G.R. No. 100643 - Adez Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Adez Realty, Inc. filed a petition for reconstitution of title over a parcel of land.
The petition was based on Section 13 of R.A. 26, and Section 12 thereof, requiring among other things that notice should be given to occupants or persons in possession of the property. Compliance with this notice requirement is material for granting the petition.

Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, counsel for Adez Realty, filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The Court noticed that a material phrase — "without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," — was intercalated in the quoted portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals. This altered the factual findings of the lower court.
The inserted phrase was critical because the Court of Appeals had not made such a finding regarding notice to occupants.

Atty. Dacanay claimed that he had his secretary copy portions of the Court of Appeals decision verbatim. He professed ignorance on how the phrase was inserted, attributing it to a possible mistake by his secretary, who may have been distracted by other pleadings.
Alicia A. Castro, purportedly his secretary, submitted an affidavit confirming the dictation and copying process. She admitted the inclusion of the phrase was a mistake on her part, possibly due to multiple cases handled simultaneously.
Upon confronting the secretary, Atty. Dacanay learned about the unauthorized insertion only after the Supreme Court's scrutiny.

The Supreme Court En Banc did not accept the secretary’s mistake as a valid excuse, terming it an attempt to "pass the buck" and a common alibi for lawyers covering up negligence or ineptitude.
The Court noted that the material phrase could not have been inserted innocently or unknowingly by the secretary, as it was highly relevant and capable of influencing the case’s outcome.
The counsel’s duty to carefully review and ensure accuracy of pleadings is emphatically stressed. The secretary acts under counsel’s orders, and counsel bears full responsibility.
The Court stated that intercalating a material fact to mislead the Court, especially the Supreme Court, is a grave violation of a lawyer’s oath and ethical standards.

Whether Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay committed professional misconduct by intercalating a material fact in a judicial decision contained in his petition for review on certiorari.
Whether the explanation of a secretary’s mistake absolves the lawyer of responsibility.
Appropriate penalty for the lawyer’s act if found guilty of falsification of a judicial record and dishonesty in court practice.