The Supreme Court has disbarred one Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. for faking a court decision and notarizing a document in the absence of its affiant.

The 11-page decision in AC 11981 (Taday vs Apoya, Jr.) was rendered by the SC on July 3 and released to members of media yesterday.

Apoya was found guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 2, as well as Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Apoya’s name was ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.

Rule 1.01 mandates a lawyer to “not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct,” while Rule 1.02 orders a member of the bar to “not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.”

The findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline to disbar Apoya was adopted by the SC.

The Court concluded that Apoya authored a fake decision to deceive complainant Leah B. Taday that he won the legal battle in her favor, which “acts resulted to complainant’s injuries and has tarnished the noble image of the legal profession.”

Apoya was also found to have notarized the verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the Petition for Annulment even though the complainant did not personally appear before him in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

According to the SC: “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It is imbued with public interest….Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.”

In 2011, Taday, an overseas Filipino worker in Norway, through her parents in the Philippines, sought Apoya’s legal services for the nullification of her marriage.

Apoya accepted to handle the case in exchange for P140,000 attorney’s fees which were paid in tranches.

He drafted a Petition for Annulment of Marriage, notarized and filed the same before the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court, which was then raffled to Branch 131.

Apoya on November 17, 2011 delivered a decision to the complainant who was on vacation in the country that allegedly granted the annulment of the complainant’s marriage and promulgated by a certain Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles of RTC Branch 162.

However, the complainant upon double checking of the supposed decision that came too soon and was poorly written discovered that Judge Angeles and Branch 162 did not exist.

She immediately sought the withdrawal as counsel of Apoya who, instead of withdrawing, filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition, which the RTC Branch 131 granted.

This prompted the complainant to get the services of another lawyer who immediately sent a letter to Apoya calling his attention regarding the payment of his attorney’s fees and the purported fake decision.