Verano v. Tayag

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12612. November 18, 2021.]

ATTY. TONI JOY C. VERANO, petitioner,vs. ATTY. NINEL RUBIO G. TAYAG,respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 18, 2021which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12612 (Atty. Toni Joy C. Verano v. Atty. Ninel Rubio G. Tayag). — This administrative case arose from a Complaint 1 filed by Atty. Toni Joy C. Verano (Atty. Verano) against Atty. Ninel Rubio G. Tayag (Atty. Tayag) for violation of the lawyer's oath, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 10.01, 10.02 and 12.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) on account of his repeated acts of gross misconduct when he delegated the signing of pleadings to his non-legal staff, and for allowing his own witness to draft his own judicial affidavit without a lawyer's supervision.

The Antecedents

In August 2013, Atty. Verano met with Atty. Tayag. The former expressed his need for new partners since he was barred from signing pleadings due to his non-compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). Thereat, Atty. Verano agreed to Atty. Tayag's proposal to be a partner at his law firm. Their agreement was for Atty. Verano to commence her legal work on September 1, 2013, for a monthly salary of P50,000.00.

A few days after commencing legal work, Atty. Tayag tasked Atty. Verano to draft and sign a Motion for Reduction of Bail. Immediately, Atty. Verano prepared, signed, and submitted the motion to Atty. Tayag for approval. Later, Atty. Verano realized that the mode of payment of her salary was not discussed with Atty. Tayag, thus, she asked for clarification. In turn, Atty. Tayag informed her that he no longer wishes to pursue the partnership, and that Atty. Verano may stop reporting to work even before September 15, 2013. Atty. Verano, thereafter inquired about the status of the partnership that was proposed by Atty. Tayag. She then learned that Atty. Tayag never commenced the registration of their partnership, and this was the reason why Atty. Tayag did not pay Atty. Verano, her fees. 2

Sometime in October 2013, Atty. Verano discovered that Atty. Tayag used her name under the informal partnership and that he forged her signature in an initiatory pleading for a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City. Atty. Verano warned Atty. Tayag about his continued use of her name in the informal partnership, and for forging her signature. 3 In the said case, Atty. Tayag submitted, presented, marked as exhibit, and had his witness, Dr. Elias Adamos (Dr. Adamos) testify under a judicial affidavit, 4 where he made it appear that Atty. Verano signed the witness' judicial affidavit and conducted the taking of testimony of the witness. 5 aDSIHc

Atty. Verano later found out that there were four (4) different cases where her signature was forged and that Atty. Tayag made willful and intentional falsehood before the courts.

Thus, on January 6, 2017, Atty. Verano filed a Complaint 6 against Atty. Tayag. Alleging that the latter violated Rule 9.01 of the CPR when he delegated the signing of pleadings to his non-legal staff. 7 Further, Atty. Tayag also allowed his witness, Dr. Adamos, to draft his own judicial affidavit without being supervised by a lawyer, which is a violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, and which opened his own witness to criminal liability for perjury and/or false testimony. 8

Atty. Verano summarized the acts committed by Atty. Tayag as follows: (1) delegating the signing of pleadings to his non-legal staff; (2) allegedly committing repeated forgeries when he used Atty. Verano's name and signature in several pleadings without the latter's consent; (3) allowing Dr. Adamos to prepare his judicial affidavit without a lawyer's supervision; and (4) making it appear that Atty. Verano signed and conducted the taking of Dr. Adamos's testimony. According to Atty. Verano, these acts are sanctioned under Section 27 (1) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, wherein the lawyer, as a consequence, may be disbarred. 9 The afore-mentioned acts further show Atty. Tayag's repeated and stubborn acts of gross misconduct, which are direct violations of Rules 1.01, 1.02, 10.01, 10.02, and 12.06 of the CPR, to wit: 10

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 12.06 — A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.

On April 4, 2017, Atty. Verano filed a Motion to Withdraw 11 the Complaint, explaining that she and Atty. Tayag have amicably settled the civil aspect of the administrative case after the latter apologized to her.

On April 6, 2017, Atty. Tayag filed his Answer with Manifestation, 12 before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), praying that the Motion to Withdraw of Atty. Verano, be granted. 13 Atty. Tayag averred that he has sufficiently explained to Atty. Verano the surrounding events that occurred. 14

In his Position Paper, 15 Atty. Tayag pointed out that Atty. Verano's employment ended in September 2013, but he was unable to immediately inform his staff of Atty. Verano's severance of service with their firm. 16 Atty. Tayag admitted that being a sole partner in his firm and considering that he was handling more than a hundred active cases, he was overwhelmed by the impending deadline in the filing of pleadings with different courts. 17

Further, Atty. Tayag explained to Atty. Verano the circumstances of the purported forgeries, which were most probably done by an employee of his law firm and admitted his negligence in not keeping track of his employees' activities. 18 Atty. Tayag further claimed that whenever pleadings were to be filed, it is the associates who would first prepare these pleadings, and thereafter would be sent to the staff. 19 Afterwards, the staff would prepare the pleadings for filing. 20 According to Atty. Tayag, he seldom sees the finalized and filed version of the pleadings because he relies on his staff who have been properly trained to prepare these pleadings. 21 Since he would have four to five associates that he would be supervising as a sole partner, he had no choice but to rely on his non-legal staff to do the finalization, including the preparation of the hard copies, annexes, machine copies of pleadings, and filing. 22

Atty. Tayag faults his non-legal staff, who may have forged Atty. Verano's signatures in several pleadings, and in signing Dr. Adamos' judicial affidavit. 23 For instance, in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage case where Dr. Adamos' judicial affidavit was used, the petition was drafted by one of Atty. Tayag's associates, while the non-legal staff printed, reproduced, and prepared the pleading for filing. 24 However, it appears that Atty. Tayag's non-legal staff took advantage of his absence in the office by taking shortcuts to reduce their work. 25 Upon receiving the approved soft copies of the pleading, they prepared the same and subsequently forged Atty. Verano' s signature, to expedite their work, and to avoid having to coordinate with the signing of the Judicial Affidavit, without his knowledge. 26

Atty. Tayag apologized and promised Atty. Verano that he will correct the alleged unauthorized signing of her signature in said pleadings.

In Atty. Tayag's Manifestation and Comment to Motion to Strike Out Pleadings, 27 he apologized to the trial court where the subject civil case is pending, and to Atty. Verano. 28 Atty. Tayag manifested that Atty. Verano's "signatures in the subject pleadings were forgeries, the same not having been signed by her and without her authority." 29 According to Atty. Tayag, while he did not commit these forgeries, and that it is expected from him that these pleadings be physically checked by him, he "miserably failed [to do so as] he would seldom come to office during such period." 30 Atty. Tayag also admitted that Dr. Adamos, who was in the habit of preparing his Judicial Affidavits, had mistakenly inserted Atty. Verano's name in the subject Judicial Affidavit. 31 Again, Atty. Verano's signature had been forged, and was presented before the trial court. 32 While Atty. Tayag could have corrected the manifest mistake, he failed to do so. According to Atty. Tayag, his Manifestation and Comment to Motion to Strike Out Pleadings is for the purpose of correcting the infractions he made, and in order to rectify and admit the grave injustice done to Atty. Verano. 33 ETHIDa

The said apology 34 was accepted in Atty. Verano's Motion to Withdraw the Complaint. 35

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

On February 24, 2017, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala recommended that the case at bar (formerly CBD Case No. 17-5235) involving the serious misconduct allegedly committed by Atty. Tayag, be fully investigated by the Commission on Bar Discipline. 36 After investigation, Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay issued his Recommendation dated May 15, 2018, which provides:

In the case at hand, it is no less than [Atty. Tayag] himself [who] admitted that he was overwhelmed by the impending deadline in the filing of the pleadings with different courts. [Atty. Tayag] was able to explain to [Atty. Verano] the circumstances of the purported forgeries, were most probably done by an employee of his law firm and his admission of negligence in not keeping track of his employee's activities.

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered Atty. Ninel Rubio G. Tayag is liable for violation [of] his Lawyer's Oath and pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional [R]esponsibility. The undersigned Commissioner respectfully recommends that a penalty of suspension from practice of law for a period of six (6) months at the discretion of the Board of Governors be imposed with warning that a repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty. 37

On November 8, 2018, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued a Resolution, the dispositive portion of which provides:

RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to impose the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for six (6) months; and a WARNING that the next violation will be dealt with more severely. 38 (Emphasis in the original)

Subsequently, the IBP Board's resolution and case records were forwarded to this Court.

Our Ruling

After a careful review of the records of the case, this Court resolves to adopt the findings of the IBP, with a modification on the penalty to be imposed.

Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the CPR provides:

CANON 9

A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

In Cambaliza v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, 39 this Court emphasized that a lawyer has the duty to prevent and not to assist in the unauthorized practice of law, as founded on public interest and policy, thus:

Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. 40 (Emphasis supplied)

Further, the Rules of Court provide that counsel's signature constitutes his/her certification that: (1) he/she has read the pleading; (2) to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and (3) the pleading is not interposed for delay. 41 Thus, by affixing one's signature to a pleading, it is the counsel alone who has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document.

In Tapay v. Atty. Bancolo, 42 Atty. Bancolo admitted that the complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by a secretary of his law office. 43 In the afore-mentioned case, this Court held that the legal work of preparation and signing of a pleading constitute practice of law, and can only be done by lawyers. 44 Atty. Bancolo's authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. 45 He may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, but not to a non-lawyer. 46 Since he delegated the signing of the complaint he filed, through a secretary of his law firm, he violated Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Further, Atty. Bancolo did not rectify the situation as to the alleged forgery of his signature. 47 For allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading, this Court meted him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year. 48

Here, Atty. Tayag admitted that he left the preparation, finalizing and filing of pleadings to his non-legal staff. 49 He also faults his non-legal staff, who may have forged Atty. Verano's signatures in several pleadings, and in signing Dr. Adamos' judicial affidavit, to wit:

9. In handling the affairs of the office with more or less 100 active cases, the undersigned would leave the preparation of documents to the office staff. While the forgeries were not done by the undersigned's hand or upon his explicit instructions the same was used to initiate the proceedings of this Honorable Court. While it is expected from the undersigned that all pleadings should be physically checked by him, the same miserably failed as he would seldom come to office during such period. The undersigned went on further by filing a compliance again with the forged signature of Atty. Verano to continue with the proceedings.50 (Emphasis supplied) cSEDTC

Atty. Tayag's inadvertence resulted in his failure to prevent the unauthorized practice of law, when his non-legal staff was able to affix Atty. Verano's name and signature in several pleadings, and in Dr. Adamos' judicial affidavit, without Atty. Verano's consent.

Despite Atty. Tayag's apology to Atty. Verano, and his efforts to rectify his errors, undoubtedly, he repeatedly violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the CPR.

Respondent also violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which states:

Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

In applying Canon 1 of the CPR, noteworthy is the case of Re: Tamaño, 51 where the Court ruled that Atty. Tamaño's failure to record five General Information Sheets for a continuous period of five (5) years, in his notarial book, constitute gross negligence in his duties as notary public. By failing to properly record entries in the notarial register, Atty. Tamaño violated his duty under Canon 1 of the CPR to uphold and obey the laws of the land, specifically, the Notarial Rules, and to promote respect for law and legal processes. 52 For the repeated violations of Canon 9.01, in addition to the violations of Canon 1.01 of the CPR, one of the penalties imposed upon him was suspension from the practice of law for one year. 53

In the case at bar, Atty. Tayag violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR as he abetted activities in defiance of the law.

It can be gleaned from Atty. Tayag's position paper that he tolerates the practice of Dr. Adamos' habit of preparing his own judicial affidavits without the presence of his counsel:

12. However, it was a different matter [altogether] as to the presentation of Dr. Adamos, Judicial Affidavit which was purportedly signed by him in 2014, a time when the undersigned's MCLE is already updated. Again with much apologies, it would be important to mention that Dr. Adamos had the habit of preparing his own Judicial Affidavit, and considering that it was Atty. Verano's name in the Petition, Dr. Adamos mistakenly inserted her name in the Judicial Affidavit. Atty. Verano's signature again had been forged, and during presentation the same document was used despite the undersigned's knowledge that the signature of Atty. Verano was not hers. Verily, the undersigned could have acted to correct the manifest mistake but did not, and for that apologies are again in order. 54

In allowing his own witness to draft his own judicial affidavit without the supervision of a lawyer, Atty. Tayag violated the Judicial Affidavit Rule that requires the presence of a lawyer in preparing the said affidavit. In effect, Atty. Tayag failed to promote respect for the legal process in abetting in such an activities aimed at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Atty. Tayag's act of repeatedly delegating the preparation and signing of pleadings and judicial affidavits to his non-legal staff deserves a penalty. Tapay v. Atty. Bancolo55 and Re: Tamaño, 56 warrants the suspension of erring lawyers from the practice of law for one year.

Atty. Tayag's apology to Atty. Verano and the latter's acceptance of it thru her Motion to Withdraw the Complaint, while this may temper the penalty to be imposed, shall not absolve Atty. Tayag from his actuations.

In Dallong-Galicanao v. Atty. Castro, 57 this Court held Atty. Castro administratively liable for hurling invectives against a Clerk of Court. This is despite Atty. Castro's apology to the Clerk of Court, which the latter accepted thru a Manifestation expressing her desire not to appear on the next hearing date of Atty. Castro's administrative case, in view of the latter's apology. 58 In holding Atty. Castro administratively liable, this Court reasoned:

Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that respondent had apologized to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not to say, however that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.

The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable performance of professional duty. 59

Nevertheless, in Atty. Vicente Roy L. Kayaban, Jr. v. Atty. Palicte III, 60 this Court found Atty. Palicte III administratively liable for committing misrepresentation and dishonesty. Therein, Atty. Palicte III used Atty. Kayaban's name and office address without Atty. Kayaban's knowledge and consent. Atty. Palicte III also made it appear that Atty. Kayaban entered his appearance as counsel of record in a civil case. 61 Ultimately, this Court modified Atty, Palicte III's suspension from the practice of law. While we agreed with the IBP Board of Governors that the penalty of disbarment is too harsh, we increased his suspension from the practice of law from two (2) years as recommended, to three (3) years, to wit: SDAaTC

We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that the penalty of disbarment is too harsh considering that this is respondent's first offense and his infractions were not connected to or done in the performance of his official duties as Deputy Secretary General on Legal Affairs of the House of Representatives. In any event, the Court's findings herein, coupled with the [Office of the Ombudsman] Decision finding respondent administratively liable for less serious dishonesty, signify that respondent has indubitable failed to discharge his high degree of social responsibility as a member of the legal profession and the civil service. Respondent's suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years is condign under the circumstances. 62

Further, this Court stresses that the determination of whether a lawyer should be disbarred or suspended, and the length of such suspension involves an exercise of sound judicial discretion. 63

Here, the penalty of suspension should be increased from six (6) months to one (1) year, taking into consideration, the case of Kayaban. 64 However, unlike in Kayaban65 where the Office of the Ombudsman found the erring lawyer administratively liable for less serious dishonesty, there is no such finding in Atty. Tayag's case. Instead of imposing a three (3)-year suspension against Atty. Tayag similar to the penalty imposed in Kayaban, this Court finds that Atty. Tayag's suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year is warranted.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds Atty. Ninel Rubio G. Tayag administratively liable for violating Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality of this Resolution. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent Atty. Ninel Rubio G. Tayag's record in this Court as attorney. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED." LOPEZ, M., J., on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-16.

2.Id. at 3.

3.Id. at 25-26.

4.Id. at 27-35.

5.Id. at 5.

6.Id. at 2-16.

7.Id. at 11.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 12.

11.Id. at 84-86.

12.Id. at 96-98.

13.Id. at 96.

14.Id. at 108-124.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 108.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 109.

19.Id.

20.Id.

21.Id.

22.Id.

23.Id.

24.Id.

25.Id.

26.Id.

27.Id. at 49-57.

28.Id. at 49.

29.Id.

30.Id. at 50.

31.Id.

32.Id.

33.Id.

34.Id.

35.Id. at 84-86.

36.Id. at 79.

37.Id. at 186.

38.Id. at 182.

39. 478 Phil. 378 (2004).

40.Id. at 389.

41. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3, §7.

42. 701 Phil. 1 (2013).

43.Id. at 3.

44.Id. at 9.

45.Id.

46.Id.

47.Id.

48.Id. at 9-10.

49.Rollo, p. 109.

50.Id. at 50.

51.Re: Order dated December 5, 2017 in ADM. Case No. NP-008-17 (Luis Alfonso R. Benedicto v. Atty. John Mark Tamaño) issued by the Executive Judge, RTC, Bacolod City v. Atty. John Mark Tamaño, A.C. No. 12274, October 7, 2020 (Resolution).

52.Id.

53.Id.

54.Rollo, p. 50.

55.Supra note 46, at 10.

56.Supra note 55.

57. 510 Phil. 478, 486 (2005).

58.Id.

59.Id.

60. A.C. No. 10815, October 5, 2021.

61.Id.

62.Id.

63.Id.

64.Id.

65.Id.