4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

*
A.C. No. 12424. September 1, 2020.

MA. HERMINIA T. TIONGSON, complainant, vs. ATTY.

MICHAEL L. FLORES, respondent.

Attorneys; Disbarment; A disbarment proceeding is separate and

distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer. The two (2) cases may
proceed independently of each other.—At the outset, we clarify that a
disbarment case does not involve a trial but only an investigation into the
conduct of lawyers. The only issue is their fitness to continue in the practice
of law. Hence, the findings have no material bearing on other judicial action
which the parties may choose to file against each other. Specifically, a
disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed
against a lawyer. The two cases may proceed independently of each other. A
conviction in the criminal case does not necessarily mean a finding of
liability in the administrative case. In the same way, the dismissal of a
criminal case against an accused does not automatically exculpate the
respondent from administrative liability. The quantum of evidence is
different. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. In
an administrative case against a lawyer, preponderant evidence is necessary
which means that the evidence adduced by one side is superior to or has
greater weight than that of the other. More importantly, the burden of proof
rests upon the complainant. The lawyer’s presumption of innocence subsists
absent contrary evidence.
Attorney-Client Relationship; In no case shall an attorney allow a
client to perpetrate fraud upon a person or commit any act which shall
prejudice the administration of justice.—Atty. Flores must be penalized for
his carelessness in entrusting a forged document in the hands of his client
despite the danger of using it for a wrongful purpose. On this point, we
stress that in no case shall an attorney allow a client to perpetrate fraud upon
a person or commit any act which shall prejudice the administration of
justice. The lawyer and client alike must only employ fair, honest, and
honorable means to advance their interests. Particularly, Rule 19.02 of the
CPR outlines the procedure in dealing with a client who committed fraud.

_______________

* EN BANC.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 1/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

87

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

LOPEZ, J.:

A lawyer must promptly call upon the client to correct any fraud.
If the client refuses, the lawyer should terminate their professional
relationship.1 The observance of this rule is the core issue in this
administrative case involving a lawyer who shared a falsified Court
Order with his client who then used it to harass another person.

Antecedents

In 2014, a former court employee named Vincent gave Atty.

Michael Flores (Atty. Flores) an Order that the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) supposedly issued in Civil Case No. 1445-13 entitled “Heirs
of Jacinta R. Tenorio, Represented by Arthur R. Tenorio, versus Ma.
Herm[i]nia T. Tiongson and Register of Deeds-Bukidnon.” The case
is for segregation survey of Jacinta R. Tenorio’s land registered
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30875 in favor of her
compulsory heirs. Atty. Flores knew that the document was falsified
but he still shared it with his client Arthur Tenorio (Arthur). The
Court Order states:

Notice is hereby given that the remaining balance of Title No. T-

30875 titled in the name of JACINTA R. TENORIO situated at
Laguitas, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, shall [be] subdivided or
segregated among all legitimate compulsory heirs EQUALLY OR IN
EQUAL SHARES.

_______________

1 See Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr., 515 Phil. 283, 294; 479 SCRA 307, 318 (2006).

88

Let a report be submitted to this court upon completion or

approval of the [subdivision] survey for the final disposition of
subject property.
SO ORDERED.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 2/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

Given this 21st day of January 2014 at Malaybalay City,

Bukidnon, Philippines.

(Sgd.)
JOSEFINA GENTILES BACAL
Judge

COPY FURNISHED:
1. Deticio/Flores Law Centrum
2. Herm[i]nia Tiongson
2
3. Register of Deeds-Bukidnon

On March 9, 2014, Arthur together with Beverly Tenorio and

Leonard Seña (Arthur, et al.) used the Court Order and presented it
to Herminia Tiongson’s (Heminia) caretaker Rogelio Lira (Rogelio).
They advised Rogelio to refrain from planting on the land because it
will be subdivided and to tell Herminia that she is no longer its
owner. Upon verification, Herminia discovered that there was no
such Civil Case No. 1445-13 pending before the RTC and that the
judge’s signature was forged. Aggrieved, Herminia instituted against
Arthur, et al. a criminal complaint for falsification. As supporting
evidence, Herminia submitted certifications from the clerk of court
and the legal researcher stating that the Court Order and its contents
are fake.3 The public prosecutor found probable cause against
Arthur, et al. for three counts of falsification of public documents
and grave coercion.4 The corresponding informations were filed
5
before the Municipal Trial Court.

_______________

2 Rollo, p. 6.
3 Id., at pp. 7-8.
4 Id., at pp. 9-12.
5 Id., at pp. 13-16.

89

Later, Leonard Seña (Leonard) filed a criminal complaint for

falsification against Atty. Flores considering that he was the one who
handed the fake document to Arthur.6 In his counter-affidavit, Atty.
Flores claimed that it was a certain Vincent who gave him the
falsified Court Order. He merely shared the document to Arthur
without any instruction of using it. He maintained that the fake
Order is inexistent, useless, and without value. It was not
implemented and no one was prejudiced.7 The public prosecutor

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 3/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

found probable cause against Atty. Flores for falsification of public

document.8 Accordingly, the informations against Arthur, et al. were
9
amended to include Atty. Flores as a conspirator.
10
Meantime, Herminia filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.
Flores before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) docketed as
CBD Case No. 15-4595. Herminia repined that Atty. Flores
committed gross misconduct, malpractice and deceit when he
obtained a forged Court Order and shared it with his client who used
it to coerce her caretaker. On the other hand, Atty. Flores did not file
any answer and did not attend the mandatory conference.
On November 7, 2016, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
reported that Atty. Flores violated the lawyer’s oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically, Canon 1, Rules
1.01, 1.02, 1.03, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Rules 10.01 and 10.03. It held
that Atty. Flores authored the fake Court Order which warrants the
11
penalty of disbarment, viz.:

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 17-18.

7 Id., at pp. 21-22.
8 Id., at pp. 23-26.
9 Id., at pp. 27-29.
10 Id., at pp. 2-4.
11 Id., at pp. 53-71.

90

A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a

court of law is guilty of the gravest misconduct and deserves the
supreme penalty of disbarment.
In this case, Respondent has made the following admissions in his
Counter-Affidavit:

1. That the document came from a person named

“VINCENT[”;]
2. That he shared the document [with] Mr. Tenorio;
3. That he knew from the start that the document is
nonexistent, useless, of no value and not a public
document;
4. That it did not cause any damage.

Independently of the admissions made by the Respondent, the

evidence showed that the Order purportedly issued by the Court is a

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 4/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

falsity. This led to the filing of three (3) Information for Falsification
of Public Document against the Respondent before the Court.
Based on the admissions made by the Respondent in his
Counter-Affidavit filed before the Prosecutor’s Office, this
Commission is fully convinced that Respondent was the author of
the falsified court order x x x in view of the following
considerations:
First, the Court Order dated 21 January 2014 is a falsified
document. This is clearly shown by the Certification issued by the
OIC and the Office of the Clerk of Court considering that: a) there is
no such case number in the files or is pending before the Court, and
b) the signature of the Presiding Judge is a forgery. In short, the
purported case is nonexistent.
Second, Respondent was the author of the falsified Court
Order dated 21 January 2014. By his own admission, Respondent
has full knowledge from the start on the falsity x x x when the
alleged “VINCENT” had handed to him the spurious court
order. Despite full knowledge of its falsity, Respondent had
admitted that he still shared a copy thereof [with] Mr. Tenorio.
This is a clear criminal

91

act of falsification of a public document by a private individual

and by an officer of the Court.
Third, [a]s a lawyer, Respondent should have known the
consequences of the illegality of his acts. However, by sharing a
falsified document to Mr. Tenorio, Respondent has allowed a falsified
court order for [sic] be used for illegal purpose, that is, to deceive,
misrepresent and or to defraud Herminia T. Tiongson. x x x.
Fourth, irrespective of the outcome of the pending criminal cases
against the Respondent x x x, the guilt of the Respondent in this case
has clearly been proven by overwhelming evidence. This is in
addition to the Respondent’s admission clearly showing his lack of
moral character which is indispensable in the continued license to
practice of law. x x x.
xxxx
IN VIEW THEREOF, finding overwhelming evidence that
Respondent is guilty of falsification of a judicial order, it is hereby
recommended that Respondent be DISBARRED.

RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, premised considered, it is hereby recommended

that Respondent ATTY. MICHAEL L. FLORES be DISBARRED
and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 5/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.12 (Emphases supplied)

The IBP-Board of Governors adopted the Commission’s findings,

13
thus:

RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation

of the Investigating Commissioner imposing the penalty of
Disbarment from practice of law of

_______________

12 Id., at pp. 62-71.

13 Id., at p. 51.

92

Atty. Michael L. Flores and his name stricken off from the Rolls of
Attorneys.14 (Emphasis in the original)

Ruling

At the outset, we clarify that a disbarment case does not involve a

trial but only an investigation into the conduct of lawyers. The only
issue is their fitness to continue in the practice of law. Hence, the
findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the
15
parties may choose to file against each other. Specifically, a
disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal
action filed against a lawyer. The two cases may proceed
independently of each other.16 A conviction in the criminal case does
not necessarily mean a finding of liability in the administrative case.
17
In the same way, the dismissal of a criminal case against an
accused does not automatically exculpate the respondent from
administrative liability. The quantum of evidence is different. In a
criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.18 In an
administrative case against a lawyer, preponderant evidence is
necessary which means that the evidence adduced by one side is
superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.19 More
importantly, the burden of proof rests upon the

_______________

14 Id.

15 Alpha Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. v. Castañeda, A.C. No. 12428, March 18,
2019 (Notice), citing Heenan v. Espejo, 722 Phil. 528, 537; 711 SCRA 290, 301
(2013). See also Zarcilla v. Quesada, Jr., 827 Phil. 629; 858 SCRA 293 (2018).

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 6/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948
16 Yu v. Palaña, 580 Phil. 19, 26; 558 SCRA 21, 28 (2008).
17 Bengco v. Bernardo, 687 Phil. 7, 17; 672 SCRA 8, 19 (2012).
18 Jimenez v. Jimenez, 517 Phil. 68, 73; 481 SCRA 528, 533 (2006).
19 Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., 678 Phil. 588, 600-601; 662 SCRA 361, 372 (2011).

93

complainant.20 The lawyer’s presumption of innocence subsists

21
absent contrary evidence.
Also, it bears emphasis that the Court must exercise the power to
disbar with great caution. The supreme penalty of disbarment is
imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer
22
as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Notably, we
disbarred lawyers who simulated court documents in Gatchalian
24
Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza,23 Tan v. Diamante,
Krursel v. Atty. Abion,25 Madria v. Atty. Rivera,26 Taday v. Apoya, Jr.,
29
27
Lampas-Peralta v. Ramon,28 and Sitaca v. Palomares, Jr.
In Gatchalian Promotions, the respondent obtained from the
complainant money allegedly for “cash bond” in connection with an
appealed case and falsified an official receipt from the Court to
conceal the misappropriation of the amount entrusted to him.30 In
Tan, the respondent falsified a court order purportedly directing the
submission of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) results in order to
misrepresent to his client that he still had an available remedy, when
in reality, his case had long been dismissed for failure to timely file
an appeal. The Court considered the acts of the respondent so
reprehensible and flagrant exhibiting moral unfitness and inabil-

_______________

20 Cruz v. Centron, 484 Phil. 671, 675; 442 SCRA 53, 57 (2004).
21 Francia v. Abdon, 739 Phil. 229, 309; 730 SCRA 341, 350 (2014).
22 Yu v. Palaña, supra note 16 at p. 27; p. 29. See also Kara-an v. Pineda, 548 Phil.
82, 85; 519 SCRA 143, 146 (2007).
23 Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, 374 Phil. 1; 315 SCRA
406 (1999).
24 740 Phil. 382; 732 SCRA 1 (2014).
25 789 Phil. 584; 796 SCRA 328 (2016).
26 806 Phil. 774; 819 SCRA 261 (2017).
27 A.C. No. 11981, July 3, 2018, 870 SCRA 1.
28 A.C. No. 12415, March 5, 2019, 894 SCRA 578.
29 A.C. No. 5285, August 14, 2019, 912 SCRA 540.
30 Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, supra.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 7/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

94

31
ity to discharge his duties as a member of the bar. In Krursel, the
complainant paid substantial amounts of money to respondent in
relation to the filing of the complaint for injunction. The respondent
did not issue any receipt or accounting despite her demands. Instead,
respondent32 drafted a fake order from this Court granting the
complaint.
In Madria, we held that falsifying or simulating the court papers
amounted to deceit, malpractice or misconduct in office, any of
which was already a ground sufficient for disbarment. In that case,
the respondent acknowledged authorship of the simulated court
decision and certificate of finality in a case for annulment of
marriage. The Court rejected the explanation of the respondent that
he forged the documents only upon the persistent prodding of the
complainant.33 In Taday, the respondent notarized a petition for
annulment of marriage without the appearance of the complainant.
Thereafter, the respondent authored a fake decision to deceive the
complainant that her petition was granted. The Court observed that
the falsified decision is strikingly similar with the petition that the
respondent drafted. The respondent then retaliated against
complainant for confronting him with the fake decision by
withdrawing the petition in the court resulting into the dropping of
the case from the civil docket.34 In Lampas-Peralta, the respondent
falsified a decision of the Court of Appeals and demanded exorbitant
professional fees from her clients. She was even caught 35in an
entrapment operation by the National Bureau of Investigation.
In Sitaca, the combination of all the circumstances produced the
indubitable conclusion that it was respondent who conceptualized,
planned, and implemented the falsified bail bond and release order
for his son’s temporary liberty. As the

_______________

31 Tan v. Diamante, supra note 24.

32 Krursel v. Abion, supra note 25.
33 Madria v. Rivera, supra note 26.
34 Taday v. Apoya, Jr., supra note 27.
35 Peralta v. Ramon, supra note 28.

95

counsel of record for his son, the respondent knew that there was no
petition or an order granting and fixing the amount of bail.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 8/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

Corollarily, the respondent cannot feign ignorance of the spurious

documents which he presented to the clerk of court with the goal of
securing his son’s liberty. The respondent pointed to a person named
“Guialani” who processed the falsified court issuances but failed to
shed light on his true identity and actual participation. The
36
respondent likewise did not file an action against Guialani.
In the above cited cases, there are sufficient circumstances and
admissions that the respondents committed falsification or forgery
and that they benefitted from the use of fake documents. Here, the
IBP recommended to disbar Atty. Flores because he falsified a court
order. It relied on the principle that he who possessed a
forged/falsified document and made use and benefited from it is
37
deemed the forger/falsifier. Yet, the facts are insufficient to
presume that Atty. Flores authored the falsification. Foremost,
Herminia failed to show that Atty. Flores was involved directly or
indirectly in the falsification of the court order and forgery of the
judge’s signature. The substance of Atty. Flores’ counter-affidavit
before the public prosecutor can hardly be considered as
acknowledgment of the imputed acts. To be sure, Atty. Flores
vehemently denied authorship of the bogus court order and
explained that a former court employee named Vincent gave it to
him. At most, Atty. Flores only admitted the possession of spurious
document and knowledge of its falsity. Moreover, there is no
evidence that Atty. Flores used the fake order and benefitted from it.
Atty. Flores even categorically stated in his counter-affidavit that the
document is inexistent, useless, and

_______________

36 Sitaca v. Palomares, Jr., supra note 29.

37 United States v. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453, 455 (1906); People v. De Lara, 45 Phil.
754, 761 (1906); People v. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28, 34 (1926); People v. Astudillo, 60
Phil. 338, 343-344 (1934); and People v. Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253 (1959).

96

without value.38 Thus, he shared the document to his client.

Unknown to Atty. Flores, Arthur, et al. utilized the falsified order to
harass Herminia’s caretaker. It must be underscored that the fake
order is about the segregation of the land and submission of the
survey report. On the other hand, the threat against Herminia to
refrain from planting on the land because she is no longer its owner
is Arthur, et al.’s own words and beyond the contents of the
document. Lastly, we applied in Sitaca, the presumption of
authorship against the respondent. However, the present case is
starkly different. The essential requisites that the respondent must
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 9/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

use and benefit from the simulated court issuance are absent. Unlike
the respondent in Sitaca, Atty. Flores did not utilize or derive any
benefit from the fake court order but merely shared it to his client.
Quite the contrary, the respondent in Sitaca used the falsified
documents with the goal of securing his son’s liberty. Also, Atty.
Flores did not feign ignorance of the spurious document but is keen
in noticing its falsity. The fact that Atty. Flores is Arthur’s counsel of
record and that he did not explain Vincent’s identity or file a case
against him are minor considerations inadequate to warrant the
presumption.
Nevertheless, Atty. Flores must be penalized for his carelessness
in entrusting a forged document in the hands of his client despite the
danger of using it for a wrongful purpose. On this point, we stress
that in no case shall an attorney allow a client to perpetrate fraud
upon a person or commit any act which shall prejudice the
administration of justice. The lawyer and client alike must only
employ fair, honest, and honorable means to advance their interests.
39
Particularly, Rule 19.02 of the CPR outlines the procedure in
dealing with a client who committed fraud, to wit:

_______________

38 Rollo, p. 22.
39 Antiquiera, Eldrid C., Comments on Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 103, Second
edition (2018).

97

Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received information that his

clients has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud
upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to
rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the
relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of
Court.

Atty. Flores failed to follow the above cited rule. Upon

knowledge of falsification, Atty. Flores should have immediately
alerted the trial court or reported the matter to the authorities.
However, Atty. Flores’ negligence encouraged Arthur, et al. to assert
their supposed claim against Herminia. Worse, Atty. Flores remained
indifferent and did not confront Arthur to rectify his fraudulent
representation. Considering that this is Atty. Flores’ first infraction,
and that there is no clear showing that his malpractice was
deliberately done in bad faith or with deceit, a penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for one year is proper.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 10/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

Finally, Atty. Flores disobeyed the orders of the IBP Commission

without justifiable reason when he did not file an answer and did not
attend the mandatory conference despite due notice. As such, Atty.
40
Flores must pay a fine of P5,000.00.
FOR THESE REASONS, Atty. Michael L. Flores is GUILTY
of violation of Rule 19.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
year. The suspension in the practice of law shall take effect
immediately upon respondent’s receipt of this decision. He is
DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that
his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-
judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel. He
is likewise STERNLY

_______________
40 Domingo v. Sacdalan, A.C. No. 12475, March 26, 2019, 898 SCRA 436, citing
Ojales v. Villahermosa III, 819 Phil. 1; 841 SCRA 292 (2017).

98

WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt

with more severely.
Atty. Michael L. Flores is also meted a FINE in the amount
P5,000.00 for disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. These payments shall be made within ten days from
notice of this decision.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar
Confidant to be entered into Atty. Michael L. Flores’ records. Copies
shall likewise be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts
concerned.
SO ORDERED.

Peralta (CJ.), Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, J.

Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda,
Delos Santos and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Baltazar-Padilla, J., On Leave.

Respondent Atty. Michael L. Flores suspended from practice of

law for one (1) year for violation of Rule 19.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility with stern warning against repetition of
similar acts.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client

relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause.
(San Gabriel vs. Sempio, 898 SCRA 413 [2019])

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 11/12
4/20/24, 12:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 948

——o0o——

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018ef9e3b8d7c277cc18000d00d40059004a/p/AUW685/?username=Guest 12/12