John Jeric S.

Lim
Embido vs. Pe
A.C. No. 6732 October 22, 2013
FACTS:
The Clerk of Court of the Bugasong, Antique RTC, received a
ritten communication from !r. "unt, a Solicitor in the
#nited $ingdom %#$&. The letter requested a co'( of the
decision rendered )( Judge Rafael *. +enuela entitled ,n the
!atter of the -eclaration of +resum'tive -eath of Re(
Laserna, hose 'etitioner as one Shirle( .uio(o. !onths
later, the RTC received another letter from !r. "unt ith the
same request. Judge +enuela then ordered the civil docket
clerk to secure a co'( of the said decision. ,t as then
discovered that the( had no record of such decision. After
)eing informed of the no/e0istence of the record, !r. "unt
sent a machine co'( of the 'ur'orted decision. After
com'aring the to documents, it as found that it as a
falsi1ed court document. ,n the meanhile, -( .uio(o, a
)rother of Shirle( .uio(o, e0ecuted an a2davit on herein
he stated that it as the res'ondent ho had facilitated the
issuance of the falsi1ed decision. The res'ondent denied an(
'artici'ation in the falsi1cation3 alleging that -( .uio(o onl(
sought his o'inion of the annulment of Shirel( .uio(o4s
marriage, and the -( ent )ack to him and 'resented to him
a falsi1ed court document ad told -( that it ould not hold
u' in court. Also, alleged the -( had 'reviousl( resorted to
'eo'le on Recto Avenue in !anila to solve his documentation
'ro)lems as an *56.
ISSUE:
6hether or not res'ondent is guilt( of the gravest
misconduct and deserves the su'reme 'enalt( of
dis)arment.
E!":
7es, res'ondent is guilt( of violating Rule 8.98 of Canon 8,
and Rule :.9; of Canon : of the Code of +rofessional
Res'onsi)ilit(, and is ordered dis)arred. The res'ondent4s
main defense consisted in )lanket denial of the im'utation.
The res'ondent4s denial and his im'lication against -(
.uio(o in the illicit generation of the falsi1ed decision are
not 'ersuasive. -( .uio(o4s categorical declaration on the
res'ondent4s 'ersonal res'onsi)ilit( for the falsi1ed decision,
hich )( nature as 'ositive evidence, as not overcome )(
the res'ondent4s )lanket denial, hich )( nature as
negative evidence. <o la(er should ever lose sight of the
verit( that the 'ractice of the legal 'rofession is ala(s a
'rivilege that the Court e0tends onl( to the deserving, and
that the Court ma( ithdra or den( the 'rivilege to him
ho fails to o)serve and res'ect the La(er4s *ath and the
canons of ethical conduct in his 'rofessional and 'rivate
ca'acities. "e ma( )e dis)arred or sus'ended from the
John Jeric S. Lim
'ractice of la not onl( for acts and omissions of mal'ractice
and for dishonest( in his 'rofessional dealings, )ut also for
gross misconduct not directl( connected ith his
'rofessional duties that reveal his un1tness for the o2ce and
his unorthiness of the 'rinci'les that the 'rivilege to
'ractice la confers u'on him.