Vasco-Tamaray v. Daquis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray alleged that respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on her behalf without her consent and forged her signature on the pleading. Vasco-Tamaray asserted that Atty. Daquis was not her counsel but rather the counsel for her husband, Leomarte Regala Tamaray. Evidence presented included an affidavit from a friend who stated that Atty. Daquis was introduced as Leomarte Tamaray's lawyer and later attempted to persuade Vasco-Tamaray not to oppose the annulment. Procedural History: Complainant Vasco-Tamaray filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on July 30, 2007. The IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the complaint, finding that Vasco-Tamaray failed to prove her allegations. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted this recommendation in a resolution dated September 27, 2014. The Supreme Court reviewed these findings and recommendations. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review of the IBP's resolution. The core issue was whether Atty. Daquis should be held administratively liable for falsely presenting herself as counsel for Vasco-Tamaray and for allegedly using a forged signature on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The Supreme Court examined violations of Canons 1, 7, 10, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, ultimately finding Atty. Daquis guilty of these violations and imposing the penalty of disbarment.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis should be held administratively liable for making it appear that she is counsel for complainant Cheryl Vasco-Tamaray. Whether respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis should be held administratively liable for the alleged use of a forged signature on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Whether respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis violated Canons 1, 7, 10, 15, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis is found GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge for violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 is DISMISSED. The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis. Her name is ordered to be removed from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of pretending to be counsel for complainant: The Court found that Atty. Daquis violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and failed to uphold her duty under the Lawyer's Oath. While Atty. Daquis denied being counsel for Leomarte Tamaray, she did not refute the allegations that Leomarte Tamaray introduced her as his lawyer and that she later tried to convince Vasco-Tamaray not to oppose the annulment. The Court noted that Atty. Daquis's assertion that Vasco-Tamaray was her client lacked explanation regarding their introduction or referral. The Court inferred that Leomarte Tamaray intended to file the petition, but Atty. Daquis made it appear that Vasco-Tamaray was the petitioner, possibly to shield Leomarte Tamaray from admitting bigamy. The fact that court processes were sent to Leomarte Tamaray's address and received by his relatives, coupled with Vasco-Tamaray's assertion that she left her husband's home, supported the claim that she did not receive court notices. The Court cited Yupangco-Nakpil v. Uy to emphasize that lawyers must not engage in dishonest or deceitful conduct, and that respondent's actions blemished her integrity and that of the legal profession. On the issue of allowing the use of a forged signature: The Court found that Atty. Daquis violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01. Although there was no direct proof that Atty. Daquis forged the signature, the Court found that her allowing a forged signature to be used on a petition she prepared and notarized constituted a violation. A comparison of signatures showed differences, particularly in the stroke of the letters 'c' and 'o' and the size of the letter 'c', suggesting the signature on the Petition was not Vasco-Tamaray's. The Court held that allowing a forged signature is tantamount to consenting to a falsehood before the court, violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01. The Court cited Embido v. Pe, Jr., where a lawyer was disbarred for falsifying a court decision, noting that such acts reflect a high degree of moral turpitude and make a mockery of the administration of justice. The Court stated that respondent's act demonstrated a lack of moral fiber. On the issue of violating Canons 1, 7, 10, 15, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that respondent violated Canon 17 by failing to protect the interests of her client when she represented complainant, who was the opposing party to her client Leomarte Tamaray, in the same case. The Court reiterated the lawyer's obligation to accord the highest degree of fidelity and zeal in protecting a client's interests, as discussed in Penilla v. Alcid, Jr. and Tenoso v. Echanez. The Court emphasized that lawyers are officers of the court and are bound to maintain high standards of morality, honesty, and integrity. The Court noted that Atty. Daquis might have violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 by representing conflicting interests. However, the Court found that there was nothing on record to show that Atty. Daquis was engaged as counsel by Vasco-Tamaray. Therefore, the Court concluded that Atty. Daquis did not commit conflict of interest in this regard, and the charge was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
Pretending to be counsel for a party in a case and using a forged signature in a pleading are grave offenses that violate fundamental ethical principles governing lawyers. Such conduct constitutes dishonesty, deceit, and a failure to uphold the integrity of the legal profession, warranting the imposition of the penalty of disbarment. Lawyers are bound by the Lawyer's Oath to do no falsehood and to maintain the highest degree of fidelity and candor towards the courts and their clients.