SPOUSES

UMAGUING vs. ATTY. DE VERA

February 04, 2015

FACTS:
Umaguing ran for the position of SK Chairman but lost to her rival. Complainants
lodged an election protest and engaged in the services of Atty. De Vera. According to
the complainants, Atty. De Vera moved at a glacial pace; he rushed the preparation
of the documents and attachments for the election protest. Two (2) of these
attachments are the Affidavits of material witnesses, which was personally prepared
by Atty. De Vera. At the time that the aforesaid affidavits were needed to be signed
by the witnesses, they were unavailable. To remedy this, Atty. De Vera look for the
nearest kin of the witnesses and ask them to sign and he had all the documents
notarized. He hastily filed the election protest with full knowledge that the affidavits
were falsified. In further breach of his oath, the integrity and competency of Atty. De
Vera, the complainants withdraw him and for lack of trust and confidence in as their
counsel. Complainants sought Atty. De Veras disbarment.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable.
Whether or not a case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of
interest or lack of interest of the complainant.

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that, fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with
his client and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with
integrity, and trustworthy. Xxx The Lawyers Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to
obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of
court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the
courts as well as to his clients. xxx In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that [a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.

Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the Lawyers Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10
of the Code of Professional Responsibility by submitting a falsified document before
a court. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to ensure that
whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in this country should remain
faithful to the Lawyers Oath.

Yes. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack
of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts
borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been
proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A
proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant
is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for
the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official administration of
persons unfit to practice in them. xxx The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and
has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the
proper administration of justice.