Use of Altered or Falsified Evidence

7/26/2019 Use of Altered or Falsified Evidence

1/36

Page 1of 36

Problem reas in Legal Ethics

C SES

Use of altered/falsi f ied evidenc e

Valencia v. Antiniw(AC Nos. 1302, 1391, 1543) Decision En Banc April 26, 1991; Decision EnBanc June 30, 2008

Adez Realty Inc. v. Court of Appeals(GR 100643, Benjamin M. Dacanay) Resolution First

Division August 14, 1992; Resolution En Banc October 30, 1992; Resolution En BancDecember 12, 1995

Sambajon v. Suing(AC No. 7062) Decision Third Division September 26, 2006

Balaoing v. Calderon(AM No. RTJ-90-580); Balaoing v. Maliwanag(AM No. RTJ-676)Decision En Banc April 27, 1993

Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel(GR No. L-27072) Resolution En Banc

January 9, 1970

Villaflor v. Sarita(AC No. CBD No. 471) Resolution En Banc June 10, 1999

Maligaya v. Doronilla(AC No. 6198) Resolution Second Division September 15, 2006


2/36

Page 2of 36

Valencia v. Antiniw(AC Nos. 1302, 1391, 1543) Decision En Banc April 26, 1991;Decision En Banc June 30, 2008

EN BANC

[A.C. NO. 13021,A.C. No. 1391

2,A.C. No. 1543

3: June 30, 2008]

CONSTANCIA L. VALENCIA, Complainant, v.ATTY. DIONISIO C. ANTINIW, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. :

This is an appeal for reinstatement to the Bar of respondent Dionisio C. Antiniw.

The record shows that respondent was disbarred and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys on April 26, 1991 ina consolidated Decision

4of this Court, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring: 1. Dionisio Antiniw DISBARRED from the practice of law, andhis name is ordered stricken off from the roll of attorneys; 2. Arsenio Fer Cabanting SUSPENDED from the practice oflaw for six months from finality of this judgment; and 3. Administrative Case No. 1391 against Atty. EduardoJovellanos and additional charges therein, and Administrative Case No. 1543 DISMISSED.

In the aforesaid consolidated Decision, respondent was found guilty of malpractice in falsifying a notarized deed ofsale and subsequently introducing the same as evidence for his client in court.

Respondent's motion for reconsideration of the consolidated decision disbarring him was denied by the Resolution ofAugust 26, 1993.

5In the same Resolution, the Court also held with respect to respondent's plea for mercy and

compassion that:

x x x the same is merely NOTED until such time as he would have been able to satisfactorily show contrition andproof of his being again worthy of membership in the legal profession.

Subsequently, in a Manifestation dated September 17, 1993,6respondent proffered his apologies to the Court for his

shortcomings as a legal practitioner asserting that if there was an offense or oversight committed against the legalprofession, it was due to his sincere belief that he was doing it honestly to protect the interest of his client. Hepleaded that, pending his submission of proof showing that he is again worthy of membership in the Bar, he bepermitted to continue with his notarial work. In a Resolution dated October 19, 1993,

7the Court denied respondent's

plea in the aforesaid Manifestation.

On January 4, 1994, respondent filed a Petition dated December 8, 19938praying for leave to submit proof of his

being again worthy to be re-admitted to the legal profession. Attached to the Petition were testimonials, affidavits andsworn certifications of known and outstanding members of his community at Urdaneta, Pangasinan, as well asmanifestos and resolutions of groups and associations representing various sectors thereat, all attesting to hishonesty, worthiness, respectability and competency as a lawyer and as an elected Board Member in Pangasinan. Ina Resolution dated January 27, 1994,

9the Court denied said petition. A Letter dated February 1, 1995

10which was

sent to the Court by Bishop Jesus C. Galang, D.D. of the Diocese of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, pleading forrespondent's reinstatement, was noted in the Court's Resolution dated March 14, 1995.

11

Respondent filed an Appeal for Reinstatement dated March 8, 1996,12

declaring that since his disbarment, he hadembarked on and actively participated in civic and humanitarian activities in the Fifth District of Pangasinan where hewas again elected for the third time as a Provincial Board Member and for which activities he received Plaques of

Appreciation and Recognition, Resolution/Letters, Awards and Commendations from local government officials ofPangasinan and different groups and associations in the province, all showing that he is worthy to once againpractice the legal profession. His appeal, however, was denied by the Resolution dated April 23, 1996.

13

On December 17, 1996, respondent filed a Plea for Re-Admission dated December 8, 1996,14

reiterating his earlier

plea for the lifting of his disbarment. The plea was also denied on January 28, 1997.15

On September 1, 1997, respondent again filed a Plea for Judicial Clemency and Reinstatement to the Bar dated

August 30, 1997,16

submitting in support thereof the favorable indorsements, letters and resolutions from thePangasinan Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); the Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courtsat Lingayen and Urdaneta, Pangasinan; the Provincial Prosecutor's Association of Pangasinan; Eastern PangasinanLawyer's League; the Provincial Board of Pangasinan; Rotary Club of Urdaneta; and the past National President ofthe IBP, Atty. Numeriano G. Tanopo Jr. The foregoing plea was merely noted by the Court on October 14, 1997.

17

The following year, respondent filed an Appeal dated July 8, 1998,18

reiterating therein his apologies to the Court andpromising that should he be given back his license to practice law, he will live up to the exacting standards of thelegal profession and abide by the Code of Professional Ethics and the Lawyer's Oath. Among the written proofs
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt1


3/36

Page 3of 36

appended to his appeal was the Letter dated June 18, 199819

from Bishop Galang, of the Diocese of Urdaneta,Pangasinan, wherein he reiterated his earlier plea for respondent's reinstatement.

In a Letter dated July 13, 199820

received by this Court on July 23, 1998, Bishop Galang withdrew his letter datedJuly 10, 1998 recommending respondent's reinstatement for being misled into signing the same.

Thereafter, respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion dated December 22, 1998,21

wherein he pointed out thatmore than seven (7) years had elapsed from the time of his disbarment and that others who were likewise disbarred

but for a shorter duration, namely Attys. Benjamin Grecia and Benjamin Dacanay,22

had already been reinstated tothe law profession. Among the attachments to respondent's Manifestation was Resolution No. 98-7c dated 6 July1998 issued by the IBP, Pangasinan Chapter, strongly indorsing respondent's plea for judicial clemency andreinstatement, and the letter dated June 18, 1998 from Bishop Galang supporting his reinstatement to the Bar.

In a Resolution dated February 9, 1999,23

the Court noted (a) the letters dated June 18, 1998 and July 13, 1998 ofBishop Galang; (b) Appeal dated July 8, 1998 and Manifestation and Motion dated December 22, 1998 both filed byrespondent. Respondent was also required to comment on Bishop Galang's letter dated July 13, 1998 within ten daysfrom notice.

In his Comments with Motion dated March 23, 1999,24

on Bishop Galang's letter dated July 13, 1998, respondentdenied the existence of a letter dated July 10, 1998 of Bishop Galang but acknowledged the existence of the letterdated June 18, 1998. Respondent averred that if the Bishop was indeed referring to the June 18, 1998 letter, henever misled or had any intention to mislead the bishop into signing the same. By its Resolution dated June 22,1999,

25the Court noted the aforesaid Comments with Motion of respondent

An Appeal Reiterating Earlier Petition, Appeal, Pleas and Motion for Reinstatement to the Bar dated August 28,1999

26was filed by the respondent on September 21, 1999. In a Resolution dated November 16, 1999,

27the Court

noted said appeal and denied for lack of merit respondent's prayer that his Plea for Judicial Clemency andReinstatement dated September 1, 1997 and Manifestation and Motion for Reinstatement dated December 22, 1998be approved and given due course.

Thereafter, respondent's wife, Manuela A. Antiniw, sent to the Court a Letter of Appeal dated February 7,2000,

28asking for clemency in behalf of her husband and affirming therein that her husband had for eight (8) years

continuously pleaded for his reinstatement and that he had submitted proof by way of testimonials of (a) his characterand standing prior to his disbarment, (b) his conduct subsequent to his disbarment, and (c) his efficient governmentservice. Attached to the letter of respondent's wife was a sworn testimonial of one of the complainants in theconsolidated administrative cases, Lydia Bernal, attesting to the respondent's character reformation. The aforesaidletter was noted by the Court in a Resolution dated 28 February 2000.

29

Respondent filed a Plea for Judicial Clemency and Reinstatement dated March 19, 2001,30

therein asserting that thelong period of his disbarment gave him sufficient time to soul-search and reflect on his professional conduct, redeem

himself, and prove once more that he would be able to practice law and at the same time uphold the dignity of thelegal profession. The Court, in its Resolution of June 26, 2001,

31denied the aforesaid plea.

By its Indorsement dated September 10, 2001,32

the Office of the Chief Justice referred to the Bar Confidant the letterdated August 24, 2001

33of Assistant Commissioner Jesse J. Caberoy of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)

requesting comment on the contention of respondent that the disbarment of a lawyer only prevents him frompracticing his profession and does not operate to divest him of his earned eligibility by passing the Bar examination.In a Letter dated September 20, 2001,

34respondent cited pertinent provisions of the Omnibus Rules Implementing

Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws in support of his aforementioned stand.The aforesaid Letters dated August 24, 2001 and September 20, 2001, of CSC Assistant Commissioner andrespondent, respectively, were noted by the Court's Resolution dated November 20, 2001.

35Likewise in said

Resolution, the letters were referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report andrecommendation.

In its Report and Recommendation dated January 25, 2002,36

the OBC opined that the eligibility vested in a

successful bar candidate would not be prejudiced or forfeited by his disbarment and the matter of enjoying first -grade eligibility by passing the Bar, in relation to the position of City Administrator, should be determined by the CSC.Nevertheless, the OBC was of the view that the controversy between the CSC and respondent could not beconsidered as already ripe for judicial determination. Thus, the OBC recommended that the CSC, through AssistantCommissioner Caberoy, and respondent be advised to institute the corresponding legal remedy before the propercourt.

In a Resolution dated February 12, 2002,37

the Court held that it could only resolve actual controversies broughtbefore it and would thus, refrain from rendering advisory opinions. Accordingly, the Letter dated August 24, 2001 of

Assistant Commissioner Caberoy and Letter dated September 20, 2001 of respondent were merely noted.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt19


4/36

Page 4of 36

Respondent then filed a Plea for Reinstatement to the Bar dated February 28, 2002,38

stating therein that for the pastten (10) years since he was disbarred, he had deeply regretted having violated his obligations as a lawyer; that herealized the gravity of his mistakes; and that because of such disbarment, he even lost his chance to be permanentlyappointed as City Administrator of Urdaneta City and/or as City Legal Officer, after his stint as a Provincial BoardMember in Pangasinan for three (3) consecutive terms. In the event his disbarment is lifted, respondent thenpromised never to cause dishonor again to the legal profession and to abide by the ideals and canons thereof.

Attached to his Plea for Reinstatement to the Bar were certifications from various civic and religious groups attesting

to his good moral character and to his worthiness to be a member of the legal profession. In a Resolution dated April23, 2002,39

the Court noted the aforesaid Plea. Subsequently, the Court required the IBP to Comment on theaforesaid respondent's Plea through its Resolution dated July 23, 2002.

40

In its Comment of September 9, 2002,41

the IBP, through its Commission on Bar Discipline, recommended thefollowing:

Considering that the respondent has shown that he has been repentant of what he had done which was a grossviolation of his lawyer's oath and of the Canon of Professional Ethics and that he has been completely reformed andis therefore worthy to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorney's as evidenced by Certifications of different religious andcivic groups, it is recommended that he be allowed to again practice the legal profession.

It is, however recommended that he be placed on probation, meaning that the reinstatement should only betemporary and that he be placed under observation for one year.

If during the period of one year, he proves that he has completely lived up to the high standards of the legalprofession, by then it will be recommended that his reinstatement as a member of the Bar be made permanent.

42

The aforesaid comment was noted and referred to the IBP Board of Governors for comment and recommendation bythe Resolution dated December 3, 2002.

43

The IBP Board of Governors issued its Resolution No. XVI-2005-99, dated March 12, 200544

resolving as follows:

xxx to approve respondent's Plea for Reinstatement and recommend the reinstatement of Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw asmember of the bar immediately.

On June 6, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution45

referring the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for studyand recommendation.

On March 23, 2007, the OBC submitted its Report and Recommendation,46

to wit:

Indeed the high standards of the Bar require an impeccable record but our findings show that respondent has beensufficiently punished for the last fifteen (15) years of his disbarment and he has sufficiently reformed to be a worthymember of the Bar. In all candor, he promises the Court that should he be reinstated to practice the legal profession,

he will faithfully abide by the ideals, canons and ethics of the legal profession and by his oath as a lawyer.

x x x

In the light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the disbarment of respondent DIONISIO C. ANTINIW fromthe practice of law be LIFTED and he be allowed to resume the practice of law.

47

We agree with the foregoing recommendations of the Office of the Bar Confidant and the IBP Commission on BarDiscipline as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors.

Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law pursuant to the Decision promulgated on April 26, 199148

whichpertinently reads, as follows:

There is a clear preponderant evidence that Atty. Antiniw committed falsification of a deed of sale, and its subsequentintroduction in court prejudices his prime duty in the administration of justice as an officer of the court.

A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client. (Santos v. Dichoso, 84 SCRA 622) but not at the expense

of truth. (Cosmos Foundry Shopworkers Union v. La Bu, 63 SCRA 313). The first duty of a lawyer is not to his clientbut to the administration of justice. (Lubiano v. Gordalla, 115 SCRA 459) To that end, his client's success is whollysubordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. While a lawyer mustadvocate his client's cause in utmost earnestness and with the maximum skill he can marshall, he is not at liberty toresort to illegal means for his client's interest. It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the purpose of maintainingthe causes confided to him, such means as are consistent with truth and honor. (Pangan vs Ramos, 93 SCRA 87).

Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. By far, the most important of them is mindfulness thata lawyer is an officer of the court. (In re: Ivan T. Publico, 102 SCRA 722). This Court may suspend or disbar a lawyerwhose acts show his unfitness to continue as a member of the Bar. (Halili v. CIR, 136 SCRA 112). Disbarment,therefore, is not meant as a punishment depriving him of a source of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt46http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt45http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt44http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt38


5/36

Page 5of 36

administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this function should be competent, honorable andreliable in order that courts and the public may rightly repose confidence in them. (Noriega v. Sison 125 SCRA 293).

Atty. Antiniw failed to live up to the high standards of the law profession.49

However, the record shows that the long period of respondent's disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself ofhis misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up onceagain to the exacting standards of conduct demanded of every member of the bar and officer of the court. Duringrespondent's disbarment for more than fifteen (15) years to date for his professional infraction, he has been persistent

in reiterating his apologies and pleas for reinstatement to the practice of law and unrelenting in his efforts to show thathe has regained his worthiness to practice law, by his civic and humanitarian activities and unblemished record as anelected public servant, as attested to by numerous civic and professional organizations, government institutions,public officials and members of the judiciary.

InAdez Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,50

the disbarment of a lawyer was lifted for the reasons quoted hereunder:

The disbarment of movant Benjamin M. Dacanay for three (3) years has, quite apparently, given him sufficient timeand occasion to soul-search and reflect on his professional conduct, redeem himself and prove once more that he isworthy to practice law and be capable of upholding the dignity of the legal profession. His admission of guilt andrepeated pleas for compassion and reinstatement show that he is ready once more to meet the exacting standardsthe legal profession demands from its practitioners.

51

Moreover, it is well-settled that the objective of a disciplinary case is not so much to punish the individual attorney asto protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency ofofficers of the court. Restorative justice, not retribution, is our goal in disciplinary proceedings.

52

Guided by this doctrine and considering the evidence submitted by respondent satisfactorily showing his contritionand his being again worthy of membership in the legal profession, the Court finds that it is now time to lift hereinrespondent's disbarment and reinstate him to the august halls of the legal profession, but with the following reminder:

[T]he practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness,maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are theconditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authorityto discipline its members is not only a right but a bounden duty as well x x x. That is why respect and fidelity to theCourt is demanded of its members.

53

Likewise, respondent is enjoined to keep in mind that:

Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws, as he is their sworn servant;and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore the

very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinateand dangerous elements of the body politic.

54

WHEREFORE, the disbarment of DIONISIO C. ANTINIW from the practice of law is LIFTEDand he is thereforeallowed to resume the practice of law upon payment

SO ORDERED.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt54http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt54http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt54http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt54http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008junedecisions.php?id=527#fnt49


6/36

Page 6of 36

Adez Realty Inc. v. Court of Appeals(GR 100643, Benjamin M. Dacanay) ResolutionFirst Division August 14, 1992; Resolution En Banc October 30, 1992; Resolution EnBanc December 12, 1995

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 100643. August 14, 1992.]

ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PRESIDING JUDGEOF BRANCH 79, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Morong, Rizal, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, Morong,

Rizal, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, Quezon City, and AGUEDO EUGENIO, Respondents.

Benjamin M. Dacanay for Peti t ioner.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; JUDGMENT; FINAL UPON LAPSE OF REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF APPEALAND NO APPEAL PERFECTED. Petitioner fails to refute the ruling of respondent appellate court that the issuespresented in the intent case had been previously raised before and decided upon the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.CV No. 21392, which decision became final and executory, and in fact already entered in the judgment book byreason of petitioners failure to seasonably file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. This is fatal. It has been

repeatedly held that finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if noappeal is perfected. The decision therefore of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 had attained finality,there being no appeal nor motion for reconsideration interposed. Likewise, it is settled jurisprudence that once adecision becomes final, the Court can no longer amend, modify, much less set aside the same.

2. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDING; PROCEEDING IN REM; PERSONAL NOTICENOT REQUIRED TO VEST AUTHORITY TO COURT. As early as 1910, in Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, We alreadyruled that land registration proceedings are proceedings in rem, not in personam, and therefore it is not necessary togive personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered, in order to vest the courts withpower or authority over the res. Thus, while it may be true that no notice was sent by registered mail to petitionerwhen the judicial reconstitution of title was sought, such failure, however, did not amount to a jurisdictional defect.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PUBLICATION THEREOF, SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO VEST COURT JURISDICTION. InRegister of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC, Malabon, Metro Manila, Br. 170, We said that" [t]he purpose of the publicationof the notice of the petition for reconstitution in the Official Gazette is to apprise the whole world that such a petitionhas been filed and that whoever is minded to oppose it for good cause may do so within thirty (30) days before thedate set by the court for hearing the petition. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as aparty in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it." Thus, notice of hearing by properpublication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction, and the mere fact that a personpurporting to have a legitimate claim in the property did not receive personal notice is not sufficient ground toinvalidate the proceedings.

4. ID.; ID.; CAUSE OF ACTION; CANNOT BE LITIGATED TWICE BY VARYING FORMS OF ACTION. Shorn ofits finery, CA-G.R. SP No. 23773 merely re-echoes the issues raised in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 which as become res

judicata. Verily, petitioners action to annul the order of the trial court allowing reconstitution duplicates its earliermotion to set aside the said order, which was granted but later reversed by the appellate court which reversalbecame final and executory due to petitioners failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period. A party cannot,by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of theprinciple that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.

5. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; RULE 10.02 OF CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; VIOLATEDWHEN LAWYER MISREPRESENT CONTENTS OF DECISION. However, the phrase "without notice to the actualoccupants of the property, Adez Realty, in the above quoted second paragraph on page 3 of the Petition for Review,is not found in the decision penned by Associate Justice Manuel C. Herrera for respondent Court of Appeals. It nowappears as part of a material statement of fact in the decision of the court a quo when actually it is not. This to Us is aprima facie case of attempting to mislead [Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter III, of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, thelanguage or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law aprovision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as in fact that which has not been proved]


7/36

Page 7of 36

this Court, a serious offense which constitutes willful disregard of a lawyers solemn duty to act at all times in amanner consistent with truth.

R E S O L U T I O N

BELLOSILLO, J .:

The petition filed on December 28, 1990, by Adez Realty Incorporated before the Court of Appeals, docketed thereinas CA-G.R. SP No. 23773, sought to annul the order of the accused-appellant of Morong, Rizal, dated November 20,1984, allowing the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12662. The petition likewise sought to set aside ineffect the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 dated July 31, 1990.

On April 30, 1991, respondent Court of Appeals 1 dismissed the petition for lack of merit. On June 26, 1991,petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The respondent court, in dismissing the petition, said that: (a) thepetition is a reiteration of the issues raised before it 2 earlier in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392, promulgated July 31, 1990,and since no motion for reconsideration or appeal bycertiorariwith the Supreme Court was filed, the same becamefinal and executory, and consequently entered in the judgment book on October 11, 1990; and, (b) the accused-appellant of Morong, Rizal, had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the issue then being one of venue and not of

jurisdiction, which can be waived if not timely objected to in a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 4, of theRules of Court.

Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, where petitioner raises four (4) issues whichnevertheless may be simplified into the following: whether the accused-appellant of Morong, Rizal, may acquire

jurisdiction over reconstitution proceedings involving real property situated in Quezon City, and whether publication ofthe notice of the petition in two (2) successive issues of the Official Gazette and its posting in the bulletin board of theaccused-appellant of Morong, Rizal, is sufficient compliance with Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 26.

Wittingly or unwittingly, petitioner fails to refute the ruling of respondent appellate court that the issues presented inthe intent case had been previously raised before and decided upon the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392,which decision became final and executory, and in fact already entered in the judgment book by reason of petitionersfailure to seasonably file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. This is fatal.

It has been repeatedly held that finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period ofappeal if no appeal is perfected. 3 The decision therefore of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 hadattained finality, there being no appeal nor motion for reconsideration interposed. Likewise, it is settled jurisprudencethat once a decision becomes final, the Court can no longer amend, modify, much less set aside the same. 4 In fact,in Dueas v. Mandi, 5 We held that the "trial court and the appellate court may have committed an error in theassignment or partition of the eight parcels of land to the parties in this case, but considering that their judgments are

now final, the error, assuming that one was committed, can no longer be amended or corrected." In Icao v. Apalisok,6 We ruled that even the subsequent discovery of an erroneous imposition of a penalty will not justify correction of the

judgment after it has become final. We have also declared that, subject to settled exceptions, once a judgmentbecomes final, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. 7 To allow the Court of amendor reverse a decision which has attained finality will result in endless litigations. 8 Indeed, every litigation, CA-G.R. CVNo. 21392 included, must come to an end.

Moreover, petitioner already had the opportunity to set aside the questioned order of the trial court when its Motion toSet Aside and/or Annul the Order of Reconstitution, filed more than a year after the issuance of the questioned order,was granted by the trial court, however erroneous may be the procedure pursued and the consequently reliefgranted. Petitioner then simply failed to maintain vigilance over its perceived rights when it did not file a timely appealfrom the adverse decision of the appellate court, thus allowing the said decision to become final.

Besides, as early as 1910, in Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 9 We already ruled that land registration proceedings areproceedings in rem, not in personam, and therefore it is not necessary to give personal notice to the owners or

claimants of the land sought to be registered, in order to vest the courts with power or authority over the res. 10 Thus,while it may be true that no notice was sent by registered mail to petitioner when the judicial reconstitution of title wassought, such failure, however, did not amount to a jurisdictional defect. 11 In Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC,Malabon, Metro Manila, Br. 170, 12 We said that" [t]he purpose of the publication of the notice of the petition forreconstitution in the Official Gazette is to apprise the whole world that such a petition has been filed and that whoeveris minded to oppose it for good cause may do so within thirty (30) days before the date set by the court for hearingthe petition. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the courtwith jurisdiction to hear and decide it." Thus, notice of hearing by proper publication in the Official Gazette is sufficientto clothe the court with jurisdiction, and the mere fact that a person purporting to have a legitimate claim in theproperty did not receive personal notice is not sufficient ground to invalidate the proceedings.


8/36

Page 8of 36

Shorn of its finery, CA-G.R. SP No. 23773 merely re-echoes the issues raised in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 which asbecome res judicata. Verily, petitioners action to annul the order of the trial court allowing reconstitution duplicates itsearlier motion to set aside the said order, which was granted but later reversed by the appellate court whichreversal became final and executory due to petitioners failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period. A partycannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation ofthe principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated. 13

Be that as it may, there appears to be no cogent reason to disturb, as to other matters, the findings and conclusionsof the Court of Appeals in its decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392, promulgated July 31, 1990, the same havingbecome final and executory. Accordingly, We affirm the assailed decision promulgated April 30, 1992, and resolutionissued June 26, 1991, by respondent Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, the Court adverts to the Petition for Review filed in behalf of petitioner Adez Realty, Inc., by ATTY.BENJAMIN M. DACANAY. On pages 2-4 of the Petition, counsel purports to quote, as he does, the questioneddecision when he alleges

"The facts of the case, as found by the Court of Appeals, are the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x x x

After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered the questioned order dated November 20, 1984, without notice tothe actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty, granting the applicants petition for reconstitution in the name of

the deceased Elias Eugenio" (Italics supplied)

However, the phrase "without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty, in the above quotedsecond paragraph on page 3 of the Petition for Review, is not found in the decision penned by Associate JusticeManuel C. Herrera for respondent Court of Appeals. It now appears as part of a material statement of fact in thedecision of the court a quo when actually it is not. This to Us is a prima facie case of attempting to mislead 14 thisCourt, a serious offense which constitutes willful disregard of a lawyers solemn duty to act at all times in a mannerconsistent with truth.

ACCORDINGLY, the challenged decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 23773are AFFIRMED and the instant petition is DISMISSED.

ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY is ordered to SHOW CAUSE within five (5) days from notice why he should not bedisciplinary dealt with for intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the court a quo thereby altering and modifyingits factual findings with the apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, andthus failing to live up to the standards expected of a member of the Bar.

Costs against petitioner Adez Realty Incorporated.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.


9/36

Page 9of 36

EN BANC

G.R. No. 100643 October 30, 1992

ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED, petitioner,vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 79, Morong, Rizal, PROVINCIAL SHERIFFOF RIZAL, Morong, Rizal, REGISTER OF DEEDS, Quezon City, and AGUENDO EUGENIO, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM :

In Our Resolution of 14 August 1992, We directed ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel for petitioner AdezRealty, Inc., to "SHOW CAUSEwithin five (5) days from notice why he should not be disciplinary dealt with forintercalating a material fact in the judgment of the court a quo

1thereby 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 thestandards expected of a member of the Bar.

In his EXPLANATION of 1 September 1992, Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay "humbly prostrates himself before theHonorable Court and throws himself at its mercy," and explains that

. . . whenever he prepares petitioners either for the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, hedictates to his secretary and if portions of the decision or order to be appealed from have to bequoted, 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 ofthe Court of Appeals. Somehow, however, some words were intercalated on a particular paragraphnoted by the Honorable Court he regrettably is at a loss to explain. He remembers, however, that atthe time he was preparing the petition at bar there were other pleadings necessitating equal if notpreferential attention from him which could perhaps be the reason why his secretary committed avery grievous mistake, Such mistake though he does not condone and he feel upset at the turn ofevents.

2

Attached to his EXPLANATION as Annex "A" is an Affidavit3of Alicia A. Castro, purportedly his Secretary, stating

among others that

3. . . . in the preparation of the petition for review on certiorarifiled with the Supreme Court, it wasAtty. Benjamin M. Dacanay who dictated to me the contents of said petition;

4. . . . in the preparation of the petition, he told me, as he is wont to do whenever he prepares apetition, 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 ofMorong, Rizal, Branch 79 (not 89 as stated is the Affidavit), et al., respondents";

5. . . . when I copied the particular pages of the decision of the Court of Appeals as instructed byAtty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, I did as instructed, but it was only after our office received the copy ofthe decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 100643 . . . that Atty. Dacanay confronted me andasked me where I got that portion which was added to the particular paragraph noted by theSupreme Court; that it was only then that I realized the mistake I committed;

xxx xxx xxx

7. . . . I surmise that the error could have been due to the fact that ADEZ REALTY, Inc. has somany cases being handled by the law office that I presume I could have copied or my intention wasdistracted by other pleadings atop my table at the time.

Upon receipt of the EXPLANATION of counsel, the First Division referred his caseen consultato the Court EnBancwhich accepted and took cognizance of it in view of the possible sanction that may be imposed on a member ofthe Bar.

After due deliberation, the Court En Banc brushed off as simply unsatisfactory and incredible counsel's explanationthat it was his secretary who committed the mistake. This "passing-the-buck" stance of counsel was already aptlytreated inAdaza v.Barinaga,

4where the Court observed thus

Making the law office secretary, clerk or messenger the scapegoat or patsy for the delay in filing ofpleading, motion and other paper and for the lawyer's dereliction of duty is a common alibi ofpracticing lawyer. Like the alibi of the accused in criminal cases, counsel's shifting of the blame to


10/36

Page 10of 36

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 "withoutnotice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," without counsel dictating it word for word? Could it havebeen a providential mistake of the secretary as it was very material, and on which could have hinged the fate of alitigant's cause? Whatever be the truth in this regard, counsel cannot elude administrative responsibility whichborders 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 allegation in their pleadings, more particularly thequoted portions, and ensure that the statements therein are accurate and the reproductions faithful, down to the lastword and even punctuation mark. The legal profession demands that lawyers thoroughly go over pleadings, motionsand other documents dictated or prepared by them, type or transcribed by their secretaries or clerks, before filingthem with the court. If a client is bound by the acts of his counsel, with more reason should counsel be bound the actsof his secretary who merely follow his orders.

5

The instant case originate from a petition for reconstitution of title over a parcel of land. Section 13 of R.A. 26, inrelation to Sec. 12 of the same statute, on which petitioner bases one of his causes of action, provides among othersthat notice should be given to the occupants or persons in possession of the property. Compliance therewith is amaterial requirement for granting a petition for reconstitution of title. The inserted phase "without notice to the actualoccupants of the property, Adez Realty," was just the right phrase intercalated at the right place, making it highlyimprobable to be unintentionally, much less innocently, committed; and by the secretary a that. All circumstances

herein simply but strongly sustain Our belief. Certainly, making it appear that respondent Court of Appeals found thatno notice was given to the occupants of subject propertywhen in fact it did not make such a findingis a clearindication not merely of carelessness in lifting a portion of the assailed decision but a malicious attempt to gain undueadvantage in the sporting arena of fairplay and, more importantly, to deceive and misguide this Court, which is thefinal arbiter of litigations.

Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that, save in certain instances, factual findings of the Court ofAppeals are binding upon this Court.

6The 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 by,rather, because it is a clear and serious violation of one's oath as member of the Bar. Rule 10.02, Canon 10, ChapterIII, of the Code of Professional Responsibility directs that "[a] lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresentthecontents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, orknowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact thatwhich has not been proved" (Emphasis 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 manner consistent with the truth. A lawyer should never venture to mislead the court by falsestatements or quotations of facts or laws. Thus, in Bautista v. Gonzales,

7We suspended respondent for six (6)

months for, among other submitting to the lower court falsified documents, representing them to the true copies.In Chavez v. Viola, 8We suspend respondent counsel for five (5) months after he filed an Amended Application forOriginal Registration of Title which contained false statements.

The case at bar, although akin to the aforementioned cases, has more serious and far-reaching repercussions. Thosewho attempt to misguide this Court, the last forum for appeal, should be dealt with more severely lest We be madeunwilling instruments of inequity and injustice. Indeed, counsel has demonstrated his wanton disregard for truth andfairplay even before the Highest Court of the land. Worse, he compounded his unprofessional mischief by laying theblame on his hapless secretary whose duty is was simply to obey him.

It is well to repeat, perhaps to the point of satiety, what We have already said

. . . that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who showthat they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of

such privilege. On of those requirement is the observance of honesty and candor. It cannot begainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditiousadministration of justice . . . A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy thatexpectation. Otherwise, the administration of justice would gravely suffer . . . It is essential thatlawyers bear in mind at all times that their duty is notto their clients but rather to the courts, thatthey are above all . . . sworn to assist the courts in rendering justice to all and sundry, and onlysecondarily are they advocates of the exclusive interest of their clients. For this reason, he isrequired to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.

9

WHEREFORE, We findATTY. BENJAMIN M.DACANAY,counsel for petitioner, guilty of intercalating a material factin a judicial Decision elevated to Us on certiorari, thereby altering its factual findings with the apparent purpose, and


11/36

Page 11of 36

no other, of misleading the Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus miserably failing to live up to thestandards expected of him as a members of the Philippines Bar. Consequently,ATTY.BENJAMIN M. DACANAY ishereby DISBARREDeffective immediately from the practice of law.

Let copies of this Resolution be served personally on Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay at his given address at MezzanineFloor, WIL-VIC Building, 125 Kamias Road, Quezon City, entered upon his personal records, and furnished theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines and all the courts throughout the country.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr. Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon,Bellosillo, Melo and Campos, JJ. concur.

Narvasa, C.J. is on leave.


12/36

Page 12of 36

EN BANC

G.R. No. 100643 December 12, 1995

ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED, petitioner,vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Br. 79, MorongRizal, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR QUEZON CITY, and AGUEDO EUGENIO, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

BELLOSILLO, J .:

On 30 October 1992 the Court found movant, Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, guilty of intercalating a material fact in adecision of the Court of Appeals, which he appealed to this Court on certiorari, thereby altering the factual findings ofthe Court of Appeals with the apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment.Consequently, Atty. Dacanay was disbarred from the practice of law.

1

On 20 November 1992 movant filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Leave to Offer Evidence Re Charge ofUnauthorized Intercalation in a Judicial Recorddated 18 November 1992. He claimed that the inserted words werewritten by his client, the President of Adez Realty, Inc., in the draft of the petition to be filed before the Supreme Court

and unwittingly adopted by movant's secretary when the latter formalized the petition. He manifested that he wouldnot risk committing the act for which he was found guilty considering that he was a nominee of the Judicial and BarCouncil to the President for appointment as regional trial judge.

2But the Court on 3 December 1992 denied the

motion for want of a compelling reason to justify a reversal of the questioned resolution.3

On 23 February 1994 movant Dacanay filed a Motion to Lift(Disbarment) stating that he was already 62 years old,has learned his lesson from his mistake, was terribly sorry for what he had done, and in all candor promised that ifgiven another chance he would live up to the exacting demands of the legal profession. He appended to his motioncertifications of good moral character from: Fr. Celso Fernando, Parochial Vicar, Parish of St. Michael Archangel,Marilao, Bulacan; Fr. Lauro V. Larlar, OAR, Rector, San Sebastian College-Recoletos; Sis. Aniceta B. Abion, EMM,Chairperson, Center for Housing and Ecology Development Foundation, Inc.; Dean Rufus B. Rodriquez, College ofLaw, San Sebastian College-Recoletos; Judge Pedro T. Santiago, Executive Judge, RTC, Quezon City; JudgeTeodoro P. Regino, RTC-Br. 84, Quezon City; Judge Antonio P. Solano, RTC-Br. 86, Quezon City; and JudgeGregorio D. Dayrit, MTC-Br. 35, Quezon City.

4However, on 11 August 1994 the Court denied the motion.

5

On 1 December 1994 movant again filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment alleging among others that he had

been deprived of his means to life; he had pursued civic, religious and community work, especially for the poor andthe underprivileged short of extending legal assistance because of his incapacity; he had admitted "with profoundregret and with utmost humility his commission of an unpardonable mistake and ask(ed) that he be given anotherchance;" and, he was "remorseful for what he has done and comes to this Honorable Court with a contrite heart."

6

His wife Norma M. Dacanay likewise wrote the Court on 1 December 1994 saying that while she did not condonewhat her husband had done, it had been her fervent wish that the Court took a second look into its decision disbarringher husband as her entire family had been traumatized by his disbarment.

7

On 6 March 1995 movant sent a letter addressed to the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Courtreiterating his Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment of 1 December 1994. Thus

I am truly penitent for the serious offense I committed and admit full responsibility for it. I realize itwas dishonest and unfair to pass the blame to my secretary who was merely following myinstructions. The intercalation was my own act and I am justly punished for it.

Your Honors, I do not question your decision but I only beg for your mercy. I have a wife andchildren to support but my only means of livelihood has been withdrawn from me. I am destituteand desperate and can only turn to you for relief . . . .

Looking back, I cannot imagine how I could have even thought of blackening the law profession, towhich I owe so much. Please let me redeem myself by admitting me back to its precincts, where Iswear to live strictly according to its canons . . . .

8

On 21 March 1995 the Court noted the letter of 6 March 1995 of movant Dacanay.

On 4 August 1995 movant again prayed for his reinstatement


13/36

Page 13of 36

It has been 33 long months since my disbarment, during which time I have been struggling to makeboth ends meet to provide for my wife and three children. Please give me the chance to prove that Iam a reformed offender who will henceforth do nothing whatsoever to dishonor the legalprofession.

9

On 12 September 1995 the Court noted respondent's 4 August 1995 letter.10

On 17 November, 1995 movant once more wrote the Court

I humbly acknowledge again that I committed a grievous offense for which I was justly punished atthe time with the extreme sanction of disbarment.

I have been suffering much since my disbarment more than 36 months ago, but it is my wife andchildren who have suffered more for my transgression. Although innocent, they bear with me thestigma and burden of my punishment.

11

The disbarment of movant Benjamin M. Dacanay for three (3) years has, quite apparently, given him sufficient timeand occasion to soul-search and reflect on his professional conduct, redeem himself and prove once more that he isworthy to practice law and be capable of upholding the dignity of the legal profession. His admission of guilt andrepeated pleas for compassion and reinstatement show that he is ready once more to meet the exacting standardsthe legal profession demands from its practitioners. Accordingly, the Court lifts the disbarment of Benjamin M.Dacanay. However he should be sternly warned that

[T]he practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards ofmental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rulesof the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of thebar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legalprofession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its membersis not only a right, but a bounden duty as well . . . That is why respect and fidelity to the Court isdemanded of its members . . .

12

WHEREFORE, the disbarment of BENJAMIN M. DACANAY from the practice of law is LIFTED and he is thereforeallowed to resume the practice of law upon payment of the required legal fees. This resolution is effectiveimmediately.

SO ORDERED.


14/36

Page 14of 36

Sambajon v. Suing(AC No. 7062) Decision Third Division September 26, 2006

THIRD DIVISION

RENERIO SAMBAJON, RONALD SAMBAJON,CRISANTO CONOS, and FREDILYN

BACULBAS,Complainants, versus -ATTY. JOSE A. SUING,Respondent.

A.C. No. 7062

[Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1355]

Promulgated:

September 26, 2006

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J .:

Complainants, via a complaint[1]

filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), have sought thedisbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing (respondent) on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyers Oath andthe Code of Professional Responsibility.

[2]

Herein complainants were among the complainants in NLRC Case No. 00-0403180-98, Microplast, Inc.Workers Union, Represented by its Union President Zoilo Ardan, et al. v. Microplast, Incorporated and/or Johnny

Rodil and Manuel Rodil,for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and Illegal Dismissal, while respondent was thecounsel for the therein respondents. Said case was consolidated with NLRC Case No. 00-04-03161-98,Microplast Incorporated v. Vilma Ardan, et al.,for Illegal Strike.

By Decision of August 29, 2001,[3]

Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos dismissed the Illegal Strike case, anddeclared the employer-clients of respondent guilty of ULP. Thus, the Labor Arbiter disposed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal strike is dismissed for lackof merit.

Respondents Microplast, Inc., Johnny Rodil and Manuel Rodil are hereby declared guiltyof Unfair Labor Practice for union busting and that the dismissal of the nine (9) complainants aredeclared illegal. All the respondents in NLRC Case No. 00-04-03161-98 for illegal dismissal aredirected to reinstate all the complainants to their former position with full backwages from date ofdismissal until actual reinstatement computed as follows:

x x x x

3. CRISANTO CONOS

Backwages:

Basic Wage:

2/21/9810/30/99 = 20.30 mos.

P198.00 x 26 days x 20.30 = P104, 504.40

10/31/99 - 10/31/00 = 12 mos.

P223.50 x 26 days x 12 = 69, 732.00

11/01/00 - 8/30/01 = 10 mos.

P250.00 x 26 days x 10 = 65,000.00

P239,236.40

13thMonth Pay:

1/12 of P239,236.40 = 19,936.36

SILP

2/16/98 - 12/31/98 = 10.33 mos.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn1


15/36

Page 15of 36

P198.00 x 5 days x 10.33/ 12 = 852.22

1/1/99 - 12/31/99 = 12mos.

P223.50 x 5 days x 12/12 = 1,117.50

1/1/00 - 10/30/01 = 20 mos.

P250.00 x 5 days x 20/12 = 2,083.33

4,053.05

P263,225.81

x x x x

7. RONALD SAMBAJON

(same as Conos) 263,225.81

8.FREDELYN BACULBAS

(same as Conos) 263,225.81

9. RENEIRO SAMBAJON (same as Conos) 263,225.81

Total Backwages P2,370,674.38

Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above-mentioned backwages includingthe various monetary claims stated in the Manifestation dated August 24, 1998 except payment ofovertime pay and to pay 10% attorneys fees of all sums owing to complainants .

[4] (Emphasis and

underscoring supplied)

The Decision having become final and executory, the Labor Arbiter issued on September 2, 2003 a Writ ofExecution.

[5]

In the meantime, on the basis of individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims dated February 27, 2004purportedly signed and sworn to by seven of the complainants in the ULP and Illegal Dismissal case before Labor

Arbiter Santos in the presence of respondent, the Labor Arbiter dismissed said case insofar as the sevencomplainants were concerned, by Order dated March 9, 2004.

[6]

Herein complainants, four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied

having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the considerationstherefor. Hence, spawned the administrative complaint at bar, alleging that respondent, acting in collusion with hisclients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, frustrated the implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before theLabor Arbiter the spurious documents.

In a related move, complainants also filed a criminal complaint for Falsification against respondent, together withhis clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, before the Prosecutors Office of Quezon City where it was docketed as I.S. No.04-5203.

[7]

In his Report and Recommendation[8]

dated September 27, 2005, IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag, whoconducted an investigation of the administrative complaint at bar, recommended that respondent be faulted fornegligence and that he be reprimanded therefor with warning, in light of his following discussion:

The issue to be resolved is whether or not respondent can be disbarred for his allegedmanipulation of four alleged RELEASE WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM by herein complainants whosubsequently disclaimed the same as bogus and falsified.

A lawyer takes an oath when he is admitted to the Bar. By doing so he thereby becomesan Officer of the Court on whose shoulders rests the grave responsibility of assisting the courts inthe proper, fair, speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Mindful of the fact that the present proceedings involve, on the one hand, the right of alitigant to seek redress against a member of the Bar who has, allegedly caused him damaged,either through malice or negligence, while in the performance of his duties as his counsel, and, onthe other, the right of that member of the Bar to protect and preserve his good name and reputation,we have again gone over and considered [the] aspects of the case.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn4


16/36

Page 16of 36

All the cases protesting and contesting the genuineness, veracity and due execution of thequestioned RELEASE WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM namely: Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Recall,

Appeal and Falsification are PENDINGresolution in their respective venues. Arbiter Ariel CadienteSantos, who was supposed to know the identities of the herein complainants is not impleadedbythe complainants when it was his solemn duty and obligation to ascertain true and real identities ofperson executing Release Waiver with Quitclaim.

The old adage that in the performance of an official duty there is that presumption of

regularity unless proven otherwise, such was proven in the January 28, 2005 clarificatoryquestioning . . . :

x x x x

. . . In the case at bar, the question of whether or not respondent actually committedthe despicable act would seem to be fairly debatable under the circumstances.

[9] (Emphasis

and underscoring supplied)

The Board of Governors of the IBP, by Resolution No. XVII-2005-226, approved and adopted the Report andRecommendation of Commissioner Hababag.

After the records of the case were forwarded to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), the Director for BarDiscipline of the IBP

[10]transmitted additional records including a Motion to Amend the Resolution No. XVII-2005-

226[11]

filed by respondent.

One of the complainants, Renerio Sambajon (Sambajon), by Petition[12]

filed before the OBC, assailed theIBP Board Resolution. The Petition was filed three days after the 15-day period to assail the IBPResolution. Sambajon explains that while his counsel received the Resolution on February 27, 2006, he onlylearned of it when he visited on March 16, 2006 his counsel who could not reach him, he (Sambajon) havingtransferred from one residence to another.

Giving Sambajon the benefit of the doubt behind the reason for the 3-day delay in filing the presentpetition, in the interest of justice, this Court gives his petition due course.

In respondents Motion to Amend the IBP Board Resolution, he does not deny that those whom he met faceto face before Commissioner Hababag were not the same persons whom he saw before Labor Arbiter Santoson February 27, 2004.

[13] He hastens to add though that he was not familiar with the complainants as they were not

attending the hearings before Arbiter Santos.[14]

Complainants[15]

and their former counsel Atty. RodolfoCapocyan

[16]claim otherwise, however. And the Minutes

[17]of the proceedings before the National Conciliation

Mediation Board in a related case, NCMB-NCR-NS-02-081-98, Re: Microplast, Inc., Labor Dispute,which minutesbear respondents and complainants signatures, belie respondents claim that he had not met complainants before.

Respondent, who declared that he went to the Office of the Labor Arbiter on February 27, 2004 on therequest of his clients who told him that on February 27, 2004 the seven claimants w[ould] be at the office of ArbiterSantos [to] submit their respective quitclaims and waivers, heaps on the Labor Arbiter the responsibility ofascertaining the identity of the parties who executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims. But respondent himself hadthe same responsibility. He was under obligation to protect his clients interest, especially given the amount allegedlygiven by them in consideration of the execution of the documents. His answers to the clarificatory questions ofCommissioner Hababag do not, however, show that he discharged such obligation.

COMM. HABABAG: But is it not a fact [that it is] also your duty to ask.. that the money of yourclient would go to the deserving employee?

ATTY. SUING: I did not do that anymore, Your Honor, because there was already as you call itbefore a precedent in February of 1998 when my client directly made settlement to the nine or eightof the seventeen original complainants, Your Honor, and I did not participate. Hindi po akonakialam don sa kanilang usapan because it is my belief that the best way, Your Honor, to have a

dispute settled between the parties is that we let them do the discussion, well let them do thesettlement because sometimes you know, Your Honor, sad to say, when lawyers are involved in amatters [sic] of settlement the dispute does not terminate as in this case, Your Honor.

x x x x

COMM. HABABAG: Yes. What made you appear on said date and time before Arbiter Santos?

ATTY. SUING: I was called by my client to go to the office of Arbiter Santos, number one, towitness the signing of the documents of Quitclaim and Waiver; number 2, so that according tothem someone as a lawyer will represent them in that proceedings.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn9


17/36

Page 17of 36

COMM. HABABAG: My query, did it not surprise you that no money was given to you and yetthere would be a signing of Quitclaim Receipt and Release?

ATTY. SUING: I am not, your Honor, because it happened before and there were no complaints,Your Honor.

COMM. HABABAG: Just because it happened before you did not bother to see to it that there is avoucher so you just rely on your precedent, is that what you mean?

ATTY. SUING: Yes, Your Honor, because I always believe that the parties who are talking andit is my client who knows them better than I do, Your Honor.

COMM. HABABAG: So, you just followed the instruction of your client to be present at ArbiterCadiente Santos office because there would be signing of Quitclaim Receipt and Release, it thatclear?

ATTY. SUING:Yes, Your Honor.

COMM. HABABAG:[You] [d]id not bother to ask your client where is the money intended forthe payment of these workers?

ATTY. SUING:I did not ask.

COMM. HABABAG:You did not asked [sic] your client who will prepare the documents?

ATTY. SUING:As far as the documents are concerned, Your Honor.

COMM. HABABAG: The Quitclaim Receipt and Release?

ATTY. SUING: Yes, Your Honor, I remember this. They asked me before February of 1998.

COMM. HABABAG: When you say they whom are you referring to?

ATTY. SUING: Im referring to my client, Your Honor.

COMM. HABABAG: They asked me attorney can you please prepare us a document of Quitclaimand Waiver or give us a simple [sic] of Quitclaim and Waiver. I do recall that I made one but this document,Your Honor, is only a single document where all the signatories named are present because my purposethere really, Your Honor, is that so that each of them will be there together and they will identify themselves,see each other para ho siguradong sila-sila yong magkakasama at magkakakilanlan. x x x x And when thesigning took place in February of 2004 it was made for any [sic] individual, Your Honor, no longerthe document that I prepared when all of the seven will be signing in one document.

COMM. HABABAG: Okay. You did not inquire from your client whom [sic] made the changes?

ATTY. SUING: I did not anymore because, Your Honor, at the time when I was there, there arealready people there, the seven complainants plus another woman.

[18](Emphasis and underscoring

supplied)

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HESHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE ANDDILIGENCE.

x x x x

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence

in connection therewith shall render him liable.To be sure, respondents client Manuel Rodil did not request him to go to the Office of Labor Arbiter Cadiente

to be a mere passive witness to the signing of the Release Waiver and Quitclaims. That he was requested to go therecould only mean that he would exert vigilance to protect his clients interest. This he conceded when he acknowledgedthe purpose of his presence at the Office of Labor Arbiter Santos, thus:

ATTY. SUING: To go there, Your Honor, and represent them and see that these document[s] areproperly signed and that these people are properly identified and verified them in front of Arbiter

Ariel Cadiente Santos.[19]

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/A.C.%20No.%207062.htm#_ftn18


18/36

Page 18of 36

That there was an alleged precedent in 1998 when a group of complainants entered into a compromiseagreement with his clients in which he did not participate and from which no problem arose did not excuse him fromcarrying out the admitted purpose of going to the Labor Arbiters office that [the complainants] are properlyidentified . . . in front of [the] Arbiter.

Besides, by respondents own information, Labor Arbiter Santos was entertaining doubts on the true identityof those who executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims.

[20]That should have alerted him to especially exercise the

diligence of a lawyer to protect his clients interest. But he was not and he did not.

Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the

Documents

Use of Altered or Falsified Evidence