Legal Ethics

Ma. Herminia Tiongson vs Atty. Michael L. Flores

image_printPrint this!

A.C. No. 12424 – 880 Phil. 533 – Legal Ethics – Lawyers should do no falsehood; Duty to rectify client’s act

In 2014, a certain Vincent shared with Atty. Michael Flores a fake court decision. The fake court decision stated that Ma. Herminia Tiongson is no longer the owner of a parcel of land. Atty. Flores knew that the document is fake but he still shared it with his client Arthur Tenorio. Arthur then used the document against Tiongson. Tiongson made an inquiry with the court and there she found that the decision is fake and the signature of the judge was forged. Subsequently, falsification cases were filed against Arthur and Atty. Flores. Tiongson also filed a disbarment case against Atty. Flores.

In a counter-affidavit executed by Atty. Flores, he admitted that he knew the document was fake but he denied authorship over it. He admitted that he shared it with Arthur but no damage was caused by his act.

The IBP recommended his disbarment.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Flores should be disbarred.

HELD: No. He was given the benefit of the doubt. There is no evidence that he authored the fake decision. Nevertheless, he is suspended from practice for one year.

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. 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. A lawyer who has received information that his client 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. Upon knowledge of the falsification, Atty. Flores should have immediately alerted the trial court or reported the matter to the authorities. However, Atty. Flores’s negligence encouraged Arthur to assert his supposed claim against Tiongson. Worse, Atty. Flores remained indifferent and did not confront Arthur to rectify his fraudulent representation.

Read fill text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply