Precedents on Falsification of Court Documents
The Court consistently treats lawyer involvement in forging or falsifying judicial documents as moral turpitude warranting disbarment. Decisions in Reyes, Jr. v. Rivera, Madria v. Rivera, and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12353)
Facts of the Case
- An administrative complaint (A.C. No. 12353) was filed by Melody H. Santos against Atty. Emilio S. PaAa, Jr., docketed En Banc on February 6, 2024.
- The complaint alleges gross immoral conduct and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), now the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
- Underlying dispute arises from the falsification of court documents intended to secure a decree of nullity of marriage.
Antecedents
- In 2013, Melody sought legal assistance to obtain a declaration of nullity of her marriage.
- Through an intermediary, she was introduced to Alberto Santos, a court interpreter in RTC Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato.
- Santos referred her to Atty. PaAa, who promised a six-month resolution and delivery of relevant NSO documents for a fee of PHP 280,000.00.
- Melody paid the full amount but later discovered the judgment and certificate of finality she received—dated March 18, 2010 and April 14, 2010 respectively—were fraudulent.
Complainant’s Allegations
- Melody presented the allegedly inauthentic judgment and certificate of finality during her 2014 K-1 visa interview; her visa application was denied on grounds of fraud.
- Confirmation from the NSO and court records revealed no such documents issued by RTC Branch 15, Cotabato City.
- Melody was compelled to engage new counsel, refile her annulment petition, and reapply for her visa.
- Upon demanding refund, Atty. PaAa returned only PHP 260,000.00 of the PHP 280,000.00 paid.
- Prayer: disbarment of Atty. PaAa for violating the Lawyer’s Oath, CPR Canon 1 Rule 1.01 (dishonest conduct) and Canon 7 Rule 7.03 (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice).
Respondent’s Defense
- Atty. PaAa admitted referral of Melody’s case but denied direct involvement in falsification.
- He explained