FACTS:

In an administrative complaint for disbarment, Natasha Heysuwan-Florido accused respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido of violating his lawyer's oath by manufacturing, flaunting, and using a spurious Court of Appeals resolution/order. Complainant and respondent are estranged spouses, and they have a pending annulment case in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Related to the annulment case, there is another case pending before the Court of Appeals entitled "James Benedict Florido v. Hon. Pampio Abarientos, et al." In December 2001, respondent went to complainant's residence and showed her a photocopy of an alleged Court of Appeals resolution granting his motion for temporary child custody. Complainant's lawyer had not received any motion for temporary child custody from respondent. Complainant asked for the original copy of the resolution but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant noticed that the resolution bore two different dates and refused to give custody of their children to respondent. On January 15, 2002, respondent, accompanied by armed men, went to complainant's location and demanded custody of their children. Complainant sought the assistance of the police, and an agreement was reached for the children to stay with respondent for one night on the condition that he would not take them away from Tanjay City. However, on January 16, 2002, complainant learned that a van had arrived to take the children to Bacolod City. Complainant rushed to the hotel and took the children to another room. Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus, citing the alleged Court of Appeals resolution as the basis for seeking custody. Complainant verified the authenticity of the resolution and obtained a certification from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution had been issued. The petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, and complainant filed the disbarment complaint, alleging that respondent violated his attorney's oath and abused his privileges as a lawyer. Respondent claimed that he acted in good faith and believed the resolution to be authentic but his claim was contradicted by his use and presentation of the spurious resolution. The IBP-CBD recommended respondent's suspension for three years, while the IBP Board of Governors increased it to six years. The Court suspended respondent for two years, deeming it a commensurate penalty.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals.

RULING:

1. Yes, the respondent can be held administratively liable. The Court found that the respondent used and presented a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals on at least two occasions, indicating his participation in its fabrication. The Court held that the respondent's actions constituted gross misconduct and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 10 which requires lawyers to display candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. The Court also found that the respondent's use of offensive language in his pleadings further violated the proper decorum and dignity expected of a lawyer. The Court ruled that a suspension from the practice of law is warranted, but reduced the recommended penalty of six years to two years.

PRINCIPLES:

• Lawyers are expected to display candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.

• Lawyers should not do any falsehood or mislead the court by any artifice.

• Lawyers should not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper or the arguments of an opposing counsel.

• Lawyers' language should be forceful but dignified and respectful.

• The use of offensive language in pleadings is a violation of the decorum and dignity expected of a lawyer.

• The fabrication and use of a spurious court document constitutes gross misconduct.