ADEZ REALTY v.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

GR No. 100643, Oct 30, 1992
Per Curiam
FACTS:

As a matter of practice in the preparation of petitions, Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay dictates to his
secretary their content. While when portions of a decision or an order are to be quoted, Atty.
Dacanay simply instructs his secretary to copy the corresponding pages of the said decision or
order.

The instant case originates from a petition from Adez Realty, represented by Atty. Dacanay. It is
a petition for reconstitution of title over a parcel of land in which it was noted by the supreme
court that an apparent misquotation of the text of the Court of Appeals Decision was made.

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 requirement for granting a
petition for reconstitution of title.

The inserted phrase "without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," was
found to be made as just the right phrase added at the right section, making it improbable to be
unintentionally or innocently committed by the secretary who assisted Atty. Dacanay in the
preparation of said petition.

The Supreme Court issued a show cause order to Atty. Dacanay to explain why he should not be
disciplinary dealt with for the intercalation of material fact in the subject petition.

In response, he maintained that by accident, his secretary injected some words in a particular
section of a paragraph in a text of the Court Decision by the Court of Appeals. This was
corroborated by the affidavit executed by his secretary who takes responsibility for the mistake.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay is to be held liable for the acts of his secretary
when the latter merely acts under the order and instructions of his superior; and

(2) whether or not Atty. Dacanay violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 10.02,
Canon 10, Chapter III thereof, i.e. Misquoting or Intercalating Phrases in Text of Court Decision.

RULING:

1. Atty. Dacanay is bound by the acts of his secretary as much as his clients are bound by his
acts. The supreme court dismissed his explanation as unbelievable regardless of the admission
made by the secretary that it was his own doing. 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 allegations 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, typed 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 by the acts of his secretary who merely follows his orders.

2. Atty Dacanay is guilty of intercalating a material fact in a judicial decision with the intent to
mislead the Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus miserably failing to live up to
the standards expected of him as a member of the Philippine Bar. Atty. Dacanay was disbarred
from the practice of law.