Madria V Rivera CASE DIGEST

A.C. No.
11256
FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant

vs
ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent
FACTS: In November 2002, complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted the respondent in his law
office in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan to inquire about the process of annulling her marriage with her
husband, Juan C. Madria.
After giving th e details of her marriage and other facts relevant to the annulment, the respondent told
her that she had a strong case, and guaranteed that he could obtain for her the decree of annulment.
He told her, too, that his legal services would cost ₱25,000.00
The complainant again went to the respondent's office on December 16, 2002 to deliver another
partial payment, and to follow up on the case. The respondent advised her to just wait for the
resolution of her complaint, and assured her that she did not need to appear in court. He explained
that all the court notices and processes would be sent to his office, and that he would regularly
apprise her of the developments.4 On December 28, 2002, she returned to his office to complete her
payment, and he also issued his receipt for the payment
The complainant's daughter Vanessa thereafter made several follow-ups on behalf of her mother. In
the latter part of April 2003, the respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been
granted.6 Thus, Vanessa went to the respondent's office and received a copy of the trial court's
decision dated April 16, 2003 signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 4, in Tuguegarao City.7
The complainant, again through Vanessa, received from the respondent a copy of the certificate of
finality dated September 26, 2003 signed by one Jacinto C. Danao of the RTC (Branch 4).9
Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant used the purported decision and
certificate of finality in applying for t he renewal of her passport.10 However, she became the object of
an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) because her former partner, Andrew
Dowson Grainge, had filed a complaint charging that she had fabricated the decision for the
annulment of her marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and the certificate of finality
given by the respondent did not exist in the court records, as borne out by the letter signed by Atty.
Aura Clarissa B. Tabag-Querubin, Clerk of Court of the RTC Branch IV
ISSUE: W/N THERE IS A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT ON THE ISSUE
HELD:
The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of marriage, and of the
simulation of the decision and certificate of finality. His explanation of having done so only upon the
complainant's persistent prodding did not exculpate him from responsibility. For one, the explanation
is unacceptable, if not altogether empty. Simulating or participating in the simulation of a court
decision and a certificate of finality of the same decision is an outright criminal falsification or forgery.
One need not be a lawyer to know so, but it was worse in the respondent's case because he was a
lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally intolerable. Specifically, his deliberate falsification of the court
decision and the certificate of finality of the decision reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his
part, and made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country. He thereby became
unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.
The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules 1. 01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule
15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
xxxx
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOY AL TY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness.
The respondent would shift the blame to his client. That a lay person like the complainant could have
swayed a lawyer like the respondent into committing the simulations was patently improbable. Yet,
even if he had committed the simulations upon the client's prodding, he would be no less responsible.
Being a lawyer, he was aware of and was bound by the ethical canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly those quoted earlier, which would have been enough to deter him from
committing the falsification, as well as to make him unhesitatingly frustrate her prodding in deference
to his sworn obligation as a lawyer to always act with honesty and to obey the laws of the land.
Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his Lawyer's Oath to "do
no falsehood, nor consent to its commission."
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that 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 him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer's Oath and the canons of ethical conduct
in his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended 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 directly connected with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness
for the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the privilege to practice law confers upon him.
Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are
to investigate and punish lawyer misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity.
The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity,
and good demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer
of the Court.30
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS Atty. CARLOS P. RIVERA guilty of GRAVE
MISCONDUCT and VIOLATION OF THE LAWYER'S OATH; and, ACCORDINGLY,
ORDERS his DISBARMENT. Let his name be STRICKEN from the ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.

Madria V Rivera CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madria V Rivera CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant

ISSUE: W/N THERE IS A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT ON THE ISSUE

You might also like