Embido vs. Pe, Jr.

Bersamin, J.

that it was Dy Quioyo who had the falsified

document made in Recto.

Canon 7 Rule 7.03:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should be, whether in public or in private
life, behave in scandalous manner to the
discredit of the profession.

The IBP found respondent guilty of serious

misconduct and violations of the Attorneys
Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility,
and recommended his suspension for 6 years.
The case was then brought to the Supreme Court
in accordance with the Rules of Court.

Facts:
The Clerk of Court received a communication
from the Solicitor of the United Kingdom
requesting a copy of a decision penned by Judge
Penuela (Special Proceeding Case No. 084 In
the Matter of the Declaration of the Presumptive
Death of Rey Laserna). Upon receiving another
request letter, Judge Penuela instructed the clerk
to retrieve the records of the case. It was
discovered that the RTC had no record of
Special Proceeding No. 084 with a Shirley
Quiyo as petitioner, as found in the request of
the Solicitor. It showed a different case instead
(In the Matter of the Declaration of the
Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria), with a
one named Serena Catin Austria as petitioner.
The Solicitor sent a machine copy of the
purported decision and subsequently, it was
shown that the same was a falsified court
document. Investigation was conducted by the
NBI. Dy Quioyo, the brother of Shirley Quioyo
stated in his affidavit that it was respondent who
facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision
for a fee of Php 60,000. This was also
corroborated by Shirleys sister. The NBI
recommended to the Ombudsman that
respondent be prosecuted for falsification of
public document. It also recommended before
the Court Administrator that disbarment
proceedings be commenced against respondent.
Respondent denied his participation in the
falsification. To his defense, respondent argued

Issue: Whether respondents acts constitute

sufficient grounds for his disbarment.
Held:
The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP
Board of Governors and found respondent guilty
of grave misconduct for having authored a court
decision in a non-existent court proceeding.
Canon 7 provides that A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should be, whether in
public or in private life, behave in scandalous
manner to the discredit of the profession.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent
transactions can justify a lawyers disbarment or
suspension. Respondents deliberate falsification
of the court decision was an act that reflected a
high degree of moral turpitude on his part. By
making a mockery of the administration of
justice in this country, he became unworthy of
continuing as a member of the Bar. The practice
of the legal profession is always a privilege that
the Court extends only to the deserving, and that
the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to
those who fail to observe and respect the
Lawyers Oath and the canons of ethical
conduct. Respondent Pe was found guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of
Code of Professional Responsibility. Disbarred.