A.C. No. 12415. March 5, 2019.*

 
JUSTICE FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA, JUSTICE
STEPHEN C. CRUZ, and JUSTICE RAMON PAUL L.
HERNAN-DO, complainants, vs. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES
E. RAMON, respondent.

Attorneys; Members of the bar took their oath to conduct

themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to
delay no man for money or malice.—Those in the legal profession
must always conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all
their dealings. Members of the bar took their oath to conduct
themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to
delay no man for money or malice. These mandates apply
especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients considering the
highly fiduciary nature of their relationship. It bears stressing
that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law
during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for
misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court
after opportunity to be heard has afforded him. Without invading
any constitutional privilege or right, and attorney’s right to
practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar
him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to
exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. However,
in consideration of the gravity of the consequences of the
disbarment or suspension of a member of the bar, the Court have
consistently held that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to
satisfactorily prove the allegations in his complaint through
substantial evidence.
Same; To the best of his ability, every lawyer is expected to
respect and abide by the law, and to avoid any act or omission that
is contrary thereto.—The Lawyer’s Oath requires every lawyer to
“support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein” and to “do no
falsehood, nor

_______________

* EN BANC.
  
 
579

VOL. 894, MARCH 5, 2019 579

Peralta vs. Ramon

consent to the doing of any in court.” To the best of his ability,

every lawyer is expected to respect and abide by the law, and to
avoid any act or omission that is contrary thereto. A lawyer’s
personal deference to the law not only speaks of his character but
it also inspires respect and obedience to the law on the part of the
public.
Same; Grave Misconduct; Corruption, as an element of grave
misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person
who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to
procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to
duty and the rights of others.—Respondent’s acts also constitute
grave misconduct. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the
additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law,
or to disregard established rules, which must be established by
substantial evidence. As distinguished from simple misconduct,
the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or
flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a
charge of grave misconduct. Corruption, as an element of grave
misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person
who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to
procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to
duty and the rights of others. Doubtless, respondent had a clear
intent to violate the law when she fraudulently drafted a fake
decision of the CA, falsely including therein the names of
complainants, and presenting it to her clients for monetary
consideration. These acts show respondent’s wanton disregard of
the law and a patent propensity to trample upon the canons of the
Code. Hence, respondent should also be held administratively
guilty for grave misconduct.
Same; Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath; A member of the Bar
may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as
an attorney, for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and/or for breach of
the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code.—A
member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or
suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code. For the practice of law is a
profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is
entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral
character. The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends
on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts.
 
 
580

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Peralta vs. Ramon

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 
PER CURIAM:
 
This is a Joint Complaint-Affidavit1 for disbarment filed
by Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices Fernanda
Lampas Peralta, Chairperson of the Sixth Division,
Stephen C. Cruz, Senior Member of the Fifth Division, and
Ramon Paul L. Hernando, then Junior Member of the Fifth
Division, now a member of this Court (complainants),
against Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon (respondent), a
member of the bar, before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline
(Commission).
 
The Antecedents
 
On March 4, 2016, it came to the knowledge of
complainants that a certain Maria Rossan De Jesus (De
Jesus) went to the Office of the Division Clerk of Court of
the CA Fifth Division to ascertain the veracity and
authenticity of a Decision2  purportedly written by
complainants in a criminal case entitled, “People of the
Philippines v. Tirso Fajardo y Delos Trino,” and docketed
as C.A.-G.R. CR No. 08005.
In the said decision, complainants allegedly ordered the
acquittal of Tirso Fajardo (Fajardo), cousin of De Jesus, for
the crime of violation of Sections 5 and 7 of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165.3  The said decision was given to De Jesus
by respondent, who was their counsel, to serve as proof
that Fajardo had been acquitted. Respondent is a law
practitioner, who was admitted to the bar on May 4, 2004
with Roll No. 

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-9.

2 Id., at pp. 10-28.
3 Also known as the COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002.

 
  
581

VOL. 894, MARCH 5, 2019 581

Peralta vs. Ramon

49050. However, respondent informed De Jesus that the

promulgation of the said decision would supposedly depend
on the payment of a large sum of money to respondent.
Complainants checked the cases assigned to them and
discovered that the said criminal case of Fajardo was still
in the completion stage and was assigned to former CA
Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam,4 who was then a member
of the CA Fourth Division.5 This was affirmed by the CA
Clerk of Court’s Certification.6
On March 9, 2016, complainants learned through a
newspaper item and television news program that on
March 8, 2016, an entrapment operation was conducted by
the members of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
against respondent, where she was caught red-handed
receiving marked money from Carlos Aquino (Aquino), a
friend of Fajardo, for the issuance of the aforementioned
fake decision. Complainants also learned that the NBI filed
a Criminal Complaint7  against respondent and a certain
Alex Rowales before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila for the crimes of  estafa  under Article 315,
paragraph 2, and falsification under Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC). The complaint stated that:

Complainants alleged that on December 16, 2015[,]

[respondent] was engaged by MS. RAYMUNDA FAJARDO
to appeal the decision of the Makati RTC convicting her son
TIRSO DELOS TRINO FAJARDO for violation of R.A. [No.]
9165. From said date until March 2, 2016[,] [respondent]
allegedly repeatedly asked for money which eventually
reached the total amount of about one million pesos
purportedly for legal fees and representation expenses. On
March 2, 2016[,] Complain-

_______________

4 He is also a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

5 Rollo, pp. 29-30.
6 Id., at p. 31.
7 Id., at pp. 32-34.

 
 

582
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Peralta vs. Ramon

ants, who are the cousin and best friend, respectively, of

TIRSO FAJARDO, met with [respondent] and one ALEX
ROWALES whom [respondent] introduced as a Sheriff of
the Court of Appeals and who showed to them a purported
DECISION of the Court of Appeals dated February 19,
2016[,] acquitting TIRSO FAJARDO and they asked for
[P]150,000.00 to hasten the release of the purported
decision and the eventual release of TIRSO FAJARDO.
Complainants first paid half of the demanded amount and
verified the purported decision[,] which they discovered to
be fake. They then reported the matter to the NBI Anti-
Fraud Division[,] which then planned an entrapment
operation.
On March 8, 2016 at about 12:15 o’clock in the afternoon,
the undersigned Agents, together with the Complainants,
conducted an entrapment operation and proceeded to
Jollibee Restaurant, Kalaw Ave., Ermita, Manila[,] where
Complainants and Subjects agreed to meet[,] where
Complainants are to deliver the balance of [P]75,000.00
As instructed, complainant DE JESUS occupied a table
nearest the corner of Kalaw and Orosa by the glass walls
x  x  x. At about 12:30 p.m.[,] [respondent] arrived at the
table with some food and proceeded to eat while conversing
with DE JESUS. After a few minutes, Complainant
AQUINO arrived and after conversing with [respondent], he
handed the marked money contained in a brown envelope to
[respondent][,] who then received the envelope and placed it
[in front of her]. After conversing some more, Complainants
and [respondent] stood up holding the brown envelope with
the marked money.
At this juncture, Subject was immediately arrested and the
marked money was recovered. x x x8

 
Thus, complainants filed the present administrative
complaint alleging that respondent should be disbarred due
to the following reasons: for representing herself as a
lawyer who can influence Justices of the Court of Appeals
to secure the

_______________

8 Id., at p. 33.

 
 

583
 VOL. 894, MARCH 5, 2019 583
Peralta vs. Ramon

acquittal of an accused; for defrauding the relatives of

accused Fajardo to amass a large amount of money in the
total amount of P1,000,000.00; for utter show of disrespect
to complainants, the Court, and the Judiciary as a whole;
and for committing the crimes of estafa and falsification.
Respondent did not submit any answer in spite of
receipt of the order from the IBP Commission. She also
failed to appear at the mandatory conference despite due
notice.9 Only complainants submitted their Joint Position
Paper10 dated July 27, 2016, to the IBP Commission.
 
IBP’s Report and Recommendation
 
In its Report and Recommendation11  dated September
26, 2016, the IBP Commission recommended that
respondent be disbarred as a lawyer for committing acts
that were in violation of her sworn duties as a lawyer and
the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code), and for
unreasonably involving the Justices in the incident to their
damage and prejudice.
In its Resolution12  dated November 28, 2017, the IBP
Board of Governors (IBP Board) adopted the findings of
fact and recommendation of the IBP Commission imposing
a penalty of disbarment against respondent.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The Court adopts the findings of the IBP Commission
and the recommendation of the IBP Board.
Those in the legal profession must always conduct
themselves with honesty and integrity in all their dealings.
Members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves
accord-

_______________

9 Id., at p. 161.
10 Id., at pp. 92-100.
11 Id., at pp. 161-163.
12 Id., at pp. 159-160.

 
 
584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Peralta vs. Ramon
ing to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to
delay no man for money or malice. These mandates apply
especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients
considering the highly fiduciary nature of their
relationship.13
It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the
privilege and right to practice law during good behavior
and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained
and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to
be heard has afforded him. Without invading any
constitutional privilege or right, and attorney’s right to
practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or
disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a
license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an
attorney.14  However, in consideration of the gravity of the
consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member
of the bar, the Court have consistently held that a lawyer
enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the
allegations in his complaint through substantial evidence.15
The Lawyer’s Oath requires every lawyer to “support the
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders
of the duly constituted authorities therein” and to “do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.”16  To
the best of his ability, every lawyer is expected to respect
and abide by the law, and to avoid any act or omission that
is contrary thereto. A lawyer’s personal deference to the
law not only speaks of his character but it also inspires
respect and obedi-

_______________

13 Luna v. Galarrita, 763 Phil. 175, 184; 762 SCRA 1, 13 (2015).

14 Velasco v. Doroin, 582 Phil. 1, 9; 560 SCRA 1, 10 (2008).
15 Goopio v. Maglalang, A.C. No. 10555, July 31, 2018, 875 SCRA 85.
16 See Lawyer’s Oath.

 
 
585

VOL. 894, MARCH 5, 2019 585

Peralta vs. Ramon

ence to the law on the part of the public.17 Canon 1, Rules

1.01 and 1.02 of the Code states:

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.
RULE 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

 
On the other hand, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 obliges every
lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, to wit:

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.

 
Further, Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03
mandates every lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and
good faith, viz.:

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.
RULE 10.02 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the lan-

_______________

17 Jimenez v. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551, 565; 744 SCRA 215, 229 (2014).

 
 
586

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Peralta vs. Ramon

guage or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a

decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
RULE 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.
  
Respondent violated the
Lawyer’s Oath and the
Code; Grave misconduct
 
The Court finds that respondent violated the Lawyer’s
Oath and several canons and rules of the Code. She
represented to De Jesus and Aquino that she could secure
the acquittal of Fajardo and even used the names of the
Associate Justices to accomplish her ill motives.
Respondent also defrauded her clients by drafting a
fake, spurious, and sham decision regarding the purported
acquittal of Fajardo. She placed the names of complainants
in the fake decision even though the criminal case of
Fajardo was raffled in a different division and assigned to a
different Associate Justice. Glaringly, she discredited and
disrespected members of the judiciary by wrongfully
involving complainants’ names in her fraudulent scheme.
She also maliciously represented to her clients that she can
influence Associate Justices of the CA to ensure the
acquittal of an accused.
Further, respondent exacted exorbitant fees from her
clients, in the amount of P1,000,000.00 more or less, as
evidenced by receipts she signed.18 In her ultimate desire
to extort more money from Fajardo’s relatives, she
presented the fake decision of acquittal and asserted that
the promulgation of the said decision would allegedly
depend on the payment of a large sum of money to
respondent.

_______________

18 Rollo, pp. 135-140.

 
 

587

VOL. 894, MARCH 5, 2019 587

Peralta vs. Ramon

Through the operation of the NBI, respondent was

arrested in an entrapment operation when she received the
marked money from Aquino for the purported decision of
acquittal. Respondent’s arrest and modus operandi were
even broadcasted in television and published in the
newspaper, causing further shame, disrepute, and disgrace
to the legal profession.
Respondent was given an opportunity to controvert the
allegations against her, however, she neither filed her
answer nor attended the mandatory conference in the IBP
Commission.
Verily, the acts exhibited by respondent violated the
Lawyer’s Oath. Her acts are also contrary to Canons 1, 7,
and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03
because respondent violated the laws, particularly Articles
172 and 315, par. 2 of the RPC, tarnished the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, and committed falsehood
and deceit against her clients and the courts.
Respondent’s acts also constitute grave misconduct. The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional
elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or
to disregard established rules, which must be established
by substantial evidence. As distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule,
must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.19
Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in
the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and
wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty
and the rights of others.20
Doubtless, respondent had a clear intent to violate the
law when she fraudulently drafted a fake decision of the
CA,

_______________

19 Office of the Court Administrator v. Indar, 685 Phil. 272, 286-287;

669 SCRA 24, 40 (2012).
20 Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, 654 Phil. 602, 608; 639
SCRA 633, 638 (2011).

 
 

588

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Peralta vs. Ramon

falsely including therein the names of complainants, and

presenting it to her clients for monetary consideration.
These acts show respondent’s wanton disregard of the law
and a patent propensity to trample upon the canons of the
Code. Hence, respondent should also be held
administratively guilty for grave misconduct.
 
Proper penalty
 
 The Court finds that complainants have established by
substantial evidence that respondent: (1) drafted a fake
decision of the CA acquitting Fajardo; (2) falsely and
shamelessly included the names of complainants in the
fake decision even though the criminal case was raffled to
another division and handled by a different Justice; (3)
maliciously represented that she can influence Associate
Justices of the CA to acquit an accused; (4) fraudulently
presented this fake decision to her clients in exchange for a
hefty monetary consideration; (5) exacted exorbitant fees
from her clients in the amount of P1,000,000.00; and (6)
was caught red-handed by the NBI operatives when she
received the marked money from her client for the fake
decision of the CA. As discussed above, these acts
constitute violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, and Canons 1, 7,
and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03
of the Code. Respondent is guilty of grave misconduct
because her transgression showed her clear intent to
violate the law and disregard the Code.
A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred
or suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of
the Lawyer’s Oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the
legal profession as embodied in the Code. For the practice
of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the
performance of which is entrusted to those who are
qualified and who possess good moral character. The
appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the
exercise of sound judicial discretion based on
 
 

589

VOL. 894, MARCH 5, 2019 589

Peralta vs. Ramon

the surrounding facts.21 Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court states:

Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme

Court on what grounds.—A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilfull
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
 through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
(Emphasis Supplied)

 
In  Taday v. Atty. Apoya, Jr.,22  the Court disbarred a
lawyer for authoring a fake court decision, which was
considered a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code.
The lawyer therein even delivered and misrepresented the
fake decision to his client. The Court held that the lawyer
“committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral[,] and deceitful
conduct, and lessened the confidence of the public in the
legal system.”23
In Billanes v. Atty. Latido,24 the Court also disbarred a
lawyer for manufacturing a fake decision in an annulment
case. The lawyer therein violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code because there existed substantial evidence that he
procured the spurious decision, which caused great
prejudice to his client.

_______________

21 Sison, Jr. v. Camacho, 777 Phil. 1, 14; 779 SCRA 142, 155 (2016).
22 A.C. No. 11981, July 3, 2018, 870 SCRA 1.
23 Id.
24 A.C. No. 12066, August 28, 2018, 878 SCRA 343.

 
 
590

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Peralta vs. Ramon

In fine, respondent’s acts should not just be deemed as

unacceptable practices that are both disgraceful and
dishonorable; these reveal a moral flaw that makes her
unfit to practice law. She has tarnished the image of the
legal profession and has lessened the public faith in the
Judiciary. Instead of being an advocate of justice, she
became a perpetrator of injustice. The ultimate penalty of
disbarment must be imposed upon respondent. Her name
should be stricken off immediately and without reservation
in the Roll of Attorneys.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon is
GUILTY of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Canons 1, 7, and
10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and Grave Misconduct.
For reasons above stated, she is DISBARRED from the
practice of law and her name stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys, effective immediately, without prejudice to the
civil or criminal cases pending and/or to be filed against
her.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of
the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty. Marie Frances
E. Ramon’s records. Copies shall likewise be furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts concerned.
SO ORDERED.

Bersamin (CJ.), Carpio, Del Castillo, Leonen,

Jardeleza, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr.
and Carandang, JJ., concur.
Peralta, J., No part. Spouse is a complainant.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., On Official Leave.
Hernando, J., No part.

 
 
591

VOL. 894, MARCH 5, 2019 591 

Peralta vs. Ramon

Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon disbarred from practice of

law for violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Canons 1, 7, and 10,
and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 of Code
of Professional Responsibility, and Grave Misconduct.

Notes.—A misconduct is grave where the elements of

corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant
disregard of established rule are present. Otherwise, a
misconduct is only simple. (Field Investigation Unit-Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon vs. De Castro,  867
SCRA 504 [2018])
A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred
or suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of
the lawyer’s oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code. (Taday vs. Apoya,
Jr., 870 SCRA 1 [2018])

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