MH T.

MORALDE

Intestate Estate of Jose Uy vs Maghari III AC No 10525, September 1, 2015

FACTS:

A complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant Wilson Uy, designated administrator of the
estate of Jose Uy, against respondent (Maghari III) charging the latter in engaging in deceitful conduct and
violating the lawyer’s Oath, on the ground that he use the information that is false and/or appropriated
to another lawyer in signing certain pleadings.

Conflict arises between Wilson Uy and the other heirs of the deceased. At the course of the
proceeding, Wilson Uy prayed that a subpoena ad testificandum be issued against Magdalena Uy as she
was alleged to be a treasurer of several business of Jose Uy. Through her counsel, Maghari III filed several
pleadings starting from 2010 and 2012. Wislon Uy’s counsel noticed that since 2010, respondent had been
changing the professional details indicated in the pleadings he had signed and has been copying the details
of Atty. Natu-el. Thus, Wilson Uy filed a complaint for disbarment. Pointing out that Maghari’s act of
repeatedly changing and copying another lawyer’s professional information violates the lawyer’s oath and
acted in a deceitful manner.

ISSUE: WON respondent violates the Lawyer’s Oath and the Canon Laws.

HELD:

Yes, he violated the oath and the canon laws.

The lawyer’s oath entails commitment to, among others, obeying the laws and legal orders, doing
no falsehood, conducting one’s self as a lawyer to the best of one’s capacity, and acting with fidelity to
both the court and client.

In this case, the respondent did not commit the errors in good faith based on the following
reasons:

First. He violated clear legal requirements and indicated patently false information.

Second. He did so knowingly

Third. He did so repeatedly.

Fourth. The information he used is from another lawyer.

Fifth. He repeatedly change the information from one pleading to another which demonstrate the
intent to mock and ridicule courts and legal process.

It is to be noted that, in using false information in his pleadings, respondent unnecessarily put his
own client at risk. Deficiencies in how pleadings are signed can be fatal to a party’s cause, as an unsigned
pleading produces no legal effect. In doing so, respondent violated his duty to his clients.
MH T. MORALDE

Penalty: Suspended for 2 years for practice of law.