CAN 10
TAPAY V BONCALO
A.C. No. 10868| PER CURIAM
CANON 10
Lawyer filed case in behalf of person not her client!
FACTS:
CHERLY FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. DAQUIS
FOR FILING DECLARATION OF NULLITY W/O HER
CONSENT + FORGED SIGNATURE: Cheryl E. Vasco-
Tamaray (Vasco-Tamaray) filed a Complaint before the
IBP alleging that Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis (Atty. Daquis)
filed, on her behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage without her consent and forged her
signature on the Petition She also alleged that Atty.
Daquis signed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage as "counsel for petitioner (Vasco).
CHERYL- DAQUIS ISNT MY COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL
OF MY HUSBAND!: Vasco-Tamaray stated that Atty.
Daquis was not her counsel but that of her husband,
Leomarte Regala Tamaray. As evidence, she attached the
Affidavit of Maritess Guerrero who stated that she was
w/ Cheryl when Leomarte introduced them to Atty.
Daquis for the purpose of him filing an annulment case
of their marriage on the ground of bigamy.
CHERYL ONLY OBTAINED PETITION & FOUND OUT
THAT SHE WAS ALLEGEDLY ONE WHO FILED IT:
Vasco-Tamaray stated that she obtained a copy of the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed in
RTC Muntinlupa, allegedly signed by her. Vasco-
Tamaray alleged that she did not file the Petition, that
her signature was forged by Atty. Daquis, and that her
purported community tax certificate appearing on the
jurat was not hers because she never resided in
Muntinlupa City.
CHERYL- I DIDNT EVEN RECEIVE COURT PROCESS:
She further alleged that she had never received any
court process. The address in the Petitions was her
husbands.
DAQUIS- DENY EVERYTHING: Atty. Daquis denied
allegations & stated that she was Cheryls attorney. She
denied the forgery.
CBD & IBP- DISMISSES COMPLAINT: The Commission
on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the
Complaint because Vasco-Tamaray failed to prove her
allegations. The Commission on Bar Discipline noted
that Vasco-Tamaray should have questioned the Petition
or informed the prosecutor that she never filed any
petition, but she failed to do so. IBP approved dismissal.
ISSUE: W/N Atty Daquis violated CPR (YES-
DISBARMENT)
HELD:
VIOLATION OF CANON 1O: Daquis violated Canon 10,
Rule 10.01 when she allowed the use of a forged
signature on a petition she prepared and notarized.
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE
TAX I
SIGNATURES ARE DIFFERENT: A comparison of the
signatures appearing on the Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage and on complainant's identification
cards show a difference in the stroke of the letters "c"
and "o." Further, complainant's signatures in the
documents attached to the records consistently appear
to be of the same height. On the other hand, her alleged
signature on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage has a big letter "c."Hence, it seems that
complainant's signature on the Petition for Declaration
ofNullity of Marriage was forged.
NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE DAQUIS FORGED SIG, BUT
SHE STILL ALLOWED ITS FORGERY:While there is no
evidence to prove that Daquis forged complainant's
signature, the fact remains that respondent allowed a
forged signature to be used on a petition she prepared
and notarized.
Rule 10.01 states: 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.
ALLOWING FORGERD SIGNATURE= CONSENTING TO
FALSEHOOD COMMISSION: Allowing the use of a
forged signature on a petition filed before a court is
tantamount to consenting to the commission of a
falsehood before courts. The act of allowing the use of a
forged signature on a petition she prepared and
notarized demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on her part.
Annex
Court also ruled that Daquis violated other Canons
1) Canon 1- when Daquis filed the Petition as counsel for
complainant when the truth was otherwise, she
committed a falsehood against the trial court and
complainant.
2) Canon 7- 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.
3) Canon 17- A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. Daquis failed to protect the interests of
her client when she represented complainant, who is the
opposing party of her client Leomarte Tamaray, in the
same case.
4) Canon 15- A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
MKC