The Supreme Court, in an en banc session Aug. 22, decided to impose “the supreme penalty of disbarment on Atty. Ariel D. Maglalang for fabricating a supposed order…granting a purported petition for presumptive death of his client’s husband”.
Maglalang made it appear that he filed the petition on behalf of his client who, in reality, directed him to file not a petition for presumptive death but for nullity of marriage.
He also made it appear that the petition was heard and granted by Judge Ray Alan Drilon of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41 in Bacolod City.
The SC said that in February 2006, Maglalang was engaged as counsel to initiate a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, for which he asked and received P100,000. He guaranteed to his client that he could get a favorable judgment in three months. Despite several follow-ups, however, Maglalang failed to update his client on the case status.
In November 2006, he eventually gave his client the Forged Order which essentially declared his client’s spouse presumptively dead “for all purposes”, pursuant to Article 390 of the Civil Code.
In 2008, Judge Drilon and Clerk of Court, Atty. Corazon Romero, learned of the existence of the Forged Order and sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation, which eventually led to the filing of the administrative case against Maglalang, the SC said.
In determining Maglalang’s liability, the SC applied the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which took effect on May 29, 2023. “The CPRA explicitly provides that its provisions shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern”.
The Court was convinced, based on the evidence, that Maglalang authored and used the Forged Order, the SC said in a press release Aug. 23. “His acts evince his disrespect for the rule of law and the courts. His use of the Forged Order reflects poorly on his fitness to practice law, and brings discredit upon the entire legal profession.”
Under the CPRA, falsification of documents is a serious offense, the SC said. “Given the evidence and circumstances, the Court found the supreme penalty of disbarment against Atty. Maglalang in order.” ||
