Case Digest (A.C. No. 716)
Facts:
Eduardo J. Berenguer v. Pedro B. Carranza, Adm. Case No. 716, January 30, 1969, Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Eduardo J. Berenguer, filed an administrative complaint on July 15, 1966, accusing respondent Pedro B. Carranza, a duly admitted lawyer, of deceiving the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon by introducing in evidence an Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer that contained a false statement. The affidavit, sworn to by the mother of Carranza’s client, declared that the decedent left no other heirs except the affiant, when in fact the decedent was survived by four other daughters and one son (the father of the complainant). The affidavit was offered in a cadastral proceeding (Cadastral Case No. 2, LRC Cadastral Record No. 869) in Sorsogon.
Pursuant to the Court’s resolution of July 22, 1966, respondent filed an answer on August 17, 1966, denying participation in the preparation of the petition or the affidavit, and asserting that both documents were prepared and sworn in Pasay City and later posted to the Clerk of Court in Sorsogon. By resolution of September 1, 1966, the matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General, Hon. Antonio Barredo, after hearings and review, filed a report dated March 18, 1968: he found no direct evidence that Carranza prepared the documents or wilfully caused the false statement, yet concluded that Carranza had shown a lack of due diligence by failing to read the affidavit in full and should have cleared up inconsistencies in view of the family litigation involving succession rights.
Acting on that recommendation, the Solicitor General and an Assistant Solicitor General filed a formal complaint on March 18, 1968, charging Carranza with violation of his oath of office and citing Rule 138 (the oath provision and related disciplinary rules) for the appropriate sanction. Respondent answered on May 16, 1968, admitting the facts but asserting that his oversight was inadvertent, that he had no hand in preparing the documents, and that there was no opposition or contest at the cadastral hearing that would have required meticulous s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Pedro B. Carranza guilty of wilfully consenting to or causing a falsehood in court?
- If there was no wilful deceit, does a lawyer’s failure to exercise due diligence (inadvertence or inattention) that results in introducing false evidence nonetheless warrant disciplinary sanction?
- If sanction is warranted, what discipline is appropr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)