Republic of the Philippines On September 9, 2004, the RTC received another letter from Mr.

Hunt,
SUPREME COURT reiterating the request for a copy of the decision in Special Proceedings
Manila Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death
of Rey Laserna.2
EN BANC
Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve the records of
A.C. No. 6732 October 22, 2013 Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration
of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna. It was then discovered that the RTC
had no record of Special Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley Quioyo was
ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU the petitioner. Instead, the court files revealed that Judge Penuela had
OF INVESTIGATION, WESTERN VISA YAS, REGIONAL OFFICE NBI- decided Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the
WEVRO), FOR SAN PEDRO, ILOILO CITY, Complainant, Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria, whose petitioner was
vs. one Serena Catin Austria.
ATTY. SALVADOR N. PE, JR., ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR,
SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE, Respondent.
Informed that the requested decision and case records did not exist, 3 Mr.
Hunt sent a letter dated October 12, 2004 attaching a machine copy of the
DECISION purported decision in Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of
the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna that had been
BERSAMIN, J.: presented by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK.4

A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a court of After comparing the two documents and ascertaining that the document
law is guilty of the gravest misconduct and deserves the supreme penalty of attached to the October 12, 2004 letter was a falsified court document,
disbarment. Judge Penuela wrote Mr. Hunt to apprise him of the situation.5

The Case The discovery of the falsified decision prompted the Clerk of Court to
communicate on the situation in writing to the NBI, triggering the
Before this Court is the complaint for disbarment against Assistant Provincial investigation of the falsification.6
Prosecutor Atty. Salvador N Pe, Jr. respondent) of San Jose, Antique for his
having allegedly falsified an in existent decision of Branch 64 of the Regional In the meanwhile, Dy Quioyo, a brother of Shirley Quioyo, executed an
Trial Court stationed in Bugasong, Antique (RTC) instituted by the National affidavit on March 4, 2005,7 wherein he stated that it was the respondent
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Western Visayas Regional Office, represented who had facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision in Special
by Regional Director Atty. Oscar L. Embido. Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive
Death of Rey Laserna for a fee of ₱60,000.00. The allegations against the
Antecedent respondent were substantially corroborated by Mary Rose Quioyo, a sister of
Shirley Quioyo, in an affidavit dated March 20, 2005.8

On July 7, 2004, Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya, Clerk of Court of the RTC, received
a written communication from Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, a Solicitor in the The NBI invited the respondent to explain his side,9 but he invoked his
United Kingdom (UK). The letter requested a copy of the decision dated constitutional right to remain silent. The NBI also issued subpoenas to
February 12, 1997 rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela in Special Shirley Quioyo and Dy Quioyo but only the latter appeared and gave his
Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of sworn statement.
Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was one Shirley
Quioyo.1
After conducting its investigation, the NBI forwarded to the Office of the and in fact the proceedings related to the petition for declaration of
Ombudsman for Visayas the records of the investigation, with a presumptive death of Rolando Austria, with Serena Catin Austria as the
recommendation that the respondent be prosecuted for falsification of public petitioner;18 and that the respondent had received ₱60,000.00 from Dy
document under Article 171, 1 and 2, of the Revised Penal Code, and for Quioyo for the falsified decision. She rationalized her conclusions thusly:
violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act).10 The NBI likewise recommended to the Office of the Court Respondent’s denials are not worthy of merit. Respondent contends that it
Administrator that disbarment proceedings be commenced against the was one Manuel Jalipa (deceased) who facilitated the issuance and as proof
respondent.11 Then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now a thereof, he presented the sworn statement of the widow of Florencia Jalipa
Member of the Court) officially endorsed the recommendation to the Office of (sic). Such a contention is hard to believe. In the first place, if the decision
the Bar Confidant.12 was obtained in Recto, Manila, why was it an almost verbatim reproduction
of the authentic decision on file in Judge Penuela’s branch except for the
Upon being required by the Court, the respondent submitted his counter- names and dates? Respondent failed to explain this. Secondly, respondent
affidavit,13 whereby he denied any participation in the falsification. He did not attend the NBI investigation and merely invoked his right to remain
insisted that Dy Quioyo had sought his opinion on Shirley’s petition for the silent. If his side of the story were true, he should have made this known in
annulment of her marriage; that he had given advice on the pertinent laws the investigation. His story therefore appears to have been a mere
involved and the different grounds for the annulment of marriage; that in afterthought. Finally, there is no plausible reason why Dy Quioyo and his
June 2004, Dy Quioyo had gone back to him to present a copy of what sister, Mary Rose Quioyo would falsely implicate him in this incident.19
appeared to be a court decision;14 that Dy Quioyo had then admitted to him
that he had caused the falsification of the decision; that he had advised Dy In its Resolution No. XVII-2007-063 dated February 1, 200, 20 the IBP Board
Quioyo that the falsified decision would not hold up in an investigation; that of Governors adopted and approved, with modification, the report and
Dy Quioyo, an overseas Filipino worker (OFW), had previously resorted to recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner by suspending the
people on Recto Avenue in Manila to solve his documentation problems as respondent from the practice of law for six years.
an OFW; and that he had also learned from Atty. Angeles Orquia, Jr. that one
Mrs. Florencia Jalipa, a resident of Igbalangao, Bugasong, Antique, had
executed a sworn statement before Police Investigator Herminio Dayrit with On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No.
the assistance of Atty. Orquia, Jr. to the effect that her late husband, Manuel XVIII-2008-70921 denying the respondent’s motion for reconsideration and
Jalipa, had been responsible for making the falsified document at the affirming Resolution No. XVII-2007-063. The IBP Board of Governors then
instance of Dy Quioyo.15 forwarded the case to the Court in accordance with Section 12(b), Rule 139-
B22 of the Rules of Court.
Thereafter, the Court issued its resolution 16 treating the respondent’s
counter-affidavit as his comment, and referred the case to the Integrated Bar On January 11, 2011, the Court resolved: (1) to treat the respondent’s
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. comment/opposition as his appeal by petition for review; (2) to consider the
complainant’s reply as his comment on the petition for review; (3) to require
the respondent to file a reply to the complainant’s comment within 10 days
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation from notice; and (4) to direct the IBP to transmit the original records of the
case within 15 days from notice.
In a report and recommendation dated June 14, 2006, 17 Atty. Lolita A.
Quisumbing, the IBP Investigating Commissioner, found the respondent Ruling
guilty of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorney’s Oath and Code
of Professional Responsibility , and recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for one year. She concluded that the respondent had forged We affirm the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. Indeed, the
the purported decision of Judge Penuela by making it appear that Special respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying a court decision in
Proceedings No. 084 concerned a petition for declaration of presumptive consideration of a sum of money.
death of Rey Laserna, with Shirley Quioyo as the petitioner, when in truth
The respondent’s main defense consisted in blanket denial of the imputation. Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or
He insisted that he had had no hand in the falsification, and claimed that the fraudulent transactions can justify a lawyer’s disbarment or suspension from
falsification had been the handiwork of Dy Quioyo. He implied that Dy the practice of law.25 Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the court
Quioyo had resorted to the shady characters in Recto Avenue in Manila to decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral
resolve the problems he had encountered as an OFW, hinting that Dy turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of
Quioyo had a history of employing unscrupulous means to achieve his ends. justice in this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which was to
mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person. He thereby
However, the respondent’s denial and his implication against Dy Quioyo in became unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.
the illicit generation of the falsified decision are not persuasive. Dy Quioyo’s
categorical declaration on the respondent’s personal responsibility for the It then becomes timely to remind all members of the Philippine Bar that they
falsified decision, which by nature was positive evidence, was not overcome should do nothing that may in any way or degree lessen the confidence of
by the respondent’s blanket denial, which by nature was negative the public in their professional fidelity and integrity.26 The Court will not
evidence.23 hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline on those among them who
wittingly and willingly fail to meet the enduring demands of their Attorney’s
Also, the imputation of wrongdoing against Dy Quioyo lacked credible Oath for them to:
specifics and did not command credence.1âwphi1 It is worthy to note, too,
that the respondent filed his counter-affidavit only after the Court, through x x x support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders
the en banc resolution of May 10, 2005, had required him to comment. 24 The of the duly constituted authorities therein; xxx do no falsehood, nor consent
belatedness of his response exposed his blanket denial as nothing more to the doing of any in court; x x x not wittingly or willingly promote or sue on
than an after thought. groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; x x x
delay no man for money or malice, and x x x conduct themselves as lawyers
The respondent relied on the sworn statement supposedly executed by Mrs. according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
Jalipa that declared that her deceased husband had been instrumental in the as well to the courts as to their clients x x x.
falsification of the forged decision. But such reliance was outrightly
worthless, for the sworn statement of the wife was rendered unreliable due No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal
to its patently hearsay character. In addition, the unworthiness of the sworn profession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving,
statement as proof of authorship of the falsification by the husband is and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails to
immediately exposed and betrayed by the falsified decision being an almost observe and respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in
verbatim reproduction of the authentic decision penned by Judge Penuela in his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended
the real Special Proceedings Case No. 084. from the practice of law not only for acts and omissions of malpractice and
for dishonesty in his professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not
In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave directly connected with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for
misconduct for having authored the falsification of the decision in a non- the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the privilege to practice
existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional law confers upon him.27 Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary
Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the dignity authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and
and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional punish lawyer misconduct committed either in a professional or private
Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that capacity.28 The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and whether the
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the
profession." Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Court.29 WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST.
Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty of violating Rule
immoral or deceitful conduct. 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective upon receipt of this decision.
The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST.
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of
Attorneys.

This decision is without prejudice to any pending or contemplated

Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant the
Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts of the country
and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.