Bukidnon Cooperative Bank v. Arnado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bukidnon Cooperative Bank (Bukidnon Cooperative) paid P244,640.00 to Asiatique International Travel & Tours Services Co., Ltd. for hotel accommodations and airplane tickets to Singapore for its board of directors and employees. The trip was postponed, and Bukidnon Cooperative sought a refund, which was not granted. Bukidnon Cooperative filed a civil case against the owner of the travel agency, Noel Encabo. Procedural History: At the pre-trial conference of the civil case, Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado, counsel for Mr. Encabo, had another lawyer pre-mark four electronic tickets issued by Cebu Pacific Airline. Two of these tickets lacked booking reference numbers. Bukidnon Cooperative later discovered that Mr. Encabo's Pre-Trial Brief did not mention these tickets. Bukidnon Cooperative moved for a subpoena against VIA Philippines to verify the tickets' genuineness. VIA Philippines' representative testified that the tickets were altered: two were not genuine, and the others corresponded to different flight details and passengers. VIA Philippines submitted correct printouts as evidence. The Petition: Bukidnon Cooperative filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Arnado, alleging failure to examine the authenticity of evidence and tolerating the commission of fraud by presenting altered documents. Atty. Arnado claimed good faith, stating he had no indication the tickets were not genuine and lacked expertise to determine their authenticity. He also presented Mr. Encabo's judicial affidavit stating Atty. Arnado had no part in printing the tickets. Bukidnon Cooperative later withdrew the case, but the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissal, finding Atty. Arnado had no knowledge of the alteration. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed this. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the dismissal of an administrative case cannot depend on the complainant's unilateral decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the disbarment complaint is automatic upon the withdrawal of the case by the complainant. Whether Atty. Arnado violated the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by presenting altered documentary evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado and sternly warned him that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court held that the dismissal of the administrative case is not automatic upon the withdrawal by the complainant, and that Atty. Arnado's presentation of altered documents, even without prior knowledge of the alteration, constituted a violation of his duties to the court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of automatic dismissal upon withdrawal: The Court held that the dismissal of an administrative case against a lawyer cannot depend on the unilateral decision of the complainant, who is considered merely a witness. Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court explicitly states that no investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. Therefore, Bukidnon Cooperative's desistance did not result in the automatic dismissal of the disbarment complaint. On the issue of Atty. Arnado's violation of duties: The Court found that Atty. Arnado failed to measure up to the exacting standards of candor and honesty towards the court. His oath mandates that he shall "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court," and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to "owe candor, fairness and good faith to the Court." Specifically, Rule 10.01 prohibits lawyers from doing any falsehood, consenting to it, or misleading the court. The electronic tickets presented were clearly altered, as testified by VIA Philippines' representative. Atty. Arnado's excuse of lacking expertise was rejected, as the introduction of such evidence could mislead the trial court. He could not rely solely on his client's narrations without inquiry, especially when circumstances demanded greater meticulousness. Lawyers must diligently familiarize themselves with the nature of their cases and ensure their representation stays within legal bounds. His failure to examine the tickets and notice the missing booking reference numbers, and his indifference to preventing the court from being misled, negated any claim of good faith. The Court cited Berenguer v. Carranza for the principle that even without intent to deceive, a lawyer whose conduct betrays inattention or carelessness should not escape responsibility.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's carelessness in presenting altered documents, even without intent to deceive, can lead to administrative liability for misleading the court, as lawyers are officers of the court with a duty of candor and honesty.