CUARESMA V. DAQUIS (G.R. No.

35113, March 25, 1975) (63 SCRA 257)

FACTS: Marcelo Daquis entered into a conditional contract of sale of lot. Eugenio Cuaresma is one of the
occupants in the said lot in question. Later, Marcelo Daquis instituted a Civil Case for writ of possession.
Judge Pacifico de Castro issued an order of demolition of the house of Eugenio Cuaresma. Atty. Macario
Directo, on behalf of Eugenio Cuaresma filed a petition for certiorari alleging that Cuaresma has no
knowledge of the existence of the Civil Case. On the other hand, Daquis maintained that Cuaresma was
fully aware of the existence of said civil case having filed a motion for intervention thereof. When asked
by the Court to show cause why no serious disciplinary action should be taken against him for
deliberately making false allegations in such petition, Atty. Directo contends that all he wanted to convey
was that the petitioner’s knowledge of the aforesaid civil case came only after the decision was issued.

ISSUE: Whether or not a serious disciplinary action should be taken against Atty. Marcelo Directo.

HELD: YES. The Canon of Professional Responsibility commands every lawyer not to do falsehood nor
mislead or allow court to be misled in making their pleadings. Any violation of this canon is a ground for
disciplinary action. In the instant case, in as much as the assumption goes with good faith, Atty. Directo is
deemed to have acted with such. However, a reprimand would suffice that Atty. Directo should be much
more careful in the preparation of his pleadings so as not to cast doubt to his honesty. Every member of
the bar should realize that candor in the dealings with the Court is of the very essence of honourable
membership in the profession.