G.R. No. A.C. No. 13163. March 15, 2022
Maria Felicisima Gonzaga, Complainant, vs. Atty. Edgardo H. Abad, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maria Felicisima Gonzaga and respondent Atty. Edgardo Abad were colleagues in the AFP. In 2008, Gonzaga consulted Atty. Abad about marital problems, and he advised her to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Gonzaga engaged Atty. Abad as counsel and his wife as a clinical psychologist, agreeing to a total fee of P80,000.00. She paid P12,000.00 for psychological tests and P10,000.00 for filing fees. Atty. Abad assured her there would be no hearings as he knew the judge. On February 5, 2010, Atty. Abad informed Gonzaga via text that a decision had been granted and requested P50,000.00 to register it. Gonzaga replied she would pay upon receipt of the decision. In June 2010, Atty. Abad gave Gonzaga a photocopy of a decision from the RTC, Branch 261, Pasig City, dated April 12, 2010, signed by Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio, and a copy of an entry of judgment certified by a clerk of court. Gonzaga then paid P15,000.00 as partial professional fees. Later, Atty. Abad demanded the balance for registration, but Gonzaga refused. Atty. Abad suggested filing a new case elsewhere, which made Gonzaga suspicious. She consulted another lawyer and discovered that no such petition was on file with RTC Branch 261, that Judge Reyes-Carpio had been promoted to the Court of Appeals before the purported decision date, and that the certifying clerk of court was from the MeTC, not the RTC. Gonzaga confronted Atty. Abad, demanded a refund of P37,000.00, and filed criminal and administrative complaints with the AFP, which were later dismissed. She also filed a disbarment complaint with the IBP for gross misconduct, malpractice, and deceit. Atty. Abad denied authorship of the fake decision, claiming Gonzaga decided not to pursue the case after an unfavorable psychological report. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Abad authored the fake decision, noting it quoted verbatim his wife’s psychological report, and recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Edgardo H. Abad should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct, malpractice, and deceit for orchestrating a scheme involving a fake court decision, warranting his disbarment.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Edgardo H. Abad is administratively liable and is DISBARRED. The Court emphasized that a disbarment case is an investigation into a lawyer’s fitness to practice, independent of criminal or other administrative actions, and requires substantial evidence. Atty. Abad violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The Court found substantial evidence, including text messages demanding payment for registration and the fake decision that substantially quoted his wife’s psychological report, proving he orchestrated the fraudulent scheme. His general denial could not overcome Gonzaga’s positive assertions and documentary evidence. The act of fabricating a court decision makes a mockery of the administration of justice and undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Returning the money did not absolve him of administrative liability. Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for such gross misconduct.