Atty. Daquis argued that Vasco-Tamaray had a copy of the Petition. When Vasco-Tamaray requested another copy on March 5, 2007, Atty. Daquis was unable to grant her client's request because she did not have a copy of the Petition with her at that time.21 Atty. Daquis further alleged that Vasco-Tamaray conceived an illegitimate son with a certain Reuel Pablo Aranda. The illegitimate son was named Charles Dino Vasco. Reuel Pablo Aranda signed the Affidavit of Acknowledgment/ Admission of Paternity portion of the birth certificate.22 The Commission on Bar Discipline required the parties to submit their position papers,23 but based on the record, only Vasco-Tamaray complied.24 The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the Complaint because VascoTamaray failed to prove her allegations. The Commission on Bar Discipline noted that VascoTamaray should have questioned the Petition or informed the prosecutor that she never filed any petition, but she failed to do so.25 The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline in the Resolution dated September 27, 2014.26 The issue for resolution is whether respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis should be held administratively liable for making it appear that she is counsel for complainant Cheryl VascoTamaray and for the alleged use of a forged signature on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. This court finds that respondent violated Canons 1, 7, 10, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge against respondent for violation of Canon 15 is dismissed. I By pretending to be counsel for complainant, respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and failed to uphold her duty of doing no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court as stated in the Lawyer's Oath.27 Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. RULE 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In this case, respondent merely denied complainant's allegation that she was Leomarte Tamaray's counsel28 but was unable to rebut the other allegations against her. Respondent admitted that she met complainant in October 2006,29 but did not refute30 the statement in Maritess Marquez-Guerrero's Affidavit that Leomarte Tamaray introduced her as his lawyer.31 Likewise, respondent admitted that she met with complainant subsequently,32 but did not refute Maritess Marquez-Guerrero's statement that in one of the meetings, she tried to convince complainant not to oppose Leomarte Tamaray's decision to annul their marriage.33