G.R. No.

100643 October 30, 1992

ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED, petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 79, Morong, Rizal,
PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, Morong, Rizal, REGISTER OF DEEDS, Quezon City, and
AGUENDO EUGENIO, respondents.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM :

In Our Resolution of 14 August 1992, We directed ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel for
petitioner Adez Realty, Inc., to "SHOW CAUSE within five (5) days from notice why he should
not be disciplinary dealt with for intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the court a
quo 1 thereby altering and modifying its factual findings with the apparent purpose of misleading
this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus failing to live up to the standards
expected of a member of the Bar.

In his EXPLANATION of 1 September 1992, Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay "humbly prostrates

himself before the Honorable Court and throws himself at its mercy," and explains that —

. . . whenever he prepares petitioners either for the Court of Appeals or the

Supreme Court, he dictates to his secretary and if portions of the decision or
order to be appealed from have to be quoted, he simply instructs his said
secretary to copy the particular pages of the said decision or order.

In the case at bar, he did instruct his secretary to copy the corresponding pages
in the decision of the Court of Appeals. Somehow, however, some words were
intercalated on a particular paragraph noted by the Honorable Court he
regrettably is at a loss to explain. He remembers, however, that at the time he
was preparing the petition at bar there were other pleadings necessitating equal
if not preferential attention from him which could perhaps be the reason why his
secretary committed a very grievous mistake, Such mistake though he does not
condone and he feel upset at the turn of events. 2

Attached to his EXPLANATION as Annex "A" is an Affidavit 3 of Alicia A. Castro, purportedly his
Secretary, stating among others that —

3. . . . in the preparation of the petition for review on certiorari filed with the

Supreme Court, it was Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay who dictated to me the
contents of said petition;

4. . . . in the preparation of the petition, he told me, as he is wont to do whenever

he prepares a petition, to copy the particular pages in the decision of the Court of
Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 23773 entitled "Adez Realty, Inc., petitioner versus
The Hon. Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, Branch 79 (not 89
as stated is the Affidavit), et al., respondents";
 5. . . . when I copied the particular pages of the decision of the Court of Appeals
as instructed by Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, I did as instructed, but it was only
after our office received the copy of the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R.
No. 100643 . . . that Atty. Dacanay confronted me and asked me where I got that
portion which was added to the particular paragraph noted by the Supreme
Court; that it was only then that I realized the mistake I committed;

xxx xxx xxx

7. . . . I surmise that the error could have been due to the fact that ADEZ
REALTY, Inc. has so many cases being handled by the law office that I presume
I could have copied or my intention was distracted by other pleadings atop my
table at the time.

Upon receipt of the EXPLANATION of counsel, the First Division referred his case en
consulta to the Court En Banc which accepted and took cognizance of it in view of the possible
sanction that may be imposed on a member of the Bar.

After due deliberation, the Court En Banc brushed off as simply unsatisfactory and incredible
counsel's explanation that it was his secretary who committed the mistake. This "passing-the-
buck" stance of counsel was already aptly treated in Adaza v. Barinaga, 4 where the Court
observed thus —

Making the law office secretary, clerk or messenger the scapegoat or patsy for
the delay in filing of pleading, motion and other paper and for the lawyer's
dereliction of duty is a common alibi of practicing lawyer. Like the alibi of the
accused in criminal cases, counsel's shifting of the blame to his office employee
is usually a concoction utilized to cover up his own negligence, incompetence,
indolence and ineptitude.

The case of petitioner is no better; it can be worse. For, how could the secretary have divined
the phrase "without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," without counsel
dictating it word for word? Could it have been a providential mistake of the secretary as it was
very material, and on which could have hinged the fate of a litigant's cause? Whatever be the
truth in this regard, counsel cannot elude administrative responsibility which borders on
falsification of a judicial record to which, by his inveigling, he unfortunately drags his secretary.
Indeed, by no means can he evade responsibility for the vicious intercalation as he admittedly
dictated and signed the petition.

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to check, review and recheck the allegation in their pleadings,
more particularly the quoted portions, and ensure that the statements therein are accurate and
the reproductions faithful, down to the last word and even punctuation mark. The legal
profession demands that lawyers thoroughly go over pleadings, motions and other documents
dictated or prepared by them, type or transcribed by their secretaries or clerks, before filing
them with the court. If a client is bound by the acts of his counsel, with more reason should
counsel be bound the acts of his secretary who merely follow his orders. 5

The instant case originate from a petition for reconstitution of title over a parcel of land. Section
13 of R.A. 26, in relation to Sec. 12 of the same statute, on which petitioner bases one of his
causes of action, provides among others that notice should be given to the occupants or
persons in possession of the property. Compliance therewith is a material requirement for
granting a petition for reconstitution of title. The inserted phase "without notice to the actual
occupants of the property, Adez Realty," was just the right phrase intercalated at the right place,
making it highly improbable to be unintentionally, much less innocently, committed; and by the
secretary a that. All circumstances herein simply but strongly sustain Our belief. Certainly,
making it appear that respondent Court of Appeals found that no notice was given to the
occupants of subject property –– when in fact it did not make such a finding –– is a clear
indication not merely of carelessness in lifting a portion of the assailed decision but a malicious
attempt to gain undue advantage in the sporting arena of fairplay and, more importantly, to
deceive and misguide this Court, which is the final arbiter of litigations.

Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that, save in certain instances, factual findings
of the Court of Appeals are binding upon this Court. 6 The distortion of facts committed by
counsel, with the willing assistance of his secretary, is a grave offense and should not be
treated lightly, not only because it may set a dangerous precedent by, rather, because it is a
clear and serious violation of one's oath as member of the Bar. Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter
III, of the Code of Professional Responsibility directs that "[a] lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been
proved" (Emphasis supplied).

Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision constitutes willful disregard of
the lawyer's solemn duty to act at all times in manner consistent with the truth. A lawyer should
never venture to mislead the court by false statements or quotations of facts or laws. Thus,
in Bautista v. Gonzales, 7 We suspended respondent for six (6) months for, among other
submitting to the lower court falsified documents, representing them to the true copies.
In Chavez v. Viola, 8 We suspend respondent counsel for five (5) months after he filed an
Amended Application for Original Registration of Title which contained false statements.

The case at bar, although akin to the aforementioned cases, has more serious and far-reaching
repercussions. Those who attempt to misguide this Court, the last forum for appeal, should be
dealt with more severely lest We be made unwilling instruments of inequity and injustice.
Indeed, counsel has demonstrated his wanton disregard for truth and fairplay even before the
Highest Court of the land. Worse, he compounded his unprofessional mischief by laying the
blame on his hapless secretary whose duty is was simply to obey him.

It is well to repeat, perhaps to the point of satiety, what We have already said —

. . . that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on
those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications
required by law for the conferment of such privilege. On of those requirement is
the observance of honesty and candor. It cannot be gainsaid that candidness,
especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious administration of
justice . . . A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that
expectation. Otherwise, the administration of justice would gravely suffer . . . It is
essential that lawyers bear in mind at all times that their duty is not to their clients
but rather to the courts, that they are above all . . . sworn to assist the courts in
rendering justice to all and sundry, and only secondarily are they advocates of
 the exclusive interest of their clients. For this reason, he is required to swear to
do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court. 9

WHEREFORE, We find ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel for petitioner, guilty of

intercalating a material fact in a judicial Decision elevated to Us on certiorari, thereby altering its
factual findings with the apparent purpose, and no other, of misleading the Court in order to
obtain a favorable judgment, and thus miserably failing to live up to the standards expected of
him as a members of the Philippines Bar. Consequently, ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY is
hereby DISBARRED effective immediately from the practice of law.

Let copies of this Resolution be served personally on Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay at his given
address at Mezzanine Floor, WIL-VIC Building, 125 Kamias Road, Quezon City, entered upon
his personal records, and furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all the courts
throughout the country.

SO ORDERED.