Scribd
Upload
149 views2 pages

6 Embido v. Pe JR

1. The case involved a lawyer, Salvador Pe Jr., who was accused of facilitating the issuance of a falsified court decision for 60,000 pesos. 2. An investigation revealed that the decision presented in a UK court did not match the actual records of the Philippine court case. 3. Pe was found guilty of grave misconduct and disbarred for deliberately falsifying a court decision, which undermined the integrity of the legal profession.

Uploaded by

Genevieve Bermudo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
149 views2 pages

6 Embido v. Pe JR

1. The case involved a lawyer, Salvador Pe Jr., who was accused of facilitating the issuance of a falsified court decision for 60,000 pesos. 2. An investigation revealed that the decision presented in a UK court did not match the actual records of the Philippine court case. 3. Pe was found guilty of grave misconduct and disbarred for deliberately falsifying a court decision, which undermined the integrity of the legal profession.

Uploaded by

Genevieve Bermudo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. Embido v. Pe, Jr.

FACTS:

Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya received two written communications from Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt. The letter
requested a copy of the decision dated February 12, 1997 rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela in
Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey
Laserna, whose petitioner was one Shirley Quioyo.

Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve the records of 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 the
petitioner. Instead, the court files revealed that Judge Penuela had decided Special Proceedings No. 084
entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria, whose petitioner was
one Serena Catin Austria. Informed that the requested decision and case records did not exist, Mr. Hunt
sent a letter attaching a machine copy of the purported decision in Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled
In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna that had been presented by
Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK.

After comparing the two documents and ascertaining that the document attached to the October 12,
2004 letter was a falsified court document, Judge Penuela wrote Mr. Hunt to apprise him of the
situation.

The discovery of the falsified decision prompted the Clerk of Court to communicate on the situation in
writing to the NBI, triggering the investigation of the falsification.

Dy Quioyo, a brother of Shirley Quioyo, executed an affidavit wherein he stated that it was the
respondent who had facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision in Special Proceedings No. 084
entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna for a fee of P60,000.00.
The allegations against the respondent were substantially corroborated by Mary Rose Quioyo, a sister of
Shirley Quioyo.

The NBI invited the respondent to explain his side but he invoked his constitutional right to remain
silent.

ISSUE:

Whether or Pe should be disbarred.

RULING:

YES.

In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for having
authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the dignity and integrity
of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall
not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”

Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in any
unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can justify a lawyer’s disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an
act that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the
administration of 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 became unworthy of continuing as a
member of the Bar.

It then becomes timely to remind all members of the Philippine Bar that they should do nothing that
may in any way or degree lessen the confidence of the public in their professional fidelity and integrity.
The Court will not 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 Oath for them to:

x x x support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; xxx do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; x x
x not wittingly or willingly promote or sue on 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 according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to their clients x x x.

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.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR.
guilty of violating Rule 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.

You might also like