(Eagle News) — The Supreme Court (SC) announced on Friday, July 6, that it has disbarred a lawyer for faking a court decision and notarizing a document in the absence of its affiant.
Dionisio Apoya Jr. was stripped of his bar membership on July 3 after authoring a fake decision to deceive his client Leah Taday that he won the legal battle for the nullification of her marriage, the SC said.
“[The] respondent committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct and lessened the confidence of the public in the legal system. Instead of being an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice,” the SC said.
The court added that Apoya notarized the verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the petition for annulment of marriage without the presence of Taday, who was then working in Norway.
“Notarization is not an empty, meaning and routinary act. It is imbued with public interest[…] A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face,” it said.
The SC narrated that in 2011, Taday, through her parents in the Philippines, sought the legal services of Apoya, who accepted the case for P140,000 to be paid in tranches.
Apoya then drafted, notarized, and filed a petition for annulment of marriage before the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court, which was raffled to Branch 131.
When Taday returned to the Philippines on November 17, 2011, he delivered to her a court decision dated a day before, which was promulgated by a certain Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles of RTC Branch 162.
Being suspicious that the decision came too soon and from a different judge and RTC branch, Taday verified its validity and discovered that Judge Angeles and Branch 162 do not exist.
The Court held that Apoya violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
“His reprehensible acts do not merit him to remain the rolls of the legal profession. Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment must be imposed upon him,” the court concluded.