amounting to TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE (U.S. $2,555.00) to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed case could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court. The said amount was given to the respondent. x x x [S]ubsequently the complainant corporation came to know that the fees to be paid to the Supreme Court consist[ed] only of normal filing and docket fees for such kind of appeal but in order to cover up respondents misrepresentation, Atty. Naldoza presented complainant a fake xerox copy of an alleged Supreme court receipt representing payment of U.S. $2,555.00. Subsequent verification from the Supreme Court made by the complainant corporation revealed that the said receipt issued by the treasurers office of the Supreme Court x x x [was] spurious, meaning a fake receipt. The said verification revealed that what was only paid by the respondent to the Supreme court was the amount of P622.00 as shown by the enumerated legal fees of the Supreme Court Docket-Receiving Section showing the handwritten name of the respondent for purpose of showing that the said computation was requested by and addressed to the respondent.v[5] (citations omitted) Meanwhile, a criminal casevi[6] for estafa based on the same facts was filed against herein respondent before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 141. Although acquitted on reasonable doubt, he was declared civilly liable in the amount of US$ 2,555. Thereafter, respondent filed before the IBP a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss on July 22, 1996, on the ground that he had already been acquitted in the criminal case for estafa. Complainant opposed the Motion.vii[7] On February 16, 1998, this Court received the IBP Board of Governors Resolution, which approved the investigating commissioners reportviii[8] and recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. In his Report, Investigating Commissioner Plaridel Jose justified his recommendation in this manner: x x x [R]espondent fails to rebut the position of the complainant that the signature [on the receipt for the amount of $2,555.00] was his. Hence, respondent anchors his position on a mere denial that it is not his signature. Likewise, the respondent denies the check voucher dated December 15, 1992, and the encircled signature of the respondent, which x x x according to him is falsified and irregular. No evidence, however, was presented by the respondent that his signature therein was falsified and irregular. [As to the altered Supreme Court Official Receipt, the respondent denied] that he ha[d] anything to do with it because it was the complainant who signed the Petition for Review and tried to explain that his name appear[ed] to be the payee because he [was] the counsel of record of the petitioner. But while it is true that the affiant in the said Petition for Review [was] Mr. Rogelio G. Gatchalian, president of the complainant company, the respondent does not deny that he signed the said petition as counsel of the petitioner corporation and that he was actually the one who prepared the same and the notary public before whom the affiant subscribed and [swore] as the one who caused the preparation of the said petition. The legal form (Exh. G) of the legal fees for the Petition for Review re G.R. 107984 was denied by the respondent because according to him he was never given a chance to cross-examine the