AC 10525; (September, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 10525, September 1, 2015
Intestate Estate of Jose Uy, herein represented by its Administrator Wilson Uy, Complainant, vs. Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari III, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Wilson Uy, administrator of the estate of Jose Uy, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari III for deceitful conduct and violating the Lawyer’s Oath. The complaint arose from Maghari’s representation of Magdalena Uy in Spec. Proc. No. 97-241 before the Bacolod City Regional Trial Court. In several pleadings filed between 2010 and 2012, Maghari indicated professional details—specifically Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Official Receipt numbers, Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) numbers, and Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance numbers—that were either false or identical to those of another lawyer, Atty. Mariano L. Natu-El, who represented the opposing party, Lilia Hofileña. For instance, in a Motion to Quash Subpoena ad Testificandum filed in 2010, Maghari used an IBP O.R. No. 731938 and a PTR No. 0223568, which were the exact numbers Atty. Natu-El had used in a 2009 pleading. In subsequent motions, Maghari repeatedly changed these details. Complainant discovered the discrepancies and alleged Maghari knowingly usurped another lawyer’s professional information. In his defense, Maghari claimed the erroneous entries were mere overlooked errors due to cursory review of drafts and accused complainant of nitpicking.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari III engaged in unethical conduct warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of unethical conduct. The Supreme Court found that Maghari’s actions constituted a pattern of deceit, not mere inadvertence. He repeatedly indicated false professional details in multiple pleadings over several years and appropriated the specific details of another lawyer. This violated Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court (which lists deceit as a ground for disbarment), the Lawyer’s Oath (which prohibits falsehood and requires fidelity to the court), and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His conduct demonstrated intentional mockery of court rules and ethical standards. The Court rejected his defense of oversight, noting the errors were manifest, repeated, and involved swiping another lawyer’s identifiable information. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari III from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.