VOL.

215,OCTOBER30,1992 301
Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 100643.October 30, 1992.

ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 79,
Morong, Rizal, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, Morong,
Rizal, REGISTER OF DEEDS, Quezon City, and AGUEDO
EUGENIO, respondents.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Code of Professional Responsibility;

Disbarment; The legal profession demands that lawyers thoroughly go over
pleadings, motions and other documents dictated or prepared by them,
typed or transcribed by their secretaries or clerks before filing them with the
court.––It is the bounden duty of lawyers to check, review and recheck the
allegations in their pleadings, more particularly the quoted portions, and
ensure that the statements therein are accurate and the reproductions
faithful, down to the last word and even punctuation mark. The legal
profession demands that lawyers thoroughly go over pleadings, motions and
other documents dictated or prepared by them, typed or transcribed by their
secretaries

_______________

* EN BANC.

302

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals

or clerks, before filing them with the court. If a client is bound by the acts of
his counsel, with more reason should counsel be bound by the acts of his
secretary who merely follows his orders.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel or the text of a decision or authority or knowingly cite as
a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.––The distortion of facts
committed by counsel, with the willing assistance of his secretary, is a grave
offense and should not be treated lightly, not only because it may set a
dangerous precedent but, rather, because it is a clear and serious violation of
one’s oath as a member of the Bar. Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter III, of the
Code of Professional Responsibility directs that “[a] lawyer shall not
knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or
the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or
knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal
or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the
text of a court decision constitutes willful disregard of the lawyer’s solemn
duty to act at all times in a manner consistent with the truth.––Misquoting
or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision constitutes willful
disregard of the lawyer’s solemn duty to act at all times in a manner
consistent with the truth. A lawyer should never venture to mislead the court
by false statements or quotations of facts or laws. Thus, in Bautista v.
Gonzales, We suspended respondent for six (6) months for, among others,
submitting to the lower court falsified documents, representing them to be
true copies. In Chavez v. Viola, We suspended respondent counsel for five
(5) months after he filed an Amended Application for Original Registration
of Title which contained false statements.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay found guilty of
intercalating a material fact in a judicial decision elevated to the Court on
certiorari.––WHEREFORE, We find ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY,
counsel for petitioner, guilty of intercalating a material fact in a judicial
Decision elevated to Us on certiorari, thereby altering its factual findings
with the apparent purpose, and no other, of misleading the Court in order to
obtain a favorable judgment, and thus miserably failing to live up to the
standards expected of him as a member of the Philippine Bar. Consequently,
ATTY. BENJAMIN M.

303

VOL.215,OCTOBER30,1992 303

Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals

DACANAY is hereby DISBARRED effective immediately from the practice

of law.

PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Benjamin M. Dacanay for petitioner.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

In Our Resolution of 14 August 1992, We directed ATTY.

BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel for petitioner Adez Realty,
Inc., to “SHOW CAUSE within five (5) days from notice why he
should not be disciplinarily dealt with for intercalating
1
a material
fact in the judgment of the court a quo thereby altering and
modifying its factual findings with the apparent purpose of
misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and
thus failing to live up to the standards expected of a member of the
Bar.”
In his EXPLANATION of 1 September 1992, Atty. Benjamin M.
Dacanay “humbly prostrates himself before the Honorable Court and
throws himself at its mercy,” and explains that––

“x x x whenever he prepares petitions either for the Court of Appeals or the

Supreme Court, he dictates to his secretary and if portions of the decision or
order to be appealed from have to be quoted, he simply instructs his said
secretary to copy the particular pages of the said decision or order.
“In the case at bar, he did instruct his secretary to copy the corresponding
pages in the decision of the Court of Appeals. Somehow, however, some
words were intercalated on a particular paragraph noted by the Honorable
Court he regrettably is at a loss to explain. He remembers, however, that at
the time he was preparing the petition at bar there were other pleadings
necessitating equal if not preferential attention from him which could
perhaps be the reason why his secretary committed a very grievous mistake.
Such mistake though he does

_______________

1 See Decision of the Twelfth Division, Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 23773, prom.
30 April 1991; Rollo, pp. 51-55.

304

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals

2
not condone and he feels upset at the turn of events.”
3
Attached to his EXPLANATION as Annex “A” is an Affidavit of
Alicia A. Castro, purportedly his Secretary, stating among others
that––

“3.x x x in the preparation of the petition for review on certiorari filed with
the Supreme Court, it was Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay who dictated to me
the contents of said petition;
“4.x x x in the preparation of the petition, he told me, as he is wont to do
whenever he prepares a petition, to copy the particular pages in the decision
of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 23773 entitled ‘Adez Realty,
Inc., petitioner versus The Hon. Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Morong, Rizal, Branch 79 (not 89 as stated in the Affidavit), et al.,
respondents’;
“5.x x x when I copied the particular pages of the decision of the Court
of Appeals as instructed by Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, I did as instructed,
but it was only after our office received the copy of the decision of the
Supreme Court in G.R. No. 100643 x x x that Atty. Dacanay confronted me
and asked me where I got that portion which was added to the particular
paragraph noted by the Supreme Court; that it was only then that I realized
the mistake I committed;
xxxx
“7.x x x I surmise that the error could have been due to the fact that
ADEZ REALTY, Inc. has so many cases being handled by the law office
that I presume I could have copied or my intention was distracted by other
pleadings atop my table at the time.”

Upon receipt of the EXPLANATION of counsel, the First Division

referred his case en consulta to the Court En Banc which accepted
and took cognizance of it in view of the possible sanction that may
be imposed on a member of the Bar.
After due deliberation, the Court En Banc brushed off as simply
unsatisfactory and incredible counsel’s explanation that it was his
secretary who committed the mistake. This “passingthe-buck”4 stance
of counsel was already aptly treated in Adaza v. Barinaga, where
the Court observed thus––

_______________

2 Rollo, p. 93.
3 Annex “A”, EXPLANATION; Rollo, p. 96.
4 Adm. Case No. 1604, May 29, 1981; 104 SCRA 684, and the

305

VOL.215,OCTOBER30,1992 305
Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals

“Making the law office secretary, clerk or messenger the scapegoat or patsy
for the delay in the filing of pleadings, motions and other papers and for the
lawyer’s dereliction of duty is a common alibi of practising lawyers. Like
the alibi of the accused in criminal cases, counsel’s shifting of the blame to
his office employee is usually a concoction utilized to cover up his own
negligence, incompetence, indolence and ineptitude.”

The case of petitioner is no better; it can be worse. For, how could

the secretary have divined the phrase “without notice to the actual
occupants of the property, Adez Realty,” without counsel dictating it
word for word? Could it have been a providential mistake of the
secretary as it was very material, and on which could have hinged
the fate of a litigant’s cause? Whatever be the truth in this regard,
counsel cannot elude administrative responsibility which borders on
falsification of a judicial record to which, by his inveigling, he
unfortunately drags his secretary. Indeed, by no means can he evade
responsibility for the vicious intercalation as he admittedly dictated
and signed the petition.
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to check, review and recheck
the allegations in their pleadings, more particularly the quoted
portions, and ensure that the statements therein are accurate and the
reproductions faithful, down to the last word and even punctuation
mark. The legal profession demands that lawyers thoroughly go over
pleadings, motions and other documents dictated or prepared by
them, typed or transcribed by their secretaries or clerks, before filing
them with the court. If a client is bound by the acts of his counsel,
with more reason should counsel be 5bound by the acts of his
secretary who merely follows his orders.
The instant case originated from a petition for reconstitution of
title over a parcel of land. Section 13 of R.A. 26, in relation to Sec.
12 of the same statute, on which petitioner bases one of his causes of
action, provides among others that notice should be given to the
occupants or persons in possession of the property. cases cited
therein.

_______________

5 See Baring v. Cabahug, No. L-23229, July 20, 1967, 20 SCRA 696.

306

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals

Compliance therewith is a material requirement for granting a

petition for reconstitution of title. The inserted phrase “without
notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty,” was
just the right phrase intercalated at the right place, making it highly
improbable to be unintentionally, much less innocently, committed;
and by the secretary at that. All circumstances herein simply but
strongly sustain Our belief. Certainly, making it appear that
respondent Court of Appeals found that no notice was given to the
occupants of subject property––when in fact it did not make such a
finding––is a clear indication not merely of carelessness in lifting a
portion of the assailed decision but a malicious attempt to gain
undue advantage in the sporting arena of fairplay and, more
importantly, to deceive and misguide this Court, which is the final
arbiter of litigations.
Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that, save in
certain instances, factual 6 findings of the Court of Appeals are
binding upon this Court. The distortion of facts committed by
counsel, with the willing assistance of his secretary, is a grave
offense and should not be treated lightly, not only because it may set
a dangerous precedent but, rather, because it is a clear and serious
violation of one’s oath as a member of the Bar. Rule 10.02, Canon
10, Chapter III, of the Code of Professional Responsibility directs
that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a
law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved”
(Italics supplied).
Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision
constitutes willful disregard of the lawyer’s solemn duty to act at all
times in a manner consistent with the truth. A lawyer should never
venture to mislead the court by false statements 7 or quotations of
facts or laws. Thus, in Bautista v. Gonzales, We suspended
respondent for six (6) months for,

________________

6 Austria v. People, G.R. No. 83530, December 18, 1990, 192 SCRA 342.
7 Adm. Matter No. 1625, February 12, 1990, 182 SCRA 151.

307
 VOL.215,OCTOBER30,1992 307
Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals

among others, submitting to the lower court falsified documents, 8

representing them to be true copies. In Chavez v. Viola, We
suspended respondent counsel for five (5) months after he filed an
Amended Application for Original Registration of Title which
contained false statements.
The case at bar, although akin to the aforementioned cases, has
more serious and far-reaching repercussions. Those who attempt to
misguide this Court, the last forum for appeal, should be dealt with
more severely lest We be made unwilling instruments of inequity
and injustice. Indeed, counsel has demonstrated his wanton
disregard for truth and fairplay even before the Highest Court of the
land. Worse, he compounded his unprofessional mischief by laying
the blame on his hapless secretary whose duty it was simply to obey
him.
It is well to repeat, perhaps to the point of satiety, what We have
already said––

“x x x that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of
those requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. It cannot be
gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential for the
expeditious administration of justice x x x x A lawyer, on the other hand,
has the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation. Otherwise, the
administration of justice would gravely suffer x x x x It is essential that
lawyers bear in mind at all times that their duty is not to their clients but
rather to the courts, that they are above all x x x sworn to assist the courts in
rendering justice to all and sundry, and only secondarily are they advocates
of the exclusive interests of their clients. For this reason, he is required
9
to
swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.”

WHEREFORE, We find ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel

for petitioner, guilty of intercalating a material fact in a judicial
Decision elevated to Us on certiorari, thereby altering

_______________

8 Adm. Case No. 2152, April 19, 1991; 196 SCRA 10.
9 Ibid, citing Casals v. Cusi, No. L-35766, July 12, 1973, 52 SCRA 58; and Panga
v. Ramos, Adm. Case No. 1053, September 7, 1979, 93 SCRA 87.

308

308 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals

its factual findings with the apparent purpose, and no other, of

misleading the Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and
thus miserably failing to live up to the standards expected of him as
a member of the Philippine Bar. Consequently, ATTY. BENJAMIN
 M. DACANAY is hereby DISBARRED effective immediately from the
practice of law.
Let copies of this Resolution be served personally on Atty.
Benjamin M. Dacanay at his given address at Mezzanine Floor,
WIL-VIC Building, 125 Kamias Road, Quezon City, entered upon
his personal records, and furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all the courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-

Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon,
Bellosillo, Melo and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.
Narvasa, (C.J.), On leave.

Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay disbarred from the practice of law

effective immediately.

Note.––Explanation given by respondent lawyer to the effect that

the failure is attributable to the negligence of his Secretary is devoid
of merit (Gutierrez vs. Zulueta, 187 SCRA 607).

–––––o0o––––––

309

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.