Code of Professional Responsibility

Case #29 Vasco-Tamaray v. Daquis A.C No. 10868, January 26 2016

Facts:

 Cheryle Vasco – Tamaray – Complainant

 Atty. Deborah z. Daquis – Respondent
 Leomarte Regala – Complainant’s Husband
 Ma. Dolor E. Puruwan and Lorena – Respondent’s Staff

Complainant’s Arguments

 The complainant filled a complaint affidavit before the IBP on July 30 2007
 The complainant allege that respondent filed on her behalf a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without
her consent and forge her signature on the Petition
 The complainant allege that the respondent also signed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage as
“counsel for petitioner”
 The complainant stated that the respondent was not her counsel but that of her husband Leomarte Regala
 The complainant was deceived on to thinking that the husband initiated the Petition but was proved otherwise when
she requested a copy of the Petition
 The Community Tax Certificate attached on the Petition was not hers due to incorrect address and countered it with
her Certification issued by Barangay Talipapa
 The complainant never received any court process

Respondent’s Arguments

 Respondent countered that her client was Vasco-Tamary the complainant herself.
 That the respondent knew of the Petition as early as October 2006 not December 2006
 With regard to CTC, the respondent explained that when she notarized the Petition, the CTC was supplied by
complainant with joint Affidavit of her staff
 The complainant wanted her to call and demand money from Leomarte Tamaray but she refused to do so.
 The respondent argued that the complainant had a copy of the Petition when she requested it
 The respondent alleged that complainant conceived an illegitimate son with a certain Reuel Pablo Aranda with a
signed Affidavit of Acknowledgement / Admission of Paternity portion of the birth certificate

Recommendations of IBP and CBD

 Commission on Bar Discipline recommend the dismissal of the Complainant because Vasco – Tamaray failed to
prove her allegations and noted that complainant should have questioned the Petition or informed the prosecutor
that she never filled any petition but she failed to do so.
 IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline

ISSUES

 Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for making it appear that she is counsel for complainant
and for the alleged use of a forge signature on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
RULING
Yes guilty,
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.

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.

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.

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.