16.15. Introducing false evidence.

A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for knowingly or introducing false evidence in any proceedings as
his act is a violation of his oath to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any court. His action constitutes a
willful disregard of his solemn duty to act at all times in a manner consistent with the truth. To discipline the lawyer
for such misconduct is to underscore the importance of his primary function, which is to assist the court administer
impartial justice and prevent failure thereof. There may, indeed, be a failure of justice if courts cannot rely on the
submission as well as presentation of lawyers in the presentation of evidence to establish their clients cause or
defense.
SAMALA v. VALENCIA illustrates the doing of falsehood or misleading the court, as ground for
disciplinary action:
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment, respondent
submitted TCT no.273020 as evidence of Valdez ownership despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275550 was already
issued in the name of Alba on February 2,1995.
Records reveal that respondent filed Civil Case no. 00-7137 on November 27, 2000 and presented TCT no.
273020 as evidence of Valdez ownership of the subject property. During the hearing before Commissioner Rabal,
respondent avers that when the answer was filed in the said case, that was the time he came to know that the title
was already in the name of Alba, so that when the court dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore.
Respondent further avers that Valdez did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the case
for rescission was filed on 2002.
Upon examination of the record, it was noted that Civil Case no. 2000-657-MK for rescission of contract
and cancellation of TCT no. 275500 was also file on November 27, 2000 before RTC Branch 273, Marikina City,
thus belying the averment of respondent that he came to know of Albas title only on 2002 when the case for
rescission was filed. It was revealed during the hearing before Commissioner Rabal that Civil Case no. 00-7137 and
2000-657-MK were filed on the same date, although in different courts at different times.
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that
a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court
to be misled by any artifice. What is decisive in this case is respondents intent in trying to mislead the court by
presenting TCT no. 273020 despite the fact that the said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT no. 275550
was already issued in the name of Alba.
In Young v. Batuegas, it was held that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He should bear in mind that as
an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to
aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. On the other hand, the courts are entitled to expect complete
honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them, while a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his clients
right and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his clients cause, his conduct must never be at the
expense of truth.
The act of offering false evidence may consist of a lawyer taking the witness stand to testify falsely,
introducing in evidence a false document; or presenting a couched witness to give false testimony. Any such act may
require discipline, irrespective of the materiality or immateriality of the untruthful statement or false document to the
issued at hand, which question may only be decisive in determining what disciplinary sanction may be imposed. A
lawyer who testifies falsely, as in his personal circumstances violates his oath as a lawyer. The fact that he is acting
as a witness and not as a lawyer will not free him from the disciplinary authority of the court for such false
testimony.
A lawyer violates his oath where he committed falsification of a Deed of Sale and introduced the same as
evidence to prosecute his clients cause. His first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice.
To hold a lawyer disciplinary liable for offering a false document in evidence in a case requires that the
document be spurious, the lawyer knew such infirmity and despite such knowledge he nonetheless presented it as
evidence in court. If these requisites are present, the fact that the parties in the case admitted the due execution and
authenticity of the document does not preclude disciplinary action against a lawyer for offering it in evidence since
the admission is a private matter that constitutes no obstacles to disbarment proceeding. The absence of allegation
and proof of such requisites make the charge against him fail.

16.16 Blackmail; Violation of Canon 19

Blackmail or violation of Canon 19 is a ground for disciplinary action. In Pena v. Aparicio

Blackmail is the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in
the public prints,obtaining of value of person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation against him,
or disclosing some secret calculated to operate his prejudice. It is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion, the
exaction of money either for the performance of duty, the prevention of an injury or the exercise of an influence. Not
infrequently, it is extorted by threats or by operating on the fears of or the credulity or by promises to conceal or
offers to expose the weaknesses, the follies or the crime of the victim.

Violation of Canon 19 and Rule 19.0 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is also a ground for
disciplinary action. The court in Pena v. Aparicio, explained:
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional responsibility states that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law, reminding legal practitioners that a lawyers duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his client success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. Rulen19.01 commands that a lawyer employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Under this rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases
against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw
their own cases against the lawyers client.