Disbarment for Forgery and Misrepresentation in Marriage Nullity Case

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that lawyers who engage in deceitful conduct—especially involving forged signatures and false representations before courts—face the ultimate penalty of disbarment. In Vasco-Tamaray v. Daquis (A.C. No. 10868, January 26, 2016), the Court removed a lawyer from the Roll of Attorneys for violating multiple canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility in connection with a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.

The case serves as a stern reminder that the practice of law demands unwavering honesty, integrity, and fidelity—not just to clients, but to the courts and the administration of justice.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis, alleging that the lawyer filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on her behalf without her knowledge or consent. Vasco-Tamaray claimed that Atty. Daquis forged her signature on the petition and made it appear that she was the petitioner's counsel.

Evidence showed that Atty. Daquis was actually the counsel of Vasco-Tamaray's husband, Leomarte Regala Tamaray. An affidavit from a friend who accompanied Vasco-Tamaray to a meeting stated that Leomarte introduced Atty. Daquis as "his lawyer" and announced his decision to annul the marriage. The petition itself listed an address in Muntinlupa City—the residence of the husband's family—rather than Vasco-Tamaray's actual address in Quezon City. Court notices sent to that address were received by relatives of the husband.

Vasco-Tamaray also presented certifications showing she had never resided at the address stated in the petition, and she denied ever possessing the community tax certificate number that appeared on the jurat.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Daquis should be held administratively liable for making it appear she was counsel for Vasco-Tamaray and for allowing the use of a forged signature on the petition.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Daquis guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct), Canon 7, Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice), Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (prohibiting falsehoods before the court), and Canon 17 (requiring fidelity to the client's cause). The Court dismissed the charge for conflict of interest under Canon 15, Rule 15.03, finding insufficient evidence that Atty. Daquis was actually engaged as counsel by the complainant.

The Court noted that Atty. Daquis failed to rebut the allegation that she was the husband's counsel. It observed that the husband likely wanted the petition filed in the wife's name to avoid admitting his bigamous marriage, which could expose him to criminal liability. The Court also compared signatures on the petition with the complainant's known signatures and found noticeable differences, concluding that the signature on the petition was forged.

While there was no direct evidence that Atty. Daquis personally forged the signature, the Court held that she "allowed a forged signature to be used on a petition she prepared and notarized"—a violation of Canon 10, which prohibits consenting to the doing of any falsehood in court.

Practical Takeaways

• Lawyers must never file pleadings without the client's genuine consent. Filing a petition in a client's name without authorization is a grave violation of professional ethics.
• A lawyer who notarizes a document with a forged signature bears responsibility. Even if the lawyer did not personally forge the signature, allowing it to be used is itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Misrepresenting oneself as counsel for a party is a serious offense. The Court views such conduct as a falsehood against both the court and the affected party.
• Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for grave misconduct. The Court emphasized that deliberate falsification and deceit undermine the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.
• The Supreme Court alone has final authority over lawyer discipline. Recommendations from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are merely advisory; the Court makes the ultimate decision.

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