Facts:

The case involves Adez Realty, Incorporated as the petitioner and several respondents, including the Honorable Court of Appeals, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 79 in Morong, Rizal, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, the Register of Deeds in Quezon City, and Aguedo Eugenio. The events leading to this case began with a petition for the reconstitution of title over a parcel of land, which was filed by Adez Realty. The case was initially heard in the RTC, where the court's decision was later appealed to the Court of Appeals. On August 14, 1992, the Supreme Court directed Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, the counsel for Adez Realty, to show cause why he should not face disciplinary action for allegedly intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the lower court, which could mislead the Supreme Court and alter its factual findings. In his explanation dated September 1, 1992, Atty. Dacanay claimed that the error was due to his secretary's mistake w...

Facts:

HEADER: Background of the Case
The case originated from a petition for reconstitution of title over a parcel of land. Adez Realty, Inc. filed the petition, citing Section 13 of R.A. 26, which requires notice to be given to occupants or persons in possession of the property.

HEADER: Discovery of the Issue
In its Resolution dated August 14, 1992, the Supreme Court directed Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, counsel for petitioner Adez Realty, Inc., to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the Court of Appeals. This alteration aimed to mislead the Court to obtain a favorable judgment.

HEADER: Atty. Dacanay’s Explanation
Atty. Dacanay admitted that he dictated the petition to his secretary and instructed her to copy portions of the Court of Appeals decision. He claimed that the intercalation was a mistake made by his secretary due to distractions from other pleadings. His secretary, Alicia A. Castro, submitted an affidavit stating that she copied the decision as instructed but only realized the mistake after receiving the Supreme Court’s decision.

HEADER: Court’s Initial Reaction
Upon receipt of Atty. Dacanay’s explanation, the First Division referred the case to the Court En Banc for further deliberation due to the potential disciplinary action against a member of the Bar.

Issue:

The primary issue was whether Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay should be disciplinarily dealt with for intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, thereby altering its factual findings with the apparent purpose of misleading the Supreme Court to obtain a favorable judgment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)