G.R. No. A.C. No. 8471. August 22, 2023.
Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon and Atty. Corazon P. Romero, Complainants, vs. Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon and Atty. Corazon P. Romero, Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 41, Bacolod City, charged respondent Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang with fabricating a court order dated August 2, 2006, in a non-existent case (Civil Case No. 206-16977). The forged order, signed by “Presiding Judge ALAN RAY DRILON,” declared the presumptive death of Ruby S. Madrinian upon a petition by his wife, Jodee Andren. In July 2008, complainants verified that no such case was docketed. The Office of the Clerk of Court issued a certificate confirming the non-existence of the case and noted multiple irregularities in the forged order, including an incorrect case numbering format, a forged signature, the judge’s name being reversed (“Alan Ray” instead of “Ray Alan”), a different writing style, and an incorrect caption format.
The complainants sought assistance from the NBI. In her sworn statement, Jodee Andren identified Atty. Maglalang as the lawyer who referred to her, handled her annulment case for a fee, assured her of its approval, gave her the forged order in November 2006, and facilitated her subsequent marriage. She paid him amounts totaling at least PHP 100,000. She discovered the order was fake when her NSO records were not corrected. Nenita Kho-Artizano corroborated Andren’s account in her sworn statement, witnessing Atty. Maglalang deliver the order. The NSO certified that Andren’s marriage to Madrinian remained on record.
Before the IBP, Atty. Maglalang claimed he had relocated, did not receive the complaint, found the documents blurred and incomplete, and denied knowing Andren or Kho-Artizano or having an engagement contract for the annulment.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang is guilty of professional misconduct for fabricating a court order and deceiving his client.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang is guilty of gross misconduct and is DISBARRED from the practice of law, with his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
The Court found the evidence against Atty. Maglalang substantial. The sworn statements of Andren and Kho-Artizano, which he failed to rebut, detailed his direct involvement in the fabrication and delivery of the forged order. The documentary evidence, including the forged order itself, the Clerk of Court’s certification of its non-existence, the NSO certification, and an acknowledgment receipt, supported the allegations. His defenses were deemed unsubstantiated and did not overcome the clear and convincing evidence.
His actions constituted gross misconduct and a violation of his oath as a lawyer. Fabricating a court order is a deceitful act that undermines the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession. It also violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), specifically the duty to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes (Canon I), and the prohibition against engaging in deceitful, fraudulent, or dishonest conduct (Canon II). The act of falsifying a public document (the court order) is a serious crime involving moral turpitude.
The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege demanding integrity and good moral character. Atty. Maglalang’s actions demonstrated a lack of these essential qualities, warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.