G.R. No. A.C. No. 5285. August 14, 2019.
JUDGE NIMFA P. SITACA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DIEGO M. PALOMARES, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

In September 1997, Criminal Case No. RTC-1503 for murder against Dunhill Palomares was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35 in Ozamiz City, presided by complainant Judge Nimfa P. Sitaca. The accused was represented by his father, respondent Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr., as counsel of record. The Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Roy Murallon, reported to Judge Sitaca that respondent was present to secure approval of a bail bond for his son’s temporary release. The bail bond, in the amount of P200,000.00, was accompanied by a release order purportedly signed by Atty. Glenn Peter Baldado, Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 18 in Cagayan de Oro City, and bore the signature of Judge Nazar Chavez of the same branch. Relying on these signatures, Judge Sitaca approved the bail bond and release order. Subsequently, Atty. Murallon received a letter from Atty. Baldado stating that the bail bond was non-existent and had never been processed by Branch 18.
In his defense, respondent claimed he sought assistance from his client, Bentley House International Corporation (BHIC), to facilitate his son’s release. BHIC referred him to William Guialani, who allegedly secured the bail bond and release order. Respondent asserted he had no hand in producing the spurious documents and could have easily obtained a legitimate bail bond from other insurance company clients. He also shifted blame to Atty. Murallon for not verifying the documents’ authenticity.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). After initial proceedings, the Supreme Court remanded the case due to procedural lapses. Upon reinvestigation, the IBP-CBD found respondent liable for submitting falsified court documents.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by submitting falsified bail bond and release order to secure his son’s temporary liberty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court found that respondent, as counsel of record for his son in a murder case (a non-bailable offense), knew there were no bail proceedings or orders granting bail. Despite this, he personally submitted the falsified bail bond and release order to the court. His defense—that a third party, William Guialani, procured the documents—was deemed unsubstantiated and an attempt to evade responsibility. The Court emphasized that lawyers must not engage in falsehood or mislead the court. Given the gravity of the offense, which involved undermining judicial integrity, respondent was disbarred. His name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.