1. [A.C. No. 5246. March 20, 2003.

EDGAR O. PEREA, Complainant, v. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO, Respondent.

FACTS:

ALMADRO was PEREA ‘s counsel before the RTC of Quezon City where he is being charged with the
crime of Frustrated Homicide. On February 26, 1996, the said RTC issued an order granting Atty.
Almadro’s motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days from said date. All the
while, complainant thought that respondent filed said demurrer and the case against him dismissed. It was
only sometime in 1999 that complainant learned that Atty. Almadro failed to file any demurrer. The trial
court ordered the herein complainant to present evidence in his defense. Later, a warrant was issued for
his arrest prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail. Complainant suffered financially and
emotionally due to respondent’s neglect of his duties. On November 17, 2000, respondent, through the
law firm Sua and Alambra, filed a Manifestation and Motion that respondent has not yet received a copy
of the complaint hence it asked the Court to order the complainant to furnish them a copy.

On December 20, 2000, respondent through said law firm submitted an Answer to the complaint,
contending that: two days after the RTC granted the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to
file demurrer to evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which
he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court; a few days
before the deadline, herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts were
nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this led him to believe that the drafts must have
been finalized and the edited versions accordingly filed since it is his practice to expunge from the
diskette drafts that were already finalized and acted upon; the presiding judge of the RTC retired so
actions on pending cases were held in abeyance; Towards the end of 1997 up to the next five months of
1998, respondent was preoccupied with the congressional elections in Biliran where he ran and
subsequently lost; then he accepted a position as head of the Compliance and Surveillance Division at the
Philippine Stock Exchange

On June 13, 2001, the IBP submitted its report that it is not convinced about the truth of respondent’s
affirmative allegations and that he as well as his counsels are lying. Also, the IBP came upon an Order of
the incumbent presiding judge declaring the respondent in contempt of court for repeatedly failing to
submit an explanation as ordered by the court.
IBP adopted and approved that:
a. Atty. Ruben L. Almadro be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and FINED
for Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos.
b. Atty. Sua and Atty. Alambra be ordered to explain why they should not be held in contempt for
deliberately foisting a deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation."

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.

ISSUES: W/N respondent lawyer violated CPR by:

a. failing to submit a demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the trial
court
b. attempting to have the tribunal believe the story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette,
mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of such file in his diskette led him to believe that
the same was already filed in court.

RULING:
a. YES. CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

Respondent lawyer failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the developments of the case
leaving complainant completely surprised and without any protection when years later, he received
summons from the trial court asking him to present evidence in his defense and, not long after, the trial
court issued a warrant for his arrest.

b. YES. CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

"a lawyer must be a disciple of truth." (Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Atty. Flores)

Respondent even tried to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling
on the procedural steps he would undertake regarding complainant’s case when instead he received a
copy of this complaint for disbarment. Such story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous but is
contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court. Respondent would have this Court believe a very
preposterous story of how his draft disappeared, all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to
submit the necessary pleading before the trial court. Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves
stern penalty therefor.

Atty. Ruben Almadro is:

1. guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the
authority it represents,
2. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and
3. FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos,
4. with a WARNING that any or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.

Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan Alambra’s records of case remanded to the Office of IBP for further
action on the contempt proceedings.

5. [G.R. No. 100643. October 30, 1992.]

ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED v. CA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, Morong, Rizal, PROVINCIAL
SHERIFF, Rizal, REGISTER OF DEEDS, QC, and AGUEDO EUGENIO

Benjamin M. Dacanay for Petitioner

FACTS:

ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel for petitioner Adez Realty, Inc., was directed by court in a
resolution to "SHOW CAUSE within (5) days from notice why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with
for intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the court a quo thereby altering and modifying its
factual findings with the apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable
judgment, and thus failing to live up to the standards expected of a member of the Bar."
His explanation was that whenever he prepares petitions either for the CA or SC, 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 CA. Somehow, however,
some words were intercalated on a particular paragraph noted by the Honorable Court he regrettably is at
a loss to explain. 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 feels upset at the
turn of events." In the Affidavit of his Secretary, it was stated 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 she presumes she
could have copied or her intention was distracted by other pleadings atop at her table at the time. The
First Division referred his case en consulta to the Court En Banc.

ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer violated CPR and LAWYER’S OATH by MISQUOTING OR
INTERCALATING PHRASES IN THE TEXT OF COURT DECISION

RULING:
YES. The distortion of facts committed by counsel, with the willing assistance of his secretary, is a grave
offense and should not be treated lightly, not only because it may set a dangerous precedent but, rather,
because it is a clear and serious violation of one’s oath as a member of the Bar. Rule 10.02, Canon 10,
Chapter III, of the Code of Professional Responsibility directs that" [a] lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved". Worse, he compounded his
unprofessional mischief by laying the blame on his hapless secretary whose duty it was simply to obey
him.

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

The instant case originated from a petition for reconstitution of title over a parcel of land. Section 13 of
R.A. 26, in relation to Sec. 12 of the same statute, on which petitioner bases one of his causes of action,
provides among others that notice should be given to the occupants or persons in possession of the
property. Compliance therewith is a material requirement for granting a petition for reconstitution of title.
The inserted phrase "without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty," was just
the right phrase intercalated at the right place, making it highly improbable to be unintentionally, much
less innocently, committed, and by the secretary at that. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are
binding upon this Court.

ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, counsel for petitioner is:

1. guilty of intercalating a material fact in a judicial Decision elevated to SC on certiorari, thereby
altering its factual findings with the apparent purpose, and no other, of misleading the Court in
order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus miserably failing to live up to the standards
expected of him as a member of the Philippine Bar.
2. DISBARRED effective immediately from the practice of law.