MAYETH B. RAMOS
ARISTOTLE
PROF: DR. KATHRINA VANESS Y. HAGORILES
LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS
CASE TITLE:
G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC.
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL
FACTS:
G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL, originally started with the case between
ADEZ Realty, the occupant of a property in Quezon City vs the
defendants who filed petition for reconstitution in the name of the
deceased Elias Eugenio, who owned the alleged property.
On December 28, 1990 ADEZ REALTY INC. filed a petition before
the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. NO 23773) seeking the nullification of
the order dated November 20,1984, which allowed the reconstitution of
Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 12662 in favor of the accusedappellants. ADEZ also sought to have the CA decision CV No. 21392
dated July 31,1990 to be set aside.
On April 30, 1991, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack
of merit. ADEZ then filed for Motion for Reconsideration, but was duly
denied by the respondent court on June 26, 1991. Basis being, there is
no new evidence presented and it is merely a reiteration of what was
presented previously in CA-G.R. No. 21392 promulgated on July 31,
1990.
Starting from the date of promulgation, no motion for reconsideration
nor an appeal by certiorari was ever filed, the order then became final
and executory, and was duly entered in the judgment book on October
11, 1990. Which means that the accused-appellant had the jurisdiction
over the subject matter. This could have been waived if only a timely
objection was filed in court by ADEZ Realty.
As per the court, finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse
of the reglementary period of appeal, if no appeal is filed. Hence CAG.R. No. 21392, is final and executory.
On August 14, 1992, a petition of review was filed in behalf of the
petitioner ADEZ REALTY INC., through its counsel ATTY.
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY. On the petition, the counsel quoted the
findings of the Court of Appeals as such:
"The facts of the case, as found by the Court of Appeals, are the
following:
x
x
x
‘After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered the questioned
order dated November 20, 1984, without notice to the actual occupants
of the property, Adez Realty, granting the applicant’s petition for
reconstitution in the name of the deceased Elias Eugenio’"
MAYETH B. RAMOS
ARISTOTLE
PROF: DR. KATHRINA VANESS Y. HAGORILES
LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS
The phrase, “without notice to the actual occupants of the property,
Adez Realty,” was not included in the original ruling of the Court of
Appeals Associate Justice Manuel C. Herrera.
ISSUES/S:
With the insertion or intercalation of the phrase “without notice to
the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty,” it would give the
impression then that it was part of the original ruling, which if used, will
be a basis to grant a motion for reconsideration, in favor of ADEZ
REALTY. But as such, the motion of ADEZ REALTY was duly
dismissed upon the discovery of the intercalated statement.
On August 14, 1992, the Court of Appeals, directed Atty. Benjamin
M. Dacanay to SHOW CAUSE within 5 days why he should not be
dealt, with a disciplinary action for intentionally trying to mislead the
court by intercalating the above-mentioned phrase in his petition, so that
his client may receive a favorable judgment. Such action is against the
Rule 10.02, Canon 10, Chapter III, of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states. “A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of the paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision of authority,
or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been
approved.”
As per the defense of Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, the mistake was
committed by his secretary, Alicia Castro. Alicia Castro submitted an
affidavit, which in summary stated the following explanations for her
error: (1) that the contents of the petition for certiorari was dictated by
Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay; (2) that Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, as
per practice would instruct her to copy particular pages in the decision
of the Court of Appeals, and in this case she copied the decision from
the CA decision with regard to the ADEZ Realty case: (3) that only after
receiving the decision of SC GR No 100643, was she made aware of her
mistake, as she was then confronted by Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay; (4)
her error might have been due to the numerous cases that they handle
for ADEZ REALTY, which is on top of her table.
The Court en Banc though, had found the following discoveries:
(1) It has been customary and convenient for members of the BAR
to use their secretaries, clerks, messengers as scapegoats,
whenever there is a delay in filing needed petitions, to cover their
own negligence, incompetence, indolence and ineptitude
(2) It also questioned how a secretary could have thought of using
the phrase, “without notice to the actual occupants of the
property, Adez Realty,” if it was not dictated to her by Atty.
Benjamin M. Dacanay himself.
(3) The phrase was also conveniently situated in the petition, and
will result to favorable judgment for their client, if it was not
discovered.
MAYETH B. RAMOS
ARISTOTLE
PROF: DR. KATHRINA VANESS Y. HAGORILES
LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS
(4) It is the duty of the lawyers to check the documents they are
filing in court, word for word, including punctuations.
(5) Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that, save in
certain instances, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are
binding upon the Court.
RULING:
The court beseeched in its ruling, “the practice of law is not a right but
a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess,
and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. One of those requirements is the
observance of honesty and candor. It cannot be gainsaid that candidness,
especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious
administration of justice . . . 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.”
On October 30, 1992, Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, counsel for the
petitioner, ADEZ REALTY, was found guilty of intercalation of a
material fact in a judicial Decision “thereby altering its factual
findings with the apparent purpose, and no other, of misleading the
Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus miserably
failing to live up to the standards expected of him as a member of
the Philippines Bar.”
Consequently, ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY
DISBARRED effective immediately from the practice of law.
was
On November 20, 1992, Atty. Dacanay filed for Motion for
Reconsideration and Leave to Offer Evidence Re: Charge of
Unauthorized Intercalation in a Judicial Record dated 18 November
1992. Atty. Dacanay claimed that the inserted words were added by his
client, the President of Adez Realty, Inc., in the draft of the petition and
accidentally adopted by his secretary when the latter formalized the
petition. Motion was denied On December 3,1992.
On February 4, 1994 Atty. Dacanay filed for Motion to Lift the
Disbarment, stating he has learned his lesson. It was denied on August
11, 1994.
On December 1,1994 Atty. Dacanay again filed an Ex-parte Motion to
Lift Disbarment, as he has been deprived of his means to life. His wife
Norma Dacanay likewise wrote to the Court on December 1,1994, also
asking for the lifting of the disbarment of her husband.
MAYETH B. RAMOS
ARISTOTLE
PROF: DR. KATHRINA VANESS Y. HAGORILES
LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS
On March 6,1995, Atty. Dacanay wrote a letter to the Chief Justice and
Associates Justices, regarding his Ex-parte Motion to Lift Disbarment
dated December 1,1994. The court noted it March 21, 1994.
On August 4, 1995 Atty Dacanay yet again asked for his reinstatement,
33 months since his disbarment, again this was noted September 12,
1995.
On November 1995, Atty. Dacanay wrote again to the Court and the
court finally lifted the disbarment. Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay may
resume practice of law upon payment of the required legal fees.
Effective immediately. December 12, 1995.