AC 12415; (March, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 12415. March 05, 2019
JUSTICE FERNANDA LAMPAS-PERALTA, JUSTICE STEPHEN C. CRUZ, AND JUSTICE RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainants, Court of Appeals Associate Justices, discovered that a fabricated CA Decision acquitting Tirso Fajardo in a drug case was being circulated by the respondent, Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon. The respondent, counsel for Fajardo’s relatives, presented this fake decision to her clients, claiming its promulgation depended on a large payment. Verification revealed the case was still pending and assigned to a different CA division. Subsequently, the National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation, catching the respondent red-handed receiving marked money for the issuance of the spurious decision. A criminal complaint for estafa and falsification was filed against her.
The complainants filed this disbarment case, alleging the respondent represented she could influence CA Justices, defrauded her clients of approximately one million pesos, and showed disrespect to the judiciary. The respondent failed to submit an answer or appear before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline despite due notice. The IBP Board of Governors recommended disbarment.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent should be disbarred for her actions.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court disbarred the respondent. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental ethical duties of a lawyer under the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). A lawyer is a sworn officer of the court whose privilege to practice is conditioned upon unwavering integrity, honesty, and fidelity to the courts and clients. The respondent’s actions constituted a gross violation of these core principles.
Her fabrication of a court decision and solicitation of money under its pretense directly violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct) and Canon 10 (requiring a lawyer to observe candor and fairness). By falsely representing she could influence justices, she also violated Canon 7 (a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity of the legal profession) and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. The act of falsifying an official document and using it to defraud her clients is Grave Misconduct that demonstrates moral unfitness for the legal profession. Such acts are not mere lapses but reveal a character antithetical to the trust and dignity required of a lawyer. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege, and the respondent’s actions warranted its revocation to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal system. Disbarment is the appropriate penalty.