Peralta Vs Ramon

A.C. No.
12415, March 05, 2019

JUSTICE FERNANDA LAMPAS-PERALTA, JUSTICE STEPHEN C. CRUZ, AND JUSTICE
RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO v. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON
PRINCIPLE:
FACTS:
It came to the knowledge of complainants that a certain Maria Rossan De Jesus (De Jesus)
went to the Office of the Division Clerk of Court of the CA Fifth Division to ascertain the veracity
and authenticity of a Decision.
complainants allegedly ordered the acquittal of Tirso Fajardo (Fajardo), cousin of De Jesus, for
the crime of violation of Sections 5 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3 The said decision
was given to De Jesus by respondent, who was their counsel, to serve as proof that Fajardo
had been acquitted. Respondent is a law practitioner, who was admitted to the bar on May 4,
2004 with Roll No. 49050. However, respondent informed De Jesus that the promulgation of the
said decision would supposedly depend on the payment of a large sum of money to respondent.
Complainants learned through a newspaper item and television news program that on March 8,
2016, an entrapment operation was conducted by the members of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) against respondent, where she was caught red-handed receiving marked
money from Carlos Aquino (Aquino), a friend of Fajardo, for the issuance of the aforementioned
fake decision.
the undersigned Agents, together with the Complainants, conducted an entrapment operation
where Complainants and Subjects agreed to meet, where Complainants are to deliver the
balance of [P]75,000.00. Subject was immediately arrested and the marked money was
recovered.
Thus, complainants filed the present administrative complaint alleging that respondent should
be disbarred due to the following reasons: for representing herself as a lawyer who can
influence Justices of the Court of Appeals to secure the acquittal of an accused; for defrauding
the relatives of accused Fajardo to amass a large amount of money in the total amount of
P1,000,000.00; for utter show of disrespect to complainants, the Court, and the Judiciary as a
whole; and for committing the crimes of estafa and falsification.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondent should be disbarred as a lawyer for committing acts that
were in violation of her sworn duties as a lawyer and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and for unreasonably involving the Justices in the incident to their
damage and prejudice.
2. Whether or not respondent committed grave misconduct.
RULING:
Yes, respondent should be disbarred as a lawyer.
Those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all
their dealings. Members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves according to the best
of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and
to delay no man for money or malice. These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers
with their clients considering the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship.
It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer
has the privilege and right to practice law during good behavior and can only be deprived of it
for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard
has afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, and attorney's right to
practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct
rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an
attorney.14 However, in consideration of the gravity of the consequences of the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the bar, the Court have consistently held that a lawyer enjoys the
presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily
prove the allegations in his complaint through substantial evidence.
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
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.
On the other hand, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 obliges every lawyer to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, to wit:
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the integrated bar.
RULE 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
Further, Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 mandates every lawyer to observe candor,
fairness, and good faith, viz.:
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
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.
RULE 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
In the instant case, The Court finds that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and several
canons and rules of the Code. She represented to De Jesus and Aquino that she could secure
the acquittal of Fajardo and even used the names of the Associate Justices to accomplish her ill
motives.
Respondent also defrauded her clients by drafting a fake, spurious, and sham decision
regarding the purported acquittal of Fajardo. She placed the names of complainants in the fake
decision even though the criminal case of Fajardo was raffled in a different division and
assigned to a different Associate Justice. Glaringly, she discredited and disrespected members
of the judiciary by wrongfully involving complainants' names in her fraudulent scheme. She also
maliciously represented to her clients that she can influence Associate Justices of the CA to
ensure the acquittal of an accused.
Further, respondent exacted exorbitant fees from her clients, in the amount of P1,000,000.00
more or less, as evidenced by receipts she signed. 18 In her ultimate desire to extort more money
from Fajardo's relatives, she presented the fake decision of acquittal and asserted that the
promulgation of the said decision would allegedly depend on the payment of a large sum of
money to respondent.
2. Yes, Respondent's acts also constitute grave misconduct.
The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial
evidence. As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave
misconduct.19 Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or
fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. 20
Doubtless, respondent had a clear intent to violate the law when she fraudulently drafted a fake
decision of the CA, falsely including therein the names of complainants, and presenting it to her
clients for monetary consideration. These acts show respondent's wanton disregard of the law
and a patent propensity to trample upon the canons of the Code. Hence, respondent should
also be held administratively guilty for grave misconduct.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon is GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath,
Canons 1, 7, and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and Grave Misconduct.

Peralta Vs Ramon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peralta Vs Ramon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peralta Vs Ramon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

12415, March 05, 2019

You might also like