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 disciplinary dealt with for
intercalating 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 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
. . . whenever he prepares petitioners 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 not condone and he feel upset at the turn of events. 2
Attached to his EXPLANATION as Annex "A" is an Affidavit 3 of Alicia A.

Castro, purportedly his Secretary, stating among others that

3. . . . 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. . . . 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 is the
Affidavit), et al., respondents";
5. . . . 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 . . . 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;
xxx xxx xxx
7. . . . 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 "passing-the-buck" stance of counsel was already aptly treated
in Adaza v. Barinaga, 4 where the Court observed thus
Making the law office secretary, clerk or messenger the scapegoat or
patsy for the delay in filing of pleading, motion and other paper and for
the lawyer's dereliction of duty is a common alibi of practicing lawyer.
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 allegation 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, type 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 bound the acts of 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, 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. Compliance therewith is a material requirement for granting a petition
for reconstitution of title. The inserted phase "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 a 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 findings of the Court of Appeals are binding upon this Court. 6 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 by, rather, because it is
a clear and serious violation of one's oath as 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" (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
false statements or quotations of facts or laws. Thus, inBautista
v. Gonzales, 7 We 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, 8 We

suspend 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 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 show that 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 be gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is
essential for the expeditious administration of justice . . . A lawyer, on
the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation.
Otherwise, the administration of justice would gravely suffer . . . 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 . . . sworn
to assist the courts in rendering justice to all and sundry, and only
secondarily are they advocates of the exclusive interest of their clients.
For this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court. 9
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 members
of the Philippines Bar. Consequently, ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY is hereby
DISBARRED effective immediately from the practice of law.