FLORDELIZA A.

MADRIA, Complainant
vs
ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent
March 7, 2017 - A.C. No. 11256

FACTS:
Flordeliza Madria with her daughter and nephew, Vanessa and Jason, consulted Atty.
Rivera in his law office to inquire about the process of annulling here marriage with her husband,
Juan C. Madria. After giving the details of her marriage relevant to the annulment, Atty. Rivera
said that she had a strong case and could obtain for her a decree of annulment. He told her too
that her legal services would cost 25,000 and as such Flordeliza made installments and was told
to wait for the resolution of her complaint as she did not need to appear before the court.
Vanessa made follow ups and was informed that her petition had been granted, thus she went
to Atty. Rivera’s office and received a copy of the decision. According to Flordeliza, she was asked
to allow five months to lapse after the release of the decision before she could safely claim the
status of “single.”

She used single in her voter’s ID as well as when she renewed her passport. However, she
became a subjecy of an investigation by the NBI because her former partner Andrew Grainge
filed a complaint that she fabricated the decision of annulment; and it is only then that she knew
that the certificate of finality given by the respondent did not exist in the records. As a result,
Flordeliza faced criminal charges for violation of the Philippine Passport Act. She claims that she
had relied in good faith on the representations of the respondent; and that he had taken
advantage of his position in convincing her to part with her money and to rely on the falsified
court documents. But Atty. Rivera denied the allegation and that he informed her that he would
still be reviewing the grounds for petition and that she had also told him to simulate the court
decision to the effect that her marriage had been annulled, and to fabricate the certificate of
finality; that she had assured him that such simulated documents would be kept strictly
confidential; that he had informed her that the petition had been filed in April 2003, but she had
paid no attention to such information.

ISSUE:
May Atty. Perez be disbarred on the ground of deceit and violation of the lawyer’s oath?

LAW APPLICABLE:
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

CASE HISTORY:
IBP concluded that Atty. Rivera violated his Lawyer's Oath; and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years. But the The IBP Board of Governors,
albeit adopting the findings of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala, modified the recommendation
of suspension from the practice of law for two years to disbarment.

RULING:
Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice or misconduct
in office, any of which was already a ground sufficient for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38
of the Rules of Court. The moral standards of the Legal Profession expected the respondent to
act with the highest degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of their
practice of law. Moreover, he was already previously charged with unprofessional misconduct
for notarizing documents without a notarial commission. This act just shows that he had also
enticed persons into believing in the documents he had falsified or simulated.

The law requires the lawyer to be true to his client, and by choosing to ignore his fiduciary
responsibility for the sake of getting money committed a further violation of his oath by which
he swore not to "delay any man's cause for money or malice," and to "conduct himself 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.

OPINION:
A lawyer who causes the simulation of court documents not only violates the court and
its processes, but also betrays the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client and must be
disbarred to maintain the integrity of the Law Profession. He was given a chance to change when
he committed an act previous to this case, however, he still continued to do such unethical act.
The punishment of disbarment is the proper penalty in this case as he blatantly disregarded th
Court.

A.C. No. 501 October 26, 1968

IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NOTARY PUBLIC ATTY. ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

FACTS:
Zacarias Manigbas, a member of the bar, was charged with alleged acts of falsification in
violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, in that in the jurat of certain documents that
as notary public, he made it appear that said documents were subscribed, sworn to and signed
by Pablo de la Cruz before him and in his presence, in Lucena City, when in truth they were signed
in Manila and not in his presence.

Manigbas admitted that he had not exercised utmost care so as to make sure that the
person presenting the document for his signature as notary public was the same person who was
supposed to sign and subscribe the document before him, relying merely on the assumption that
the papers were in order because they were supposed to have been duly processed by the bank
manager who, he also presumed, had seen to it that no defect existed in the pertinent documents
and no irregularity had been committed in the preparation of the loan papers.

ISSUE:
May Manigbas be disbarred from the practice of law on the ground of fraud?

LAW APPLICABLE:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

CASE HISTORY:
The matter was referred to the OSG and Manigbas was given opportunity to defend
himself.

RULING:
There is no showing that respondent was in league with the bank officers who may have
perpetrated a scheme in issuing fraudulent loans in violation of the charter of the Rural Bank of
Lucena so as to warrant the finding that he had himself committed falsification. His participation
in the accomplishment of the documents relative to the loan supposedly applied for by Pablo de
la Cruz which is that of merely notarizing said documents is not inconsistent with lack of
knowledge on his part of the fraud which was apparently perpetrated by other parties so as to
make him equally liable or guilty of such fraud. At least the evidence fails to link respondent to
whatever fraudulent transactions may have been indulged in by the Bank.The Solicitor General
holds the view that the respondent "is chargeable only with failure to exercise utmost care in the
performance of his functions as a Notary Public. Manigbas was only warned to be more careful
in the future performance of his duties.

OPINION:
Disbarment is a serious case which is filed against a lawyer, and it should not be taken
lightly and be granted outrightly. Absent any showing that the lawyer conspired with other
people to commit fraud, then he cannot be liable for their acts and as such be disbarred. In this
case there is only failure to exercise utmost care in his performance of his functions as a notary
public.