Topic: Formal Requirements, Procedural Rules and Technicalities

INTESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE UY v. ATTY. PACIFICO M. MAGHARI III

A.C. NO. 10525, September 01, 2015 (Leonen, J.)

FACTS:

Lilia Hofileña was initially designated as administratrix of the estate of her common-law
partner, the deceased Jose Uy. However, a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order designating
Hofileña as administratix was filed by Wilson Uy, one of Jose Uy's children, on behalf of Jose Uy's
spouse and other children. Regional Trial Court designated Wilson Uy as administrator of Uy’s
estate. Subsequently, Hofileña's claims in the settlement of Jose Uy's estate were granted. Hence,
she filed a Motion for Execution. In Spec. Proc No. 97-241 and in other proceedings arising from
the conflicting claims to Jose Uy's estate, Hofileña was represented by her counsel, Atty. Mariano
Natu-El. There appears to have been conflicts between Wilson Uy and the other heirs of Jose
Uy. In the course of the proceedings, Wilson Uy prayed that a subpoena ad testificandum be
issued to Magdalena Uy as she was alleged to have been the treasurer of several businesses owned
by Jose Uy. RTC granted the said motion. Thereafter, Magdalena Uy, through Maghari, her
counsel, filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena ad Testificandum with Alternative Motion to Cite the
Appearance of Johnny K.H. Uy. Wilson Uy filed his Opposition to Magdalena Uy's Motion to
Quash. Magdalena Uy, through Maghari, filed her Reply to Wilson Uy's Opposition. The Regional
Trial Court subsequently denied Magdalena Uy's Motion to Quash. Thereafter, Maghari filed for
Magdalena Uy a Motion for Reconsideration. As the Motion for Reconsideration was
denied, Maghari filed for Magdalena Uy a Motion to Recall Subpoena ad Testificandum.

At this point, Wilson Uy's counsel noticed that based on the details indicated in the
motion, Maghari appeared to have only recently passed the bar examinations. This prompted
Wilson Uy to check the records of Spec. Proc No. 97-241. Upon doing so, he learned that since
2010, Maghari had been changing the professional details indicated in the pleadings he has signed
and has been copying the professional details of Atty. Natu-El. Wilson Uy then filed a Motion to
declare Magdalena Uy in indirect contempt (as by then she had still not complied with the
Subpoena ad Testificandum) and to require Maghari to explain why he had been usurping the
professional details of another lawyer.

RTC declined from citing Magdalena Uy in contempt as no verified petition asking that
she be so cited had been filed. Wilson Uy filed before the Court a complaint for disbarment.
Pointing to Maghari's act of repeatedly a changing and using another lawyer's professional details,
Wilson Uy asserts that Maghari violated the Lawyer's Oath and acted in a deceitful manner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Maghari engaged in unethical conduct and of what proper penalty may be
meted on him.

RULING: YES

Respondent does not deny the existence of the errant entries indicated by complainant.
However, he insists that he did not incur disciplinary liability. He claims that these entries were
mere overlooked errors. Respondent's avowals, protestations, and ad hominem attacks on
complainant fail to impress. He did not merely commit errors in good faith. First, he violated clear
legal requirements, and indicated patently false information. Second, the way he did so
demonstrates that he did so knowingly. Third, he did so repeatedly. Fourth, the information he
used was shown to have been appropriated from another lawyer. Fifth, his act not only of usurping
Topic: Formal Requirements, Procedural Rules and Technicalities

another lawyer's details but also of his repeatedly changing information from one pleading to
another demonstrates the intent to mock and ridicule courts and legal processes.

Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court provides for deceit as a ground for disbarment.
The Lawyer's Oath entails commitment to, among others, obeying laws and legal orders, doing no
falsehood, conducting one's self as a lawyer to the best of one's capacity, and acting with fidelity
to both court and client. It is as clear as the entries themselves that respondent acted in a manner
that is woefully unworthy of an officer of the court. He was not even a good citizen.

The requirement of a counsel's signature in pleadings, the significance of this requirement,

and the consequences of non-compliance are spelled out in Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
A counsel's signature on a pleading is neither an empty formality nor even a mere means for
identification. Through his or her signature, a party's counsel makes a positive declaration. It
constitutes an assurance by him that he has read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief, there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law which is
reserved exclusively for the members of the legal profession. Counsel may delegate the signing of
a pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not (in connection for Rule
9.01 of The Code of Professional Responsibility).

A counsel's signature is such an integral part of a pleading that failure to comply with this
requirement reduces a pleading to a mere scrap of paper totally bereft of legal effect. Thus, faithful
compliance with this requirement is not only a matter of satisfying a duty to a court but is as much
a matter of fidelity to one's client. A deficiency in this respect can be fatal to a client's cause.

Apart from the signature itself, additional information is required to be indicated as part
of a counsel's signature:

(1) Per Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a counsel's address must be stated;
(2) In Bar Matter No. 1132,40 this court required all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys
number;
(3) In Bar Matter No. 287,41 this court required the inclusion of the "number and date of their
official receipt indicating payment of their annual membership dues to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for the current year"; in lieu of this, a lawyer may indicate his or her lifetime
membership number;
(4) In accordance with Section 139 of the Local Government Code,42 a lawyer must indicate his
professional tax receipt number;
(5) Bar Matter No. 192243 required the inclusion of a counsel's Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption; and
(6) This court's Resolution in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC44 required the inclusion of a counsel's contact
details.

As with the signature itself, these requirements are not vain formalities.

The inclusion of a counsel's Roll of Attorneys number, professional tax receipt number,
and Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) receipt (or lifetime membership) number is intended
to preserve and protect the integrity of legal practice. With the Roll of Attorneys number, parties
can readily verify if a person purporting to be a lawyer has, in fact, been admitted to the Philippine
bar. With the professional tax receipt number, they can verify if the same person is qualified to
engage in a profession in the place where he or she principally discharges his or her functions.
With the IBP receipt number, they can ascertain if the same person remains in good standing as
Topic: Formal Requirements, Procedural Rules and Technicalities

a lawyer. These pieces of information protect the public from bogus lawyers. Paying professional
taxes (and the receipt that proves this payment) is likewise compliance with a revenue mechanism
that has been statutorily devolved to local government units. The inclusion of information
regarding compliance with (or exemption from) Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
seeks to ensure that legal practice is reserved only for those who have complied with the
recognized mechanism for keeping abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintaining the ethics of
the profession and enhancing the standards of the practice of law. Lastly, the inclusion of a
counsel's address and contact details is designed to facilitate the dispensation of justice.

Atty. Maghari acted in manifest bad faith, thereby exhibiting a pattern of insubordination,
dishonesty, deceit, and intent to make a mockery of courts and legal processes. He acted
deliberately. It is impossible that the erroneous details he indicated on his pleadings are products
of mere inadvertence. To begin with, details were copied from a pleading submitted
by another lawyer. Second, these details were not merely copied, they were modified. "B.C." was
added to the IBP official receipt and professional tax receipt numbers copied from Atty. Natu-el.
The facts of modification and addition show active human intervention to make something more
out of markings that could otherwise have simply been reproduced. Third, in subsequent
pleadings, some details copied from Atty. Natu-el were discarded while some were retained. This
only reveals that the author of these markings must have engaged in a willful exercise that filtered
those that were to be discarded from those that were to be retained. In the first place, it is doubtful
that Atty. Maghari has complied with the requirements of paying his dues to the IBP, paying his
annual professional tax, and completing the necessary units for MCLE in the periods concerned.
There would be no need for him to use incorrect information if he had complied with all pertinent
regulations. In all, the totality of respondent's actions demonstrates a degree of gravity that
warrants suspension from the practice of law for an extended period.
This case involves anything but trivial non-compliance. It is much graver. The confluence of: (1)
respondent's many violations; (2) the sheer multiplicity of rules violated; (3) the frequency—nay,
pattern—of falsity and deceit; and (4) his manifest intent to bring courts, legal processes, and
professional standards to disrepute brings to light a degree of depravity that proves respondent
worthy of being sanctioned.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility pronounces a lawyer's foremost duty to

uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes
Rule 1.01 of the same Code requires lawyers to not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Per Canon 10 of the CPR, a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court. Rule 10.01 requires lawyers to not do any falsehood or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice. Rule 10.03 imposes upon lawyers the duty of faithfully observing the rules of procedure
and not misusing them to defeat the ends of justice. Canon 11 exhorts lawyers to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires
a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues.
In appropriating information pertaining to his opposing counsel, respondent did not only fail to
observe common courtesy. He encroached upon matters that, ultimately, are personal to another.
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility imposes upon a lawyer fidelity to the cause of
his client, while Canon 18 requires a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence.

In using false information in his pleadings, Atty. Maghari unnecessarily put his own client at risk.