Berenguer vs. Carranza

A lawyer may be held administratively liable for presenting false evidence even without intent to deceive, where the lawyer’s failure to exercise due diligence in examining the evidence causes confusion and prolongation of litigation. The lawyer’s oath demands utmost candor and care toward the court, and inattention or carelessness that results in the court being misled constitutes a violation of that oath.

Eduardo J. Berenguer filed an administrative complaint on July 15, 1966, charging Atty. Pedro B. Carranza with practicing deception upon the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. The charge arose from a cadastral case in which respondent represented a client whose mother had executed an Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer. The affidavit asserted that the decedent left no legitimate ascendants, descendants, or other heirs except the affiant herself. Contrary to that assertion, the decedent was survived by four other daughters and one son—the complainant’s father. Respondent, who was aware of successional disputes between his client and the complainant’s family, nevertheless introduced the affidavit in evidence during the cadastral hearing.

Nature of the Action: Administrative disciplinary proceeding against respondent Atty. Pedro B. Carranza for allegedly introducing a false affidavit in a cadastral case in violation of his lawyer’s oath.

The Cadastral Case and the False Affidavit: Respondent appeared as counsel for a petitioner in Cadastral Case No. 2, LRC Cadastral Record No. 869, Sorsogon Cadastre. During the hearing on January 17, 1966, he offered in evidence an Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer executed by his client’s mother. The affidavit contained a declaration, copied from a tax declaration, that the decedent (affiant’s mother) left no legitimate ascendants, descendants, or any other heirs except the affiant. In truth, the decedent was survived by four other daughters and one son—the latter being complainant Eduardo J. Berenguer’s father. The affidavit had been prepared and notarized in Pasay City by another lawyer; respondent had no part in its drafting or notarization. No opposition to the cadastral petition was filed by any private party or by the Bureau of Lands or the Solicitor General.

Respondent’s Knowledge and Omission: Respondent was aware of pre-existing family litigations between his client and the complainant rooted in successional rights. Despite that knowledge, he did not read the entirety of the affidavit before presenting it. He later testified that he was not “very meticulous about the petition” precisely because there was no opposition, and that he presented the document merely to prove the fact of transfer of the property. He characterized his failure to notice the false statement as a “mere oversight.”

Resulting Harm: The introduction of the false affidavit contributed to confusion and prolonged the cadastral suit, which subsequently remained pending as a petition for relief from judgment.

• Deception: Complainant alleged that respondent knowingly introduced an affidavit containing a false statement regarding heirship into evidence, thereby practicing deception upon the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, in violation of his oath.

• Lack of Participation: Respondent maintained that he had no hand in the preparation of the affidavit or the petition; both were prepared and notarized in Pasay City by another lawyer and merely posted to the clerk of court in Sorsogon. He presented the affidavit only to prove the fact of transfer of the property.
• Absence of Wilful Intent: Respondent contended that his failure to notice the incorrect statement was a mere inadvertent oversight, not a willful act. He did not consent to the falsehood, and the hearing was essentially a formality because no opposition had been filed.

• Violation of Oath: Whether the presentation of a false affidavit, without personal knowledge of its falsity and without participation in its preparation, constituted a violation of the lawyer’s oath warranting disciplinary action.
• Standard of Care: Whether a lawyer’s failure to read and verify documentary evidence before presenting it—resulting in the court’s being misled—may be sanctioned as a breach of duty, notwithstanding the absence of an intent to deceive.

• Violation of Oath: The charge of deliberate deception was not sustained, the evidence failing to establish that respondent prepared the false affidavit or willfully consented to its falsehood. Nevertheless, complete exculpation was not warranted. The lawyer’s oath commands that an attorney “do no falsehood” and conduct himself with “all good fidelity” to the courts. Respondent’s failure to exercise due care in examining the affidavit before presenting it resulted in confusion and prolongation of the cadastral suit, thereby falling short of the fidelity demanded by the oath and exposing him to administrative sanction.
• Standard of Care: The absence of intent to deceive does not insulate a lawyer from disciplinary liability where the misleading of the court arises from inattention or carelessness. Respondent’s duty of candor and diligence toward the court was heightened by his knowledge of existing family litigation over successional rights. By failing to read the entire affidavit, he exhibited an indifference to proof inconsistent with facts he knew, which contributed to confusion and delay. A lawyer must exercise vigilance in the presentation of evidence; a plea of mere oversight is insufficient to avoid responsibility.

• Duty of Candor and Diligence Toward the Court — A lawyer, as an officer of the court, bears a strict obligation to refrain from any conduct that might mislead the tribunal, whether intentional or the result of inattention. The lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood” and to maintain “all good fidelity” to the courts requires that counsel take all necessary measures to verify the accuracy of evidence before offering it. The failure to read a document offered in evidence, when combined with knowledge of facts suggesting potential discrepancies, constitutes a culpable lack of diligence that warrants disciplinary sanction, even in the absence of intent to deceive.

• “The law is an exacting taskmaster. Membership in the bar, as so appropriately put, is a privilege burdened with conditions.”
• “Every member of the bar must be on his guard, lest through oversight or inadvertence, the way he conducts his case or the evidence he presents could conceivably result in a failure of justice.”
• “Even if there be no intent to deceive, therefore, a lawyer whose conduct, as in this case, betrays inattention or carelessness should not be allowed to free himself from a charge thereafter instituted against him by the mere plea that his conduct was not wilful and that he has not consented to the doing of the falsity.”
• “There would be a failure of justice if courts cannot rely on the submission as well as the representations made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation of evidence, whether oral or documentary, is concerned.”

• In re Rouss, 116 N.E. 783 (1917) — Cited for the maxim that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, underscoring the premise that the practice of law carries onerous responsibilities.

• Section 3, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Contains the lawyer’s oath, imposing the duties to “do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court” and to “conduct [oneself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity … to the courts.” Respondent’s failure to read the affidavit before presenting it was held to violate the fidelity required by this provision.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Basis for the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over attorneys who violate their oath. The reprimand was imposed pursuant to this rule.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Capistrano, and Teehankee, JJ. (Barredo, J., took no part.)