Lawyer Cited for Direct Contempt Over Fake Supreme Court Decision

A lawyer's duty to the court does not end with filing the right pleading. It begins with making sure the facts and documents behind that pleading are real. In Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc. (G.R. No. 162704, July 28, 2005), the Supreme Court fined a lawyer for direct contempt after he filed a petition built on a fabricated judicial decision.

What happened in the case

The case arose from a separate dispute. In a Resolution dated April 6, 2005, the Supreme Court directed Atty. Ricardo T. Calimag to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. He had filed a Motion for Intervention with Leave of Court and a Petition-in-Intervention on behalf of his clients, and attached to those pleadings was a fake Supreme Court decision.

The Court's earlier resolution had described the document bluntly: it was an obvious and incompetent forgery. The Court found it insulting that a claim would be asserted before the Supreme Court on such a document.

The lawyer's defense

In his compliance, the lawyer argued that he had been misled. He said he relied on the evidence made available to him at the time, that there was an honest mistake in appreciating the documents, and that he never intended any malice. He even welcomed a referral of the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation to identify who produced the fake decision.

The Court was not persuaded. It held that the explanation was insufficient and unsatisfactory, and cited him for direct contempt.

What direct contempt means

Direct contempt, also called contempt in facie curiae, is misbehavior committed in the presence of, or so near, a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt proceedings. It includes disrespect toward the court and may be punished summarily, without a hearing. It is conduct that assails the authority and dignity of the court or a judge, or involves doing a forbidden act.

Under Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, a person found guilty of direct contempt by a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank may be fined not more than two thousand pesos, imprisoned for not more than ten days, or both. The Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00, payable within ten days, with imprisonment of ten days if the fine was not paid.

Why the lawyer could not hide behind good faith

The Court rejected the claim of good faith and honest mistake for a simple reason: as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, the lawyer is presumed to know better. He is expected to prepare thoroughly on the law, the facts, and the evidence he presents.

At the very least, the Court said, he should have verified the documents with the appropriate authorities instead of relying only on his clients' assertions. A lawyer cannot simply pass along whatever a client hands over, especially when the document is central to the relief being sought.

The Court also reminded counsel of his duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility: to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, to do no falsehood and not consent to any in court, and not to mislead the court or allow it to be misled by artifice. These duties appear in Canon 11, Canon 10 (Rule 10.01), and Canon 12 of the Code.

Practical takeaways

• A lawyer must verify the authenticity of documents before attaching them to any pleading. Reliance on a client's word alone is not a defense.
• Filing a pleading based on a fake court decision can be treated as direct contempt, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
• Good faith and honest mistake will not excuse a lawyer who failed to do the minimum verification required by the profession.
• The duty to avoid falsehood and to avoid misleading the court is a continuing obligation under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.