Title
Bukidnon Cooperative Bank vs. Arnado
Case
A.C. No. 12734
Decision Date
Jul 28, 2020
A lawyer was reprimanded for submitting altered evidence without verification, despite the complainant's withdrawal, highlighting the duty of candor and diligence in legal practice.
A

Case Digest (A.C. No. 12734)

Facts:

Bukidnon Cooperative Bank engaged Asiatique International Travel & Tours Services to secure hotel accommodations and airline tickets for its board and employees’ trip to Singapore in November 2013. The bank advanced a payment of P244,640.00 to Mr. Noel Encabo, the owner of Asiatique International. However, due to unconfirmed accommodations, the bank canceled the trip and sought a refund, which Mr. Encabo denied, alleging that the cancellation occurred after the issuance of non-refundable airplane tickets issued by Cebu Pacific Airline. In the pre-trial stage, Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado, representing Mr. Encabo, submitted four electronic tickets for pre-marking as exhibits. Notably, two of these tickets lacked booking reference numbers and, upon verification by a VIA Philippines representative during trial, it was testified that the tickets had been altered—the ones missing reference numbers were not genuine, while the others corresponded to different schedules, airlines, and passengers. The bank consequently filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Arnado for failing to verify the authenticity of the submitted evidence before introducing it in court. Although Atty. Arnado asserted that he acted in good faith, relying on his client’s affidavit and claiming no expertise in authenticating electronic documents, his carelessness was at the core. Ultimately, despite Bukidnon Cooperative’s withdrawal of some administrative actions, the disciplinary proceeding could not be extinguished by the complainant’s desistance alone.

Issues:

  • Whether Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado was negligent in failing to properly examine the authenticity of the electronic tickets submitted for pre-marking, thus potentially misleading the court.
  • Whether his claim of good faith and lack of expertise in authenticating such documents can excuse his duty of candor and the responsibility expected of him as an officer of the court, especially in light of his professional oath.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.