The Supreme Court held that an attorney who falsified court documents to secure his son’s release is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and is thus disbarred. The court emphasized that lawyers must uphold the law and legal processes, and any act of deceit undermines the integrity of the profession. This decision underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and the severe consequences for those who engage in dishonest conduct.

A Father’s Deception: Can an Attorney Fabricate Court Orders to Free His Son?

This case revolves around a complaint filed against Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr., who was accused of falsifying a bail bond and release order to secure the temporary release of his son, Dunhill Palomares, who was facing murder charges. Judge Nimfa P. Sitaca of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) – Branch 35, Ozamiz City, filed the complaint after discovering that the bail bond presented by Atty. Palomares was non-existent and not processed by RTC-Branch 18 of Cagayan de Oro City, as the document purported. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Palomares violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action, including disbarment.

Atty. Palomares argued that he had sought assistance from a client, Bentley House International Corporation (BHIC), to facilitate his son’s release. He claimed that BHIC introduced him to one William Guialani, who allegedly secured the falsified bail bond and release order. The attorney further contended that he believed the documents were authentic and that it was the Branch Clerk of Court’s duty to verify their veracity. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Palomares liable for violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in any falsehood or misleading the court. The IBP initially recommended suspension, but later increased it to three years.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the attorney. The Court emphasized that Atty. Palomares, as a lawyer, had a duty to ensure the authenticity of court documents, especially given that his son was charged with a non-bailable offense. The Court found it highly improbable that Atty. Palomares was unaware of the falsification, given his role as counsel for his son in the criminal case. The Supreme Court noted the implausibility of Atty. Palomares’s defense, pointing out that he failed to provide concrete evidence of Guialani’s existence or participation, and that he did not pursue any legal action against Guialani for allegedly providing falsified documents. Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that it was convenient for Atty. Palomares to point to someone else to get himself out of trouble.

The Court also applied the principle of presumption of authorship, stating that the possessor and user of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification, especially if they stand to benefit from it. This presumption, as articulated in cases like PCGG v. Jacobi, 689 Phil. 307, 321-322 (2012), weighed heavily against Atty. Palomares, as he presented and used the falsified documents to secure his son’s release. Furthermore, the Court underscored that jurisdiction over the criminal case rested with Branch 35, Ozamiz City, implying that any bail proceedings should have occurred there, not in Cagayan de Oro City. The Supreme Court quoted Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Court underscored the severity of Atty. Palomares’s actions, which constituted a serious breach of ethics and undermined the integrity of the legal profession. The Court has consistently held that lawyers must maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing, thus to preserve the integrity of the bar. Citing Billanes v. Atty. Latido, A.C. No. 12066, August 28, 2018, the Court emphasized that any act of misrepresentation and deception is unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession, revealing basic moral flaws that make a lawyer unfit to practice law. The gravity of the attorney’s actions lead to only one conclusion, which is disbarment from the practice of law.

The Supreme Court cited Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR, which emphasizes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court, holding that Atty. Palomares had violated this canon by deliberately causing the falsification of the bail bond and release order. Citing the case of Sps. Umaguing v. Atty. De Vera, 753 Phil. 11, 22 (2015), the Court reiterated that every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy in their dealings with clients and the courts. Furthermore, the Lawyer’s 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.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by falsifying court documents to secure his son’s release from detention. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that his actions warranted disbarment.
What specific violations did Atty. Palomares commit?	Atty. Palomares was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These violations pertain to engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, and failing to uphold candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court.
What was the role of William Guialani in this case?	Atty. Palomares claimed that William Guialani was the one who procured the falsified bail bond and release order. However, the Court found this claim unsubstantiated and questioned the existence and actual participation of Guialani in the scheme.
What is the presumption of authorship and how did it apply to this case?	The presumption of authorship states that the possessor and user of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification. This applied to Atty. Palomares because he possessed and used the falsified documents to secure his son’s release.
What is the significance of Canon 1 and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Canon 1 requires lawyers to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Canon 10 requires lawyers to maintain candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court, prohibiting any falsehood or misleading conduct.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr. guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and ordered his disbarment from the practice of law. His name was stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.
Can an attorney claim ignorance of falsified documents if they were presented in court?	The court found it implausible for the attorney to not know the documents were falsified given his role as his son’s counsel and the fact that his son was charged with a non-bailable offense. An attorney has a duty to ensure the authenticity of court documents.
What does this case highlight about the standards expected of lawyers?	This case highlights the high ethical standards expected of lawyers, emphasizing the importance of honesty, integrity, and adherence to the law. It also demonstrates the severe consequences for those who engage in deceitful conduct that undermines the integrity of the legal profession.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities that come with being a member of the legal profession. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of honesty and integrity in all dealings, especially those involving the courts. It reinforces the principle that lawyers must uphold the law and legal processes, and any deviation from these standards will be met with severe consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JUDGE NIMFA P. SITACA VS. ATTY. DIEGO M. PALOMARES, JR., A.C. No. 5285, August 14, 2019