Vasco-Tamaray vs. Daquis, 782 SCRA 44, January 26, 2016

5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 782
A.C. No. 10868. January 26, 2016.*

(formerly CBD Case No. 07-2041)

CHERYL E. VASCO-TAMARAY, complainant, vs. ATTY.
DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS, respondent.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility;

Lawyer’s Oath; By pretending to be counsel for complainant,
respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) and failed to uphold her duty of doing no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court as
stated in the Lawyer’s Oath.—By pretending to be counsel for
complainant, respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and failed to uphold her duty of
doing no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in
court as stated in the Lawyer’s Oath. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides: CANON 1 – A
lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and for legal processes. RULE 1.01 –
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Same; Same; Same; Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03
and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when she allowed the use of a forged
signature on a petition she prepared and notarized.—Respondent
violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when she
allowed the use of a forged signature on a petition she prepared
and notarized. Complainant alleged that her signature on the
Petition was forged. Respondent merely denied complainant’s
allegation. The Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was
signed by a certain “CVasco.” The records of this case show that
complainant has used two signatures. In her identification cards
issued by the University of the East, she used a signature that
spelled out “CVasco.” In her Complaint-Affidavit against
respondent, complainant used a signature that spelled out
“CTamaray.”
Same; Same; Same; While there is no evidence to prove that
respondent forged complainant’s signature, the fact remains that
re-
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7c1117dd5bd805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24

45
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 45

Vasco-Tamaray vs. Daquis
spondent allowed a forged signature to be used on a petition

she prepared and notarized.—While there is no evidence to prove
that respondent forged complainant’s signature, the fact remains
that respondent allowed a forged signature to be used on a
petition she prepared and notarized. In doing so, respondent
violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01. These
canons state: CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the
activities of the integrated bar. RULE 7.03 – 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. . . . .
CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court. RULE 10.01 – 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.
Same; Same; Same; 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, in violation of Canon 10.
—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, in violation of Canon 10.
Same; Same; Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high
standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing.—Respondent is reminded of the duties
and responsibilities of members of the legal profession, as
discussed in Tenoso v. Echanez, 696 SCRA 1 (2013): Time and
again, this Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued
with public interest and that “a lawyer owes substantial duties
not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to
the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most
important functions of the State — the administration of justice
— as an officer of the court.” Accordingly, “[l]awyers are bound to
maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.”
Same; Same; Conflict of Interest; There is conflict of interest
when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two (2) or more
opposing parties.—The test to determine whether conflict of
interest exists was discussed in Hornilla v. Salunat, 405 SCRA
220 (2003): There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents

inconsistent

46
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is

“whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument
will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.” This
rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications
have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has
been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if
the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to
perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any
matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty
of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.
Same; The amendments to Rule 139-B is a reiteration that
only this court has the power to impose disciplinary action on
members of the bar.—Under the old rule, the Board of Governors
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was given the power to
“issue a decision” if the lawyer complained of was exonerated or
meted a penalty of “less than suspension or disbarment.” In
addition, the case would be deemed terminated unless an
interested party filed a petition before this court. The
amendments to Rule 139-B is a reiteration that only this court
has the power to impose disciplinary action on members of the
bar. The factual findings and recommendations of the
Commission on Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines are recommendatory, subject to
review by this court.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Marie Fe V. Garcia for complainant.

47
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 47

RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:

Pretending to be counsel for a party in a case and using
a forged signature in a pleading merit the penalty of
disbarment.
Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray (Vasco-Tamaray) filed a
Complaint-Affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines on July 30, 2007, alleging that respondent 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.1 She also
alleged that Atty. Daquis signed the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage as “counsel for
petitioner,” referring to Vasco-Tamaray.2
Vasco-Tamaray stated that Atty. Daquis was not her
counsel but that of her husband, Leomarte Regala
Tamaray.3 To support her allegation, she attached the
Affidavit4 of Maritess Marquez-Guerrero. The Affidavit
states:
1. Sometime in October 2006, I accompanied

Cheryl Tamaray in going to East Café at Rustan’s
Makati to meet with her husband Leomarte Tamaray;
2. We arrived at the said place at around 7:00 p.m.
and Leomarte introduced to us (Cheryl and I) Atty.
Deborah Z. Daquis as his lawyer. He further told us
that Atty. Daquis’ husband also worked in Japan and
that’s how he got to know the latter and got her
services;
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 2-3, Complaint-Affidavit.

2 Id., at pp. 5-7, Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Annex
“A” of Complaint-Affidavit.
3 Id., at p. 2, Complaint-Affidavit.
4 Id., at p. 68. Vasco-Tamaray stated that Maritess Marquez-Guerrero
is her and her husband’s friend. (Id., at p. 77, TSN, May 22, 2008).

48

3. Among other things, Leomarte told Cheryl that

the reason for that meeting and the presence of Atty.
Daquis was because he had decided to file a case to
annul his marriage with Cheryl;
4. Cheryl was shocked and just cried. After awhile
[sic], Leomarte’s brother arrived and shortly after, the
group left;
5. The next instance that I saw Atty. Daquis was
when we (Cheryl and I) went to McDonald’s-
Greenbelt where Atty. Daquis tried to convince her
not to oppose Leomarte’s decision to have their
marriage annulled[.]5 (Emphasis supplied)

Vasco-Tamaray narrated that in December 2006, Atty.
Daquis informed her “that a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage was filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Muntinlupa City.”6 In February 2007, Atty.
Daquis asked her to appear before the City Prosecutor’s
Office of Muntinlupa City.7
On March 5, 2007, Vasco-Tamaray appeared before the
City Prosecutor’s Office and met Atty. Daquis. She asked
Atty. Daquis to give her a copy of the Petition but Atty.
Daquis refused.8
Vasco-Tamaray stated that she obtained a copy of the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage from Branch
207 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City. She
was surprised to see that the Petition was allegedly signed
and filed by her.9
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
_______________
5 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id., at pp. 58-59, Complainant’s Position Paper.

49
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 49

was not hers because she never resided in Muntinlupa

City.10 She attached a Certification issued by the
Sangguniang Barangay of Putatan, Muntinlupa City
stating that she was “never . . . a resident of #9 Daang Hari
Street, Umali Compound, Summitville Subdivision,
Barangay Putatan.”11 She also attached a Certification
issued by Barangay Talipapa stating that she has been a
resident of “#484-J Saguittarius St., Solville Subd.,
Barangay Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City . . . from 2000
till present.”12
Vasco-Tamaray also alleged that the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was Atty. Daquis’ idea,
consented to by Leomarte Tamaray.13
She further alleged that she had never received any
court process. The Petition states that her postal address is
“09 Daang Hari St., Umali Comp., Summitville Subd.,
Putatan, Muntinlupa City[,]”14 which is the address of her
husband’s family. The return slips of the notices sent by
the trial court were received by Encarnacion T. Coletraba
and Almencis Cumigad, relatives of Leomarte Tamaray.15
Atty. Daquis filed an Answer countering that her client
was Vasco-Tamaray, complainant herself, and not
complainant’s husband. She alleged that Vasco-Tamaray
knew of the Petition as early as October 2006, not
December 2006.16
With regard to the community tax certificate, Atty.
Daquis explained that when she notarized the Petition, the
commu-
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 2-3, Complaint-Affidavit.

11 Id., at p. 66. Certification issued by the Sangguniang Barangay of
Putatan, Muntinlupa City.
12 Id., at p. 67, Barangay Clearance/Certification issued by Barangay
Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City.
13 Id., at p. 60, Complainant’s Position Paper.
14 Id., at p. 5, Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Annex
15 Id., at p. 60, Complainant’s Position Paper.
16 Id., at p. 15, Answer.

50

nity tax certificate number was supplied by Vasco-

Tamaray.17 Atty. Daquis’ allegation was supported by the
Joint Affidavit of her staff, Ma. Dolor E. Purawan
(Purawan) and Ludy Lorena (Lorena).18
Purawan and Lorena detailed in their Joint Affidavit
that they knew Vasco-Tamaray to be a client of Atty.
Daquis and that they never saw Atty. Daquis forge Vasco-
Tamaray’s signature. Purawan stated that she typed the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and that the
community tax certificate was provided by Vasco-
Tamaray.19
Atty. Daquis alleged that Vasco-Tamaray wanted her to
call and demand money from Leomarte Tamaray but she
refused to do so.20
Atty. Daquis argued that Vasco-Tamaray had a copy of
the Petition. When Vasco-Tamaray requested another copy
on March 5, 2007, Atty. Daquis was unable to grant her
client’s request because she did not have a copy of the
Petition with her at that time.21
Atty. Daquis further alleged that Vasco-Tamaray
conceived an illegitimate son with a certain Reuel Pablo
Aranda. The illegitimate son was named Charles Dino
Vasco. Reuel Pablo Aranda signed the Affidavit of
Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity portion of the
birth certificate.22
The Commission on Bar Discipline required the parties
to submit their position papers,23 but based on the record,
only Vasco-Tamaray complied.24
_______________
17 Id., at p. 16.
18 Id., at pp. 22-23.
19 Id.
21 Id., at p. 16.
22 Id.
23 Id., at p. 52, Order of the Commission on Bar Discipline dated May

22, 2008.
24 Id., at pp. 58-62.

51
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 51

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.25
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline in
the Resolution dated September 27, 2014.26
The issue for resolution is whether respondent Atty.
Deborah Z. Daquis should be held administratively liable
for making it appear that she is counsel for complainant
Cheryl Vasco-Tamaray and for the alleged use of a forged
signature on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage.
This court finds that respondent violated Canons 1, 7,
10, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
charge against respondent for violation of Canon 15 is
dismissed.

I

By pretending to be counsel for complainant, respondent
violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and failed to uphold her duty of doing no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court
as stated in the Lawyer’s Oath.27
_______________
25 Id., at pp. 108-111, Report and Recommendation of the Commission

on Bar Discipline, penned by Commissioner Maria Editha A. Go-Binas.
26 Id., at p. 107, Notice of Resolution.
27 The Lawyer’s Oath states:
I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to

the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey
the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I
will not wittingly or

52

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility provides:
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,

obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and for legal processes.
RULE 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

In this case, respondent merely denied complainant’s
allegation that she was Leomarte Tamaray’s counsel28 but
was unable to rebut the other allegations against her.
Respondent admitted that she met complainant in
October 2006,29 but did not refute30 the statement in
Maritess Marquez-Guerrero’s Affidavit that Leomarte
Tamaray introduced her as his lawyer.31 Likewise,
respondent admitted that she met with complainant
subsequently,32 but did not refute Maritess Marquez-
Guerrero’s statement that in one of the meetings, she tried
to convince complainant not to oppose Leomarte Tamaray’s
decision to annul their marriage.33
Respondent argued in her Answer that she was the
counsel for complainant.34 Yet, there is no explanation how
she was referred to complainant or how they were
introduced. It ap-
_______________
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give
aid nor consent to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and
will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental

reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
28 Rollo, p. 14, Answer.
29 Id., at p. 15.
30 Id., at pp. 14-19.
31 Id., at p. 68, Maritess Marquez-Guerrero’s Affidavit.
33 Id., at pp. 14-19.
34 Id., at pp. 14-15.

53
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 53

pears, then, that respondent was contacted by Leomarte

Tamaray to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage on the ground of bigamy. As stated in Maritess
Marquez-Guerrero’s Affidavit, “Leomarte told Cheryl that
the reason for that meeting and the presence of Atty.
Daquis was because he had decided to file a case to annul
his marriage with Cheryl[.]”35
Based on this, it seems Leomarte Tamaray intended to
file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
However, respondent made it appear that complainant, not
her client Leomarte Tamaray, was the petitioner. There is
a probability that respondent did not want Leomarte
Tamaray to be the petitioner because he would have to
admit that he entered into a bigamous marriage, the
admission of which may subject him to criminal liability.
In addition, if it is true that complainant was
respondent’s client, then there appears to be no reason for
respondent to advise her “not to oppose Leomarte’s decision
to have their marriage annulled.”36
The records of this case also support complainant’s
allegation that she never received any court process
because her purported address in the Petition is the
address of Leomarte Tamaray. The Petition states that
complainant is “of legal age, Filipino citizen, married with
postal address at 09 Daang Hari St., Umali Comp.,
Summitville Subd., Putatan, Muntinlupa City[.]”37
The Certificate of Marriage of complainant and
Leomarte Tamaray states that Leomarte’s residence is at
“Summitvil[l]e Subv [sic], Muntinlupa,” while
complainant’s residence is at “Hermosa St. Gagalangin,

Tondo, Manila.”38 Assuming
_______________
35 Id., at p. 68, Affidavit of Maritess Marquez-Guerrero.

36 Id.
38 Id., at p. 45.

54

that complainant lived with her husband after they were

married, complainant most likely did not receive court
processes because she left their home before the filing of
the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. As
written in the Minutes of the meeting before the Office of
the City Prosecutor:
P[etitioner] & R[espondent] met sometime in 1993

through his secretary. They became sweethearts in
1993 and their relationship as steadies lasted until
1996;
During the 3 years of their union, petitioner knew
respondent’s family as she even sleeps in their house;
Theirs was also a long distance relationship as
respondent worked in Japan;
Upon respondents [sic] return to the Philippines they
got married in Feb, 1996. They had no children, as
respondent immediately left for Japan on March 11,
1996;
Respondent returned to the Philippines but
unfortunately he brought another woman. As a result,
petitioner left their house.39 (Emphasis supplied)

Further, complainant cannot be faulted for her failure to
inform the prosecutor that she did not file any petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage because during the
meeting on March 5, 2007, complainant had no knowledge
that the Petition was filed in her name.40 She obtained a
copy of the Petition after the March 5, 2007 meeting.41
In Yupangco-Nakpil v. Uy,42 this court discussed Canon

1, Rule 1.01, as follows:
_______________
39 Id., at p. 24.
40 Id., at p. 2. The Complaint-Affidavit states that Vasco-Tamaray
obtained a copy of the Petition on March 15, 2007.
41 Id., at pp. 58-59, Complainant’s Position Paper.
42 A.C. No. 9115, September 17, 2014, 735 SCRA 239 [Per J. Perlas-
Bernabe, First Division].

55
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 55

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code, as it is applied to

the members of the legal professions, engraves an
overriding prohibition against any form of
misconduct, viz.:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
The gravity of the misconduct — determinative as
it is of the errant lawyer’s penalty — depends on the
factual circumstances of each case.
....
. . . Verily, members of the Bar are expected at all
times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission which
might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the
public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the
legal profession. By no insignificant measure,
respondent blemished not only his integrity as a
member of the Bar, but also that of the legal
profession. In other words, his conduct fell short of
the exacting standards expected of him as a guardian
of law and justice.43

When respondent filed the Petition as counsel for

complainant when the truth was otherwise, she committed
a falsehood against the trial court and complainant.

II

Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10,
Rule 10.01 when she allowed the use of a forged signature
on a petition she prepared and notarized.44
_______________
43 Id., at pp. 243-245.

44 Rollo, p. 7, Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Annex

56

Complainant alleged that her signature on the Petition

was forged.45 Respondent merely denied complainant’s
allegation.46
The Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was
signed by a certain “CVasco.”47 The records of this case
show that complainant has used two signatures. In her
identification cards issued by the University of the East,
she used a signature that spelled out “CVasco.”48 In her
Complaint-Affidavit against respondent, complainant used
a signature that spelled out “CTamaray.”49
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 documents50 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.”51 Hence, it seems
that complainant’s signature on the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was forged.
_______________

48 Id., at p. 69, Photocopies of Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray’s
identification cards.
50 Id. See also the signatures on Barangay Certification issued by
Barangay Talipapa, Quezon City (id., at p. 9), Birth Certificate of Charles
Dino Vasco (id., at p. 21), Minutes of the meeting at the Office of the City
Prosecutor, Muntinlupa City (id., at p. 24), Minutes of the Hearing at the
Commission on Bar Discipline dated October 4, 2007 (id., at p. 27),
Complainant’s Position Paper (id., at p. 61), Photocopies of Vasco-
Tamaray’s identification cards issued by the University of the East (id., at
p. 69), and Notice of Change of Address (id., at p. 70).

57
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 57

While there is no evidence to prove that respondent

forged complainant’s signature, the fact remains that
respondent allowed a forged signature to be used on a
petition she prepared and notarized.52 In doing so,
respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, Rule
10.01. These canons state:

CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the integrated bar.
RULE 7.03 – 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.
....
CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
faith to the court.
RULE 10.01 – 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.

In Embido v. Pe, Jr.,53 Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

Salvador N. Pe, Jr. was found guilty of violating Canon 7,
Rule 7.03 and was meted the penalty of disbarment for
falsifying a court decision “in a nonexistent court
proceeding.”54 This court discussed that:
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving

moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can
justify a lawyer’s disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate
falsification of the court decision by the respondent
was an act that reflected a high degree of moral
turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery
of the administration of justice in this
_______________
52 Id.
53 A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013, 708 SCRA 1 [Per J. Bersamin, En
Banc].
54 Id., at p. 9.

58

country, given the purpose of the falsification,

which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the
personal status of a person. He thereby became
unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.55

In a similar manner, respondent’s 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.
Other acts that this court has found violative of Canon
7, Rule 7.03 are: engaging in a scuffle inside court
chambers;56 openly doubting paternity of his own son;57
hurling invectives at a Clerk of Court;58 harassing
occupants of a property;59 using intemperate language;60
and engaging in an extramarital affair.61
Furthermore, 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, in violation of
Canon 10.
In Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera,62 this court discussed

the importance of Canon 10, Rule 10.01, as follows:

The Lawyer’s Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to
obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from
doing
_______________
55 Id., at p. 10.
56 Campos v. Campos, A.C. No. 8644, January 22, 2014, 714 SCRA 347
[Per J. Reyes, First Division].
57 Id.
58 Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, 510 Phil. 478; 474 SCRA 1 (2005) [Per
J. Tinga, Second Division].
59 Alitagtag v. Garcia, 451 Phil. 420; 403 SCRA 335 (2003) [Per
Curiam, En Banc].
60 Noble III v. Ailes, A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015, 761 SCRA 1 [Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
61 Guevarra v. Eala, 555 Phil. 713; 529 SCRA 1 (2007) [Per Curiam,
En Banc].
62 A.C. No. 10451, February 4, 2015, 749 SCRA 473 [Per J. Perlas-
Bernabe, First Division].

59
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 59

any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting

to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his
clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has
to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be
an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no
means a coincidence, therefore, that the core values of
honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness are
emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
“[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.”63
(Emphasis supplied)

III

This court further finds that respondent violated Canon
17, which states:

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.

Respondent 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.
The responsibilities of a lawyer under Canon 17 were
discussed in Penilla v. Alcid, Jr.:64
The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere

duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the
highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the
protection of the client’s interest. The most thorough
groundwork and study must be undertaken in order
to safeguard the interest of the client. The honor
bestowed on his person to
_______________
63 Id., at p. 481.
64 A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA 1 [Per J. Villarama,
Jr., First Division].

60

carry the title of a lawyer does not end upon taking

the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys.
Rather, such honor attaches to him for the entire
duration of his practice of law and carries with it the
consequent responsibility of not only satisfying the
basic requirements but also going the extra mile in
the protection of the interests of the client and the
pursuit of justice[.]65

Respondent is reminded of the duties and

responsibilities of members of the legal profession, as
discussed in Tenoso v. Echanez:66

Time and again, this Court emphasizes that the
practice of law is imbued with public interest and that
“a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his
client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to
the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of
the most important functions of the State — the
administration of justice — as an officer of the court.”
Accordingly, “[l]awyers are bound to maintain not
only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.”67
(Citations omitted)
IV

This court notes that respondent may have violated
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 when she entered her appearance as
counsel for complainant68 even though she was engaged as
counsel by Leomarte Tamaray.69 Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
_______________
65 Id., at pp. 14-15.

66 A.C. No. 8384, April 11, 2013, 696 SCRA 1 [Per J. Leonen, En
Banc].
67 Id., at p. 6.
68 Rollo, p. 7, Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Annex
69 Id., at p. 68, Affidavit of Maritess Marquez-Guerrero.

61
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 61

CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness

and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his client.
....
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.

The rationale for Canon 15 was discussed in Samson v.
Era:70

The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was
fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer
would be representing a client whose interest is
directly adverse to any of his present or former
clients. In the same way, a lawyer may only be
allowed to represent a client involving the same or a
substantially related matter that is materially
adverse to the former client only if the former client
consents to it after consultation. The rule is grounded
in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. Throughout the
course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with the client’s case,
including the weak and strong points of the case.
Knowledge and information gathered in the course of
the relationship must be treated as sacred and
guarded with care. It behooves lawyers not only to
keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid
the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the
administration of justice. The nature of that
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence
of the highest degree.
....
. . . The spirit behind this rule is that the client’s
confidence once given should not be stripped by the
mere expiration of the professional employment. Even
after
_______________
70 A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013, 701 SCRA 241 [Per J. Bersamin, En
Banc].

62

the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not

do anything that will injuriously affect his former
client in any matter in which the lawyer previously
represented the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose
or use any of the client’s confidences acquired in the
previous relation. In this regard, Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility expressly declares
that: “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.”
The lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty
is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to
himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual
and does not cease with the termination of the
litigation, nor is it affected by the client’s ceasing to
employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any
other change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client.71

The test to determine whether conflict of interest exists
was discussed in Hornilla v. Salunat:72

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf
of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an
issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this
argument will be opposed by him when he argues for
the other client.” This rule covers not only cases in
which confidential communications have been
confided, but also those in which no confidence has
been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any knowledge ac-

_______________
71 Id., at pp. 251-253.

72 453 Phil. 108; 405 SCRA 220 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division].

63
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 63

quired through their connection. Another test of the

inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of
a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance thereof.73
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Respondent was engaged by Leomarte Tamaray to be
his counsel.74 When the Petition for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage was filed, respondent signed the Petition as
counsel for complainant.75 If respondent was indeed
engaged as counsel by complainant, then there is conflict of
interest, in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03.
However, there is nothing on record to show that
respondent was engaged as counsel by complainant. Hence,
this court finds that respondent did not commit conflict of
interest.

V

On a final note, Rule 139-B has been amended by Bar
Matter No. 1645 dated October 13, 2015. Section 12 of Rule
139-B now provides that:

Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys
....
Section 12. Review and recommendation by the
Board of Governors.
(a) Every case heard by an investigator shall
be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon
the record and evidence
_______________
73 Id., at pp. 111-112.

74 Rollo, p. 68, Affidavit of Maritess Marquez-Guerrero.

64

transmitted to it by the Investigator with his

report.
(b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of
a majority of its total membership, shall
recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal
of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary
action against the respondent. The Board shall
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations, clearly and distinctly stating
the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
The resolution shall be issued within a period
not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next
meeting of the Board following the submission of
the Investigator’s report.
(c) The Board’s resolution, together with the
entire records and all evidence presented and
submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme
Court for final action within ten (10) days from
issuance of the resolution.
(d) Notice of the resolution shall be given to
all parties through their counsel, if any.76

Under the old rule, the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines was given the power to
“issue a decision”77 if the lawyer complained of was
exonerated or meted a penalty of “less than suspension or
disbarment.”78 In
_______________
76 Bar Matter No. 1645. Re: Amendment of Rule 139-B (2015) [En
Banc].
77 Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(c), prior to the amendments introduced by Bar
Matter No. 1645.
78 Id.

65
VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 65
addition, the case would be deemed terminated unless

an interested party filed a petition before this court.79
The amendments to Rule 139-B is a reiteration that only
this court has the power to impose disciplinary action on
members of the bar. The factual findings and
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline and
the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines are recommendatory, subject to review by this
court.80
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis is
found GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7,
Rule 7.03, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Canon 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
The charge for violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 against
respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis is DISMISSED.
The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon
respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis. The Office of the Bar
Confidant is directed to remove the name of Deborah Z.
Daquis from the Roll of Attorneys.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of
the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal
record as attorney, to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and to the Office of the Court Administrator for
dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their
information and guidance.
This Resolution takes effect immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza,
Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
_______________
79 Id.
80 Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margalo, A.C. No. 10537, February 3, 2015,
749 SCRA 13 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

66

Caguioa, J., On Official Leave.
Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis disbarred for violating Canon 1,

Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
meanwhile, charge for violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03
dismissed.
Notes.—The bare attorney-client relationship with a

client precludes an attorney from accepting professional
employment from the client’s adversary either in the same
case or in a different but related action. (Samala vs.
Valencia, 512 SCRA 1 [2007])
The prohibition against conflict of interest is founded on
principles of public policy, good taste and, more
importantly, upon necessity; In the course of a lawyer-
client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the client’s case, including its weak and
strong points, which knowledge must be considered sacred
and guarded with care. (Pacana, Jr. vs. Pascual-Lopez, 594
SCRA 1 [2009])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Vasco-Tamaray vs. Daquis, 782 SCRA 44, January 26, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vasco-Tamaray vs. Daquis, 782 SCRA 44, January 26, 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vasco-Tamaray vs. Daquis, 782 SCRA 44, January 26, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 782

A.C. No. 10868. January 26, 2016.*

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility;

VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 45

spondent allowed a forged signature to be used on a petition

220 (2003): There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 47

1. Sometime in October 2006, I accompanied

1 Rollo, pp. 2-3, Complaint-Affidavit.

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3. Among other things, Leomarte told Cheryl that

VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 49

was not hers because she never resided in Muntinlupa

10 Id., at pp. 2-3, Complaint-Affidavit.

16 Id., at p. 15, Answer.

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

nity tax certificate number was supplied by Vasco-

23 Id., at p. 52, Order of the Commission on Bar Discipline dated May

VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 51

The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the

25 Id., at pp. 108-111, Report and Recommendation of the Commission

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,

RULE 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental

VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 53

pears, then, that respondent was contacted by Leomarte

complainant’s residence is at “Hermosa St. Gagalangin,

35 Id., at p. 68, Affidavit of Maritess Marquez-Guerrero.

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

that complainant lived with her husband after they were

P[etitioner] & R[espondent] met sometime in 1993

In Yupangco-Nakpil v. Uy,42 this court discussed Canon

VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 55

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code, as it is applied to

When respondent filed the Petition as counsel for

43 Id., at pp. 243-245.

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Complainant alleged that her signature on the Petition

47 Id., at p. 7, Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Annex

VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 57

While there is no evidence to prove that respondent

In Embido v. Pe, Jr.,53 Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

country, given the purpose of the falsification,

In Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera,62 this court discussed

VOL. 782, JANUARY 26, 2016 59

any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting

The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

carry the title of a lawyer does not end upon taking

Respondent is reminded of the duties and

65 Id., at pp. 14-15.