Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27524)
Charge and Allegations
The complaint filed by Judge Sitaca on April 5, 2000, accused Atty. Palomares of serious misconduct, including falsification and potential disbarment. The background involved a murder case (Criminal Case No. RTC-1503) where the respondent sought approval for a bail bond of P200,000, purportedly signed by Judge Nazar Chavez of RTC-Branch 18 in Cagayan de Oro City, while Dunhill Palomares was detained. Following the approval of the bail bond and the subsequent release order, it was discovered that these documents were inauthentic and had never been processed by the Cagayan de Oro RTC.
Respondent's Defense
In his defense, Atty. Palomares contended that he had sought assistance from Bentley House International Corporation (BHIC) for the bail bond through a third party, William Guialani, asserting he believed the documents provided were genuine. He claimed that it was the responsibility of Atty. Roy Murallon, the Branch Clerk of Court, to verify the authenticity of the bail bond and release order and that Murallon did not raise any issues regarding the documents when they were presented.
Investigation and Findings
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation on March 19, 2003. The initial report by IBP Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan concluded that Atty. Palomares was liable for violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), leading to a recommendation for an 18-month suspension. The commissioner found the circumstances surrounding the procurement of the bail bond suspicious and highlighted the respondent's failure to verify the authenticity of the documents he used.
IBP Board of Governors' Resolution
On August 30, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigative report but later recommended an increased suspension from 18 months to three years, reinforcing the severity of the findings against Atty. Palomares. The Board's resolution indicated a consensus on his misconduct and its implications.
Court’s Ruling and Additional Proceedings
On April 14, 2004, the Court noted procedural discrepancies in the handling of the administrative complaint and consequently remanded the case back to the IBP for further investigation. The IBP-CBD later conducted additional hearings; however, Judge Sitaca did not attend any of the hearings, leading her to submit the case based on available records.
Continued Findings by IBP-CBD
In its amended report dated March 27, 2009, the IBP-CBD reiterated its initial findings, determining that Atty. Palomares knowingly submitted falsified documents for his son's temporary release. The report outlined several key points: his direct knowledge of the lack of proper bail proceedings, his failure to provide necessary documentation, and his direct involvement in presenting the spurious documents to the court.
Judicial Findings and Principle of Presumption
The ultimate ruling examined the principle of "presumption of authorship," asserting that the user of a falsified document, particularly someone who directly benefits from it, is considered its author. Given the circumstances, Atty. Palomares was found to have orchestrated the falsification of the bail bond and release order, indicating his serious ethical lapses.
Violations
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-27524)
Introduction
- The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Judge Nimfa P. Sitaca against Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr., alleging falsification and ethical violations in connection with a bail bond for his son, Dunhill Palomares, who was charged with murder.
- The complaint was initiated on April 5, 2000, and the case was processed through various stages, including investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
- The complaint arose from Criminal Case No. RTC-1503, where Dunhill Palomares was charged with murder.
- Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr. represented his son and sought approval for a bail bond amounting to P200,000.00.
- The bail bond was purportedly supported by documentation from RTC-Branch 18, which later turned out to be falsified.
Allegations Against the Respondent
- Judge Sitaca alleged that Atty. Palomares presented a non-existent bail bond and release order to secure his son's temporary release.
- Atty. Roy Murallon, the Branch Clerk of Court, informed Judge Sitaca that the bail bond was fraudulent after receiving a letter from Atty. Glenn Peter Baldado, indicating that no such bail bond had been processed.
Respondent's Defense
- Atty. Palomares contended that he sought assistance from Bentley House International Corporation (BHIC) to facilitate the bail bond through an intermediary named William Guial