5. The next instance that I saw Atty. Daquis was when we (Cheryl and I) went to McDonald's-Greenbelt where Atty. Daquis tried to convince her not to oppose Leomarte's decision to have their marriage annulled[.]5 (Emphasis supplied) Vasco-Tamaray narrated that in December 2006, Atty. Daquis informed her "that a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City."6 In February 2007, Atty. Daquis asked her to appear before the City Prosecutor's Office of Muntinlupa City.7 On March 5, 2007, Vasco-Tamaray appeared before the City Prosecutor's Office and met Atty. Daquis. She asked Atty. Daquis to give her a copy of the Petition but Atty. Daquis refused.8 Vasco-Tamaray stated that she obtained a copy of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage from Branch 207 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City. She was surprised to see that the Petition was allegedly signed and filed by her.9 Vasco-Tamaray alleged that she did not file the Petition, that her signature was forged by Atty. Daquis, and that her purported community tax certificate appearing on the jurat was not hers because she never resided in Muntinlupa City.10 She attached a Certification issued by the Sangguniang Barangay of Putatan, Muntinlupa City stating that she was "never . . . a resident of #9 Daang Hari Street, Umali Compound, Summitville Subdivision, Barangay Putatan."11 She also attached a Certification issued by Barangay Talipapa stating that she has been a resident of "#484-J Saguittarius St., Solville Subd., Barangay Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City... from 2000 till present."12 Vasco-Tamaray also alleged that the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was Atty. Daquis' idea, consented to by Leomarte Tamaray.13 She further alleged that she had never received any court process. The Petition states that her postal address is "09 Daang Hari St., Umali Comp., Summitville Subd., Putatan, Muntinlupa City[,]"14 which is the address of her husband's family. The return slips of the notices sent by the trial court were received by Encarnacion T. Coletraba and Almencis Cumigad, relatives ofLeomarte Tamaray.15 Atty. Daquis filed an Answer countering that her client was Vasco-Tamaray, complainant herself, and not complainant's husband. She alleged that Vasco-Tamaray knew of the Petition as early as October 2006, not December 2006.16 With regard to the community tax certificate, Atty. Daquis explained that when she notarized the Petition, the community tax certificate number was supplied by Vasco-Tamaray.17 Atty. Daquis' allegation was supported by the Joint Affidavit of her staff, Ma. Dolor E. Purawan (Purawan) and Ludy Lorena (Lorena).18 Purawan and Lorena detailed in their Joint Affidavit that they knew Vasco-Tamaray to be a client of Atty. Daquis and that they never saw Atty. Daquis forge Vasco-Tamaray's signature. Purawan stated that she typed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and that the community tax certificate was provided by Vasco-Tamaray.19 Atty. Daquis alleged that Vasco-Tamaray wanted her to call and demand money from Leomarte Tamaray but she refused to do so.20