Scribd
Upload
120 views2 pages

103 PALE Taday v. Apoya

This case involves a lawyer, Respondent, who was hired to handle the annulment of marriage case for a client, Complainant, who was living and working in Norway. Respondent notarized Complainant's signature on case documents even though Complainant was not physically present. Respondent also drafted and delivered to Complainant a fake court decision granting the annulment. An investigation found that the court and judge referenced in the fake decision did not exist. The IBP recommended a 2 year suspension, but the IBP-BOG recommended disbarment. The Court agreed with the disbarment, finding Respondent violated legal ethics and notarial rules.

Uploaded by

Joesil Dianne Sempron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
120 views2 pages

103 PALE Taday v. Apoya

This case involves a lawyer, Respondent, who was hired to handle the annulment of marriage case for a client, Complainant, who was living and working in Norway. Respondent notarized Complainant's signature on case documents even though Complainant was not physically present. Respondent also drafted and delivered to Complainant a fake court decision granting the annulment. An investigation found that the court and judge referenced in the fake decision did not exist. The IBP recommended a 2 year suspension, but the IBP-BOG recommended disbarment. The Court agreed with the disbarment, finding Respondent violated legal ethics and notarial rules.

Uploaded by

Joesil Dianne Sempron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Taday v.

Apoya
AC No. 11981 July 3, 2018

Facts:
Taday, an OFW staying in Norway, asked her parents in the Philippines, Virgilio and Natividad, to
seek legal services for the nullification of her marriage. Complainant's parents found respondent
and contracted his legal services. According to complainant, respondent was informed that she
was staying in Norway and respondent assured her that this would not be an issue as he can find
ways to push for the resolution of the case despite her absence.

Respondent drafted the Petition for annulment, notarized it and sent it to the RTC. While
petitioner was on a vacation on the Philippines she paid the respondent and a decision was
delivered granting the annulment. Complainant became suspicious as the said decision came
from a different branch presided by a different judge where the case was originally filed.
Complainant's family became skeptical as the said decision seemed to come too soon and was
poorly crafted.

Verifications were made to ascertain the validity of the decision. Complainant discovered that
both Branch 162 and Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles do not exist in the RTC. respondent
denied being informed that complainant was an OFW and claimed that he was made to believe
that she was merely in the Bicol province, hence, he agreed to draft the petition and gave it to
complainant's parents for her signature. The petition was returned to respondent with
complainant's signature so he notarized and filed it before the court.

IBP-CBD: the fake decision originated from respondent and that he violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02,
Canon 1 of the Code. It recommended the penalty of suspension of two (2) years from the
practice of law.

IBP-BOG: modified the recommended penalty of two (2) years suspension to a penalty of
disbarment

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred, as recommended by IBP-BOG.

Held:
Yes. The Court adopts the findings of the Commission and agrees with the recommendation of
the IBP Board to disbar respondent.

All those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all
their dealings. Members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves according to the best
of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and
to delay no man for money or malice. These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers
with their clients considering the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship.
In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code
and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Respondent notarized the verification and certification of non forum shopping in the petition
filed before RTC Branch 131 supposedly executed by complainant as the affiant. At that time,
however, complaint was not in the Philippines because she was still in Norway working as an
OFW. Undoubtedly, respondent violated the notarial rules when he notarized a document
without the personal presence of the affiant. Aside from improperly notarizing a petition,
respondent committed an even graver transgression by drafting a fake decision and delivering it
to his client in guise of a genuine decision.

The Court finds that complainant has established by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence
that: (1) respondent notarized the verification and certification of non forum shopping of the
petition without the personal presence of complainant; (2) respondent is the author of the fake
decision to deceive complainant that her petition for annulment of marriage was granted; and (3)
respondent retaliated against complainant for confronting him with the fake decision by
withdrawing the petition in the court, resulting into the dropping of the case from the civil docket
of the court.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy