G.R. No. A.C. No. 12690, April 26, 2021
Spouses Oscar L. Mariano and Lolita Maliwat-Mariano, Ricardo M. Maliwat, and Atty. Jesus Bautista, Complainants, vs. Atty. Roberto C. Abrajano and Atty. Jorico F. Bayaua, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainants, as attorneys-in-fact for Lany Maliwat Mariano and her son Jerwin Calbang, filed a disbarment complaint against respondents Atty. Roberto C. Abrajano and Atty. Jorico F. Bayaua. The complaint arose from the filing of a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (Civil Case No. 4595-MN) by George Calbang (Lany’s erstwhile spouse) before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City. Complainants alleged that respondents conspired to commit deceitful and unlawful acts in the preparation and filing of the Petition, including: falsely indicating George’s address in Malabon to improperly lay venue; falsely stating Lany’s residence as Sampaloc, Manila despite her permanent residency in Italy; untruthfully alleging no properties were acquired due to Lany’s fault; making it appear summons were served to Lany through a non-existent sibling; pretending to furnish Lany copies of motions and pre-trial briefs at bogus addresses; and presenting George’s false testimony. Complainants also asserted that respondents engaged in unauthorized practice of law as both were employees of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) at the time.
Atty. Bayaua denied conspiracy, claiming he only allowed Atty. Abrajano to use his office space and merely notarized the Verification and Certification attached to the Petition. He admitted signing subsequent pleadings upon Atty. Abrajano’s request but did not verify their contents, trusting Atty. Abrajano. He also admitted receiving appearance fees. Atty. Abrajano died on March 7, 2007, prior to the filing of the disbarment complaint on August 7, 2009.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner initially recommended a two-month suspension for Atty. Bayaua, finding he violated Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Court and certain Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The IBP Board of Governors increased the suspension to six months but later dismissed the case, finding no clear evidence of conspiracy and ruling that Atty. Bayaua merely relied on the affiant’s oath when notarizing the Verification. Complainants filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondents should be held administratively liable for their actions in connection with Civil Case No. 4595-MN.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Abrajano due to his death prior to the filing of the disbarment case. As for Atty. Bayaua, the Court found him administratively liable.
Atty. Bayaua’s admission that he signed subsequent pleadings (Motion to Order Investigation, Pre-Trial Brief, Memorandum) as counsel of record made him subject to Rule 7, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. His signature constituted a certification that he read the pleadings, believed them meritorious, and they were not interposed for delay. By admitting he did not verify the contents prepared by Atty. Abrajano before signing, he violated this rule, an act of falsehood before the courts warranting disciplinary action.
The Court rejected Atty. Bayaua’s defense of limited participation and fraternal love, emphasizing that a lawyer’s signature on pleadings is not a trivial act but imparts legal effect and certifies the document’s veracity. His failure to exercise due diligence violated his duties as an officer of the court.
Regarding penalty, the Court considered disbarment too severe, as the offense did not involve gross misconduct affecting moral character. Instead, imposing a less severe penalty would serve the preservative principle of lawyer discipline. The Court modified the IBP’s recommendation and suspended Atty. Bayaua from the practice of law for six months, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.