G.R. No. A.C. No. 10451, February 4, 2015
Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing, Complainants, vs. Atty. Wallen R. De Vera, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants engaged respondent Atty. Wallen R. De Vera to handle an election protest for their daughter, who lost a Sangguniang Kabataan chairmanship election by one vote. Atty. De Vera received an acceptance fee of ₱30,000.00 and additional fees totaling ₱60,000.00. As the filing deadline neared, Atty. De Vera prepared affidavits for material witnesses Mark Anthony Lachica and Angela Almera. When the witnesses were unavailable, he allegedly instructed campaigners to find their relatives to sign the affidavits on their behalf. The affidavits were signed by Christina Papin (for Lachica) and Elsa Almera-Almacen (for Almera) and were notarized. Lachica later disowned his affidavit. The Metropolitan Trial Court found the affidavits falsified. Atty. De Vera filed a motion to withdraw the affidavits. He also failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. Complainants confronted him, and he allegedly stated that the judge was biased, having received ₱60,000.00 from the opposing counsel, and demanded ₱80,000.00 to give to the judge for a favorable decision. Complainants terminated his services and demanded a refund. Atty. De Vera denied the accusations, claiming the falsification was done without his knowledge and that he sought to rectify the error. He also invoked a “Release Waiver & Discharge” document executed by complainants.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Wallen R. De Vera should be held administratively liable for his actions.

RULING

Yes, Atty. De Vera is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) but modified the penalty. The Court found that Atty. De Vera sanctioned the submission of a falsified affidavit (that of Angela Almera) to meet the filing deadline, violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits doing any falsehood or consenting to its doing in court. The credible testimony of Elsa Almera-Almacen, which Atty. De Vera failed to specifically deny, established his involvement. His act of advising campaigners to find relatives to sign for absent witnesses demonstrated a disregard for truth and the administration of justice. Furthermore, his failure to appear in court and his attempt to justify it by accusing the judge of corruption, without proof, constituted a breach of his duties as a lawyer. The “Release Waiver & Discharge” document does not bar the administrative case, as it involves public interest. Atty. De Vera was found GUILTY and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. He was also ORDERED to return the ₱60,000.00 received from complainants within ninety (90) days from the finality of the decision.