Josef Manuel L.

Descalzo DISBARMENT FOR VIOLATION OF LAWYER’S OATH 1 of 3

1. FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant vs ATTY. CARLOS marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and the
P. RIVERA, Respondent [March 7, 2017. A.C. No. 11256] certificate of finality given by the respondent did not exist in the
court records, as borne out by the letter signed by Atty. Aura
FACTS Clarissa B. Tabag-Querubin, Clerk of Court of the RTC Branch
In November 2002, complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted IV stating that the case was filed on April 25, 2003 but was
the respondent to inquire about the process of annulling her dismissed as per Order of this Court dated April 6, 2004.
marriage with her husband, Juan C. Madria. After their
discussion about her case, the respondent told her that she had As a result, the complainant faced criminal charges for violation
a strong case, and guaranteed that he could obtain for her the of the Philippine Passport Act in the RTC in Tuguegarao City.
decree of annulment. He likewise told her that his legal services She claims that she had relied in good faith on the
would cost ₱25,000.00, and that she should return on representations of the respondent; and that he had taken
November 19, 2002 inasmuch as he would still prepare the advantage of his position in convincing her to part with her
complaint for the annulment. At the time of the consultation, money and to rely on the falsified court documents.
she was accompanied by her daughter, Vanessa Madria, and
her nephew, Jayson Argonza. RESPONDENT denies the allegations of the complainant. He
averred that he had informed her that he would still be carefully
On December 28, 2002, she returned to his office to complete reviewing the grounds to support her petition; that she had
her payment, and he also issued his receipt for the payment. insisted that he should prepare the draft of her petition that she
The complainant's daughter Vanessa thereafter made several could show to her foreigner fiance; that she had also prevailed
follow-ups on behalf of her mother. In the latter part of April upon him to simulate the court decision to the effect that
2003, the respondent informed the complainant that her her marriage had been annulled, and to fabricate the
petition had been granted. Thus, Vanessa went to the certificate of finality; that she had assured him that such
respondent's office and received a copy of the trial court's simulated documents would be kept strictly confidential;
decision dated April 16, 2003 signed by Judge Lyliha Abella that he had informed her that the petition had been filed in April
Aquino of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, in 2003, but she had paid no attention to such information; that
Tuguegarao City. she had not appeared in any of the scheduled hearings despite
notice; and that he had not heard from her since then, and that
The complainant, again through Vanessa, received from the she had not even returned to his office.
respondent a copy of the certificate of finality dated September
26, 2003 signed by one Jacinto C. Danao of the RTC (Branch ISSUE: W/N the respondent should be disbarred for violating
4). the Lawyer's Oath?

Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant LAW APPLICABLE:
used the purported decision and certificate of finality in 1. Code of Professional Responsibility
applying for the renewal of her passport. However, she became 2. The Lawyer’s oath, particularly:
the object of an investigation by the National Bureau of • "do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission.”
Investigation (NBI) because her former partner, Andrew • "delay any man's cause for money or malice," and
Dowson Grainge, had filed a complaint charging that she
had fabricated the decision for the annulment of her
Josef Manuel L. Descalzo DISBARMENT FOR VIOLATION OF LAWYER’S OATH 2 of 3

• to "conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to the best of PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL
[his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well PROCESSES.
to the courts as to [his] clients." Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CASE HISTORY: Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
1. IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala concluded activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
that the respondent had violated his Lawyer's Oath; and lessening confidence in the legal system.
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
period of two years. FAIRNESS AND LOY AL TY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
2. IBP Board of Governors, albeit adopting the findings of TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Villanueva-Maala, modified the recommendation of
suspension from the practice of law for two years to Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his
disbarment. client compliance with the laws and the principles
of fairness.
RULING: Yes.
The respondent would shift the blame to his client. That a lay
The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for person like the complainant could have swayed a lawyer like
annulment of marriage, and of the simulation of the decision the respondent into committing the simulations was patently
and certificate of finality. His explanation of having done so only improbable. Yet, even if he had committed the simulations upon
upon the complainant's persistent prodding did not exculpate the client's prodding, he would be no less responsible. Being a
him from responsibility. For one, the explanation is lawyer, he was aware of and was bound by the ethical canons
unacceptable, if not altogether empty. Simulating or of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly those
participating in the simulation of a court decision and a quoted earlier, which would have been enough to deter him
certificate of finality of the same decision is an outright criminal from committing the falsification, as well as to make him
falsification or forgery. One need not be a lawyer to know so, unhesitatingly frustrate her prodding in deference to his sworn
but it was worse in the respondent's case because he was a obligation as a lawyer to always act with honesty and to obey
lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally intolerable. Specifically, his the laws of the land.
deliberate falsification of the court decision and the certificate
of finality of the decision reflected a high degree of moral Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express
turpitude on his part, and made a mockery of the undertaking under his Lawyer's Oath to "do no falsehood,
administration of justice in this country. He thereby became nor consent to its commission." Indeed, the ethics of the
unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar. Legal Profession rightly enjoined every lawyer like him to
act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and
The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of nobility in the course of his practice of law.
Rules 1. 01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: Also, Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE Professional Responsibility required the respondent be true to
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND the complainant as his client. By choosing to ignore his
fiduciary responsibility for the sake of getting her money,
Josef Manuel L. Descalzo DISBARMENT FOR VIOLATION OF LAWYER’S OATH 3 of 3

he committed a further violation of his Lawyer's Oath by

which he swore not to "delay any man's cause for money or
malice," and to "conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to
the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients." He
compounded this violation by taking advantage of his legal
knowledge to promote his own selfish motives, thereby
disregarding his responsibility under Canon 17.

It is true that the power to disbar is always exercised with great

caution and only for the most imperative reasons or in cases of
clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of
the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. But
we do not hesitate when the misconduct is gross, like in the
respondent's case. We wield the power now because the
respondent, by his gross misconduct as herein described,
absolutely forfeited the privilege to remain in the Law
Profession.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS Atty. CARLOS P.

RIVERA guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and VIOLATION OF
THE LAWYER'S OATH; and, ACCORDINGLY,
ORDERS his DISBARMENT. Let his name be STRICKEN from
the ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. This decision is IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY.

Let copies of this decision be furnished to: (a) the OFFICE OF

THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR for dissemination to all courts
throughout the country for their information and guidance; (b)
the INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES; (c) the OFFICE
OF THE BAR CONFIDANT for appending to the respondent's
personal record as a member of the Bar; and (d) the OFFICE
OF THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE for possible criminal prosecution of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.