Krursel v. Abion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jutta Krursel, a German national, engaged the services of respondent Atty. Lorenza A. Abion to assist in a dispute against Robinsons Savings Bank regarding the illegal blocking of her account. In March 2002, respondent filed a complaint with the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). However, without the complainant's knowledge or consent, respondent withdrew the complaint with prejudice using a letter containing forged signatures. Complainant also discovered two Special Powers of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed in favor of respondent, which she claimed were forged. Furthermore, respondent allegedly demanded and received P330,000.00 for filing fees in a Supreme Court case (G.R. No. 152946) and P440,000.00 for the renewal of complainant's German passport. Procedural History: Instead of providing receipts for the fees, respondent presented a fabricated Order dated May 10, 2002, purportedly from the Supreme Court's First Division, ruling in complainant's favor. Upon inquiry, the Clerk of Court of the First Division, Atty. Virginia Soriano, confirmed the Order was fake and the signature was forged. Complainant filed a disbarment complaint on January 23, 2003. Throughout the proceedings, respondent eluded service of the Court's resolutions and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) notices, with returns indicating she had 'moved out' or was 'unclaimed.' The case was eventually submitted for resolution based on the complaint and attachments. The Petition: The complainant charges respondent with forgery, swindling, and falsification of a public document, arguing that respondent's malicious acts and deceitful conduct warrant her removal from the Roll of Attorneys. The complainant emphasizes the breach of fiduciary duty and the mockery made of the judicial system through the fabrication of a Supreme Court Order.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent's evasion of service of the Court's resolutions constitutes a waiver of her right to present evidence and a ground for disbarment. Whether respondent should be disbarred for committing forgery, falsification of a Supreme Court Order, and gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Lorenza A. Abion is found GUILTY of gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law, and her name is ordered removed from the Roll of Attorneys. The Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator is directed to file appropriate criminal charges for falsifying an order of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that respondent's disappearance cannot defeat its jurisdiction. Citing Stemmerick v. Mas, the Court held that since respondent rendered personal service impossible by moving without updating her records, the notice requirement is considered waived under the principle of Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. Lawyers are mandated to update their records with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and service at the address of record constitutes sufficient notice. Her evasive attitude is unbecoming of an officer of the court and constitutes 'willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,' which is a specific ground for disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, she is deemed to have waived her right to present evidence. On Issue 2: The Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). While evidence was insufficient to prove she forged the Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs), her admission under oath that she 'caused the conforme' in the withdrawal letter to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) proved she forged the complainant's signature. More severely, she fabricated a Supreme Court Order in G.R. No. 152946 to deceive her client into believing they had won a dismissed case. This act violated Rule 1.01 (deceitful conduct), Rule 7.03 (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice), and Canon 17 (fidelity to the client's cause). By falsifying a court order, she made a mockery of the judicial system and put the career of the Clerk of Court in jeopardy, proving her unworthy of the public's trust.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court establishes that a lawyer's fabrication of a judicial order is a supreme act of deceit that mocks the administration of justice and violates the fiduciary duty to the client and the court. Such conduct, coupled with the willful evasion of service of court processes, demonstrates a lack of moral character and a brazen disregard for the Lawyer's Oath. The Court further clarifies that a lawyer cannot benefit from a 'disappearing act'; service of notice at the last known address is sufficient when the lawyer fails to update their records, as the law does not require the impossible (Nemo tenetur ad impossibile).