## **Facts:**
Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido filed an administrative complaint for the disbarment of her estranged husband, Atty. James Benedict C. Florido. They have two minor children, Kamille Nicole and James Benedict, Jr., both in Natasha’s custody. The annulment of their marriage was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 24.
In December 2001, James went to Natasha’s residence in Tanjay City and demanded child custody, presenting a photocopy of an alleged Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution granting him temporary custody. Natasha consulted her lawyer but was informed that no such motion had been received.
Upon requesting the original document, James failed to provide it. Natasha noticed discrepancies in the dates on the resolution and refused to surrender the children. On January 15, 2002, James, accompanied by armed men, again demanded custody. Natasha sought police assistance, leading to a temporary agreement allowing the children to stay one night with James, with a condition not to leave Tanjay City.
The next morning, Natasha learned that James planned to take the children away. She rushed to the hotel and took them to another room. James then filed a habeas corpus petition in the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, claiming the CA resolution’s authenticity. Hearing was set for January 23, 2002, but James did not appear, leading to the petition’s dismissal.
Natasha procured a certification from the CA confirming that no such resolution existed. Consequently, she filed the complaint alleging James violated his lawyer’s oath by using a spurious CA resolution. The matter was forwarded to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation.
## **Issues:**
1. **Whether Atty. James Benedict C. Florido can be held administratively liable for relying on and attempting to enforce a spurious Court of Appeals resolution.**
2. **Whether Atty. Florido’s conduct amounted to deceit and gross misconduct, warranting disciplinary action.**
## **Court’s Decision:**
1. **Authentication of Resolution:**
The Supreme Court found that James acted in bad faith. Though he claimed to believe the CA resolution was authentic, he failed to present the original and actively used the resolution several times, including filing a habeas corpus petition. This indicated he likely participated in fabricating the document.
2. **Candor and Fairness as Lawyer:**
The Court emphasized the importance of a lawyer’s candor. It cited that every lawyer owes the court a duty of fairness and good faith. Using a false document breaches this duty and undermines the legal profession’s integrity.
3. **Offensive Language:**
James used offensive language against Natasha and her relatives in legal documents. The Court ruled that a lawyer’s language should be respectful and dignified, as required by professional conduct standards.
4. **Sanctions:**
The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors that James’ actions warranted suspension. While the IBP-CBD recommended a six-year suspension, the Court reduced it to two years, considering the overall circumstances.
## **Doctrine:**
– **Candor and Fairness:** Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility stresses that a lawyer must not indulge in falsehood, nor mislead the court by any form of artifice (Rules 10.01 and 10.02).
– **Sanctions for Gross Misconduct:** Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifies grounds for disbarment or suspension, including gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath.
## **Class Notes:**
– **Key Elements/Concepts:**
– **Candor and Fairness (Canon 10)**: Lawyers must maintain honesty and transparency with the court.
– **Gross Misconduct**: Involves severe ethical violations warranting disciplinary actions like suspension or disbarment.
– **False Evidence**: Presenting or relying on fabricated documents in legal proceedings breaches professional responsibility.
– **Relevant Statutes/Provisions:**
– **Code of Professional Responsibility**:
– *Canon 10*: Candor, fairness, and good faith.
– *Rule 10.01*: No falsehoods or misleading the court.
– *Rule 10.02*: No misquoting, misrepresenting, or citing inoperative laws/decisions.
– **Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 27**: Disbarment and suspension grounds.
## **Historical Background:**
This case arose in the context of a deteriorating marriage with ongoing legal battles over custody and annulment. The ethical breach by Atty. Florido underscores the critical importance of integrity in legal practice. His attempts to misuse legal documents for personal gain highlight the need for stringent adherence to professional conduct codes to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
Leave a Reply