Embido v. Pe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A United Kingdom solicitor requested a copy of a decision dated February 12, 1997, from Branch 64 of the Regional Trial Court in Bugasong, Antique, in Special Proceedings Case No. 084, concerning the declaration of presumptive death of Rey Laserna, with Shirley Quioyo as petitioner. Upon investigation, the court discovered no record of such a case. The court's actual records for Special Proceedings Case No. 084 pertained to the declaration of presumptive death of Rolando Austria, with Serena Catin Austria as petitioner. The UK solicitor subsequently provided a copy of the purported decision, which was confirmed to be a falsified court document. Further investigation revealed that Dy Quioyo, brother of Shirley Quioyo, alleged that the respondent, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr., facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision for a fee of P60,000.00. Procedural History: Following the discovery of the falsified decision, the Clerk of Court informed the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), initiating an investigation. The NBI forwarded its findings to the Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas, recommending prosecution for falsification of public document and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The NBI also recommended disbarment proceedings against the respondent to the Office of the Court Administrator, which were then endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant. The respondent submitted a counter-affidavit denying involvement. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of serious misconduct and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this, suspending the respondent for six years, and later denied his motion for reconsideration. The case was then transmitted to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Supreme Court treated the respondent's comment/opposition as his appeal by petition for review. The Court reviewed the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, which had recommended disbarment. The respondent's defense primarily consisted of a denial and an implication that Dy Quioyo was responsible, possibly through contacts in Recto Avenue, Manila. The Court found the respondent's denial unpersuasive, noting the categorical declaration of Dy Quioyo and the lack of credible specifics in the respondent's counter-accusations. The Court also found the respondent's reliance on a sworn statement from the widow of a purported falsifier to be worthless due to its hearsay nature and the fact that the falsified decision was an almost verbatim reproduction of the authentic one. The Court concluded that the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying a court decision and disbarred him.
Issue(s)
Whether Respondent Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. is guilty of grave misconduct for the falsification of a court decision. Whether the penalty of disbarment is the appropriate sanction for the Respondent's acts.
Ruling
The Supreme Court finds Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Salvador N. Pe, Jr. GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Respondent was indeed guilty of grave misconduct. It ruled that the categorical and positive testimony of Dy Quioyo, who detailed the payment of P60,000.00 to the Respondent for the falsified decision, carries more weight than the Respondent's blanket denial. The Court noted that the falsified document was an almost verbatim reproduction of an authentic decision from the same RTC branch, suggesting the author had specific access to court records. The Respondent's defense—blaming a deceased individual based on a hearsay affidavit—was deemed outrightly worthless and unreliable. Furthermore, the Respondent's initial silence during the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) probe and his belated counter-affidavit suggested that his version of events was a mere fabrication. On Issue 2: The Court determined that disbarment was the only suitable penalty. It emphasized that the deliberate falsification of a court decision is an act of moral turpitude that makes a mockery of the administration of justice, especially as it was intended to mislead a foreign tribunal. Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), a lawyer is prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. Rule 7.03 further mandates that a lawyer must not behave in a scandalous manner that discredits the legal profession. The Court reiterated that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and those who violate the Attorney's Oath by committing falsehoods forfeits that privilege. Consequently, the Respondent's name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys to protect the integrity of the Bar.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court maintains plenary disciplinary authority over lawyers, emphasizing that the Lawyer's Oath to 'do no falsehood' is a continuous obligation. Any member of the Bar who deliberately falsifies a judicial decision commits an act of moral turpitude that strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice. Such conduct renders the lawyer fundamentally unfit to remain an officer of the court, regardless of whether the misconduct occurred in a professional or private capacity. The penalty for such a grave violation of the public trust is disbarment and the removal of the lawyer's name from the Roll of Attorneys.