Case Summary (G.R. No. 100643)
Procedural Background
The Supreme Court, upon noticing an apparent intercalation in a petition for review on certiorari which quoted the Court of Appeals’ decision, directed counsel to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken. Atty. Dacanay submitted an Explanation claiming that he dictated the petition to his secretary, who copied particular pages of the Court of Appeals decision and, he alleged, inadvertently intercalated language. The secretary executed an affidavit acknowledging she copied the pages and later realized she had inserted the additional phrase; both explanations were considered by the Court en banc.
Allegation and nature of the falsification
Allegation and Nature of the Falsification
The petition for review contained an inserted phrase — “without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty” — within a quoted paragraph reflected as part of the Court of Appeals’ decision. That phrase materially altered the factual tenor of the quoted passage by creating the false impression that the Court of Appeals had made a finding that no notice had been given to occupants, which is a determinative factual element in reconstitution proceedings under R.A. No. 26.
Counsel’s explanation and the secretary’s affidavit
Counsel’s Explanation and the Secretary’s Affidavit
Atty. Dacanay explained that he dictated the petition to his secretary and that she copied the relevant pages; he asserted he could not explain how the phrase became intercalated and suggested other competing deadlines might have distracted his secretary. The secretary’s affidavit recounted that she copied the pages as instructed but later, when confronted after the Supreme Court’s release, admitted the extra portion had been included and surmised distraction due to multiple matters in the office.
Court’s assessment of the proffered explanation
Court’s Assessment of the Proffered Explanation
The Court en banc found the “secretary did it” defense unsatisfactory and incredible. It treated the blaming of office staff as a common and unacceptable alibi for counsel’s negligence, citing precedent where such shifting of blame was condemned. The Court emphasized the improbability that the exact materially significant phrase would be devised or inserted by a secretary without direction, and stressed that counsel had dictated and signed the petition, thus bearing ultimate responsibility for its contents.
Applicable law and ethical standards (1987 Constitution basis)
Applicable Law and Ethical Standards (1987 Constitution Basis)
Because the decision was rendered in 1992, the Court applied standards under the 1987 Constitution as the governing constitutional framework. The Court relied on the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 10, Rule 10.02) prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly misquoting or misrepresenting the contents of a decision or asserting as fact that which has not been proved. The Court reiterated the lawyer’s primary duty to the courts and to the administration of justice, and noted statutory requirements under R.A. No. 26 (Secs. 12 and 13) that notice to occupants is a material prerequisite in reconstitution of title proceedings.
Precedents and comparative disciplinary outcomes
Precedents and Comparative Disciplinary Outcomes
The Court placed the case within its existing disciplinary jurisprudence. It cited prior suspensions where counsel submitted falsified documents or made false statements (e.g., Bautista v. Gonzales — six months suspension; Chavez v. Viola — five months suspension) and referenced other relevant disciplinary authorities and decisions rejecting the “secretary” excuse. The Court concluded that the present conduct was comparable to, and in some respects more egregious than, those cases because it involved deliberate distortion of a judicial decision presented to the Supreme Court.
Rationale for the severity of sanction
Rationale for the Severity of Sanction
The Court underscored that falsification or deliberate misquotation of judicial records intended to mislead the highest tribunal undermines the integrity of the judicial process and the administration of justice. A lawyer’s repeated oath to do no falsehood and to assist courts in rendering justice imposes a strict duty of candor. Given counsel’s dictation and signature on the petition, the mater
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 100643)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 289 Phil. 766, En Banc, G.R. No. 100643; Resolution promulgated October 30, 1992.
- Case presented to the Court En Banc by way of a Resolution of 14 August 1992 directing Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay to show cause within five days why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with.
- The matter arose from a petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court from Decision of the Twelfth Division, Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 23773, prom. April 30, 1991 (referenced in the rollo, pp. 51-55).
- The First Division referred counsel's Explanation en consulta to the Court En Banc in view of the possible sanction to be imposed on a member of the Bar; the Court En Banc accepted and took cognizance.
Nature and Origin of the Underlying Litigation
- The underlying litigation involved a petition for reconstitution of title over a parcel of land.
- Petitioner relied in part on Section 13 of R.A. 26, in relation to Section 12 of the same statute, as a basis for one of its causes of action.
- Section 13, in relation to Section 12, provides among others that notice should be given to the occupants or persons in possession of the property; compliance with this requirement is material for granting a petition for reconstitution of title.
Allegation of Misconduct — Specific Alteration Identified
- The core allegation was that counsel intercalated a material fact in the judgment of the court a quo, thereby altering and modifying its factual findings with the apparent purpose of misleading the Supreme Court to obtain a favorable judgment.
- The specific intercalation identified and condemned by the Court was the inserted phrase: "without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," which purportedly made it appear that the Court of Appeals found that no notice was given to the occupants when, in fact, it did not so find.
- The Court found that the inserted phrase was highly material to the statutory requirement and that its placement was "just the right phrase intercalated at the right place," making unintentional or innocent commission by the secretary highly improbable.
Explanation Submitted by Counsel (Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay)
- In his Explanation dated 1 September 1992, counsel "humbly prostrates himself before the Honorable Court and throws himself at its mercy."
- Counsel explained his usual practice: when preparing petitions for the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, he dictates to his secretary and, if portions of a decision or order have to be quoted, he instructs his secretary to copy the particular pages of the decision or order.
- He stated that in the instant case he did instruct his secretary to copy the corresponding pages in the decision of the Court of Appeals, but regrettably some words were intercalated in a particular paragraph and he was "at a loss to explain" how that occurred.
- Counsel attributed the mistake to pressure of other pleadings requiring his attention, suggesting that his secretary could have committed the "very grievous mistake" in that context, while expressly stating he did not condone the mistake and felt upset at the turn of events.
- Counsel admitted that he dictated and signed the petition.
Affidavit of Secretary (Alicia A. Castro) — Annex "A"
- Attached to the Explanation as Annex "A" was an affidavit of Alicia A. Castro, purportedly counsel's secretary, averring:
- She was dictated to by Atty. Dacanay in the preparation of the petition for review on certiorari.
- She was instructed to copy particular p