Disbarment for Dishonesty: Lawyer Forged Receipt, Kept Client's Payment

The Supreme Court has disbarred a lawyer who forged an acknowledgment receipt and misappropriated funds entrusted to him by his client for the payment of a judgment obligation. The case serves as a stern reminder that lawyers who engage in deceitful conduct, especially in connection with court proceedings, forfeit their privilege to practice law.

In Dela Cruz v. Atty. Peralta (A.C. No. 13475, October 4, 2022), the Court En Banc struck the respondent's name from the Roll of Attorneys for multiple violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The Facts of the Case

The complainants obtained a criminal judgment against Lito Gitalan, Jr. for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, which ordered Gitalan to pay P213,750.00 in damages. After the judgment became final, the complainants filed a motion for execution in 2014.

During the hearing, respondent Atty. Glen Eric Peralta, who represented Gitalan, tendered partial payment of P130,000.00 and promised to settle the remaining P83,750.00 within one month. However, respondent later approached the presiding judge and falsely claimed he had fully paid the damages, presenting a falsified acknowledgment receipt as proof.

Gitalan testified that he had given respondent a manager's check for the full amount in 2012. Respondent allegedly kept the proceeds, forged the signature of one of the complainants on an acknowledgment receipt, and notarized the document himself. When confronted, respondent denied everything and attempted to blame his secretary, claiming she had encashed the check and issued the receipt.

The Issue Before the Court

The Court was asked to determine whether respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR, and whether disbarment was the appropriate penalty.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating multiple provisions of the CPR, including:

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
• Rule 7.03, Canon 7 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
• Rule 10.01, Canon 10 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood in Court, nor mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
• Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts.
• Canons 15, 16, and 17 — Requiring candor, fairness, loyalty, and fidelity to clients, and holding client funds in trust.
• Rule 12.04, Canon 12 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes.

The Court noted that respondent not only kept his client's money but also forged a receipt, lied to the trial court, and attempted to use his secretary as a scapegoat by making her execute a fabricated affidavit. His conduct caused delay in the satisfaction of the complainants' monetary judgment even though Gitalan had fully paid as early as 2012.

Why Disbarment Was Imposed

The Court emphasized that membership in the Bar is a privilege reserved for lawyers of good moral character. While disbarment is generally imposed only in clear cases of serious misconduct, the Court has consistently held that lawyers who are guilty of misrepresentation and deception of clients may be disbarred.

The Court found respondent's deceitfulness, gross misconduct, and utter lack of remorse — even in the face of overwhelming evidence — to be compelling reasons for disbarment. His actions demonstrated a fundamental unfitness to continue practicing law.

Practical Takeaways

• Client funds must be held in trust. Lawyers who receive money for a client's obligation must account for it faithfully and immediately. Misappropriating such funds is a grave violation of Canon 16 of the CPR.
• Never mislead the court. Presenting falsified documents or making false representations to a judge violates Rule 10.01 and Canon 11, and will be treated with the utmost severity.
• Forgery and notarizing false documents are disqualifying offenses. A lawyer who abuses his or her notarial powers to legitimize a forgery demonstrates a basic moral flaw that warrants the ultimate penalty.
• Blaming staff is not a defense. Shifting blame to a secretary or employee without credible evidence will be viewed as a mere afterthought, especially when raised late in the proceedings.
• Disbarment is a real consequence. Lawyers who engage in dishonest conduct — even if they later pay what is owed — may still be disbarred for the gravity of their misconduct.

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