FACTS: A complaint against
respondent Pedro B. Carranza was filed on July 15, 1966, for deception
practiced on the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, in that aware of the
falsity of an Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer executed by the mother of
his client to the effect that her own mother left no legitimate ascendants or
descendants or any other heirs except herself, when, as a matter of fact, the
deceased was survived by four other daughters and one son, father of the
complainant, he introduced the same in evidence. Carranza raises the
defense that he had nothing to do with the preparation of the affidavit. The
report of the solicitor general confirmed that Carranza had nothing to
do with it. However, respondent testified as to his being not very
meticulous about the petition because there was neither private nor government
opposition thereto. Respondent's failure to read the affidavit proves that he
did not properly inform himself of the evidence he was going to present in
court, thereby exhibiting an indifference to proof inconsistent with facts he
definitely knows. Thus,
respondent has contributed to confusion and the prolongation of the cadastral
suit, which pends as a petition for Relief. Respondent was charged with
"violation of his oath of office, [having] caused confusion and
prolongation of the cadastral suit for presenting evidence therein containing a
false statement inconsistent with facts he definitely knows by reason of the
family litigations between his client and complainant herein, which are rooted
in successional rights [and that] respondent's failure to discharge his duties
as a lawyer consistent with his oath of office finds sanction in Rule 138,
Section 27, Revised Rules of Court.There is something unique in this proceeding
then. With the finding of the then Solicitor General Barredo that there was
nothing wilful in the conduct pursued by respondent in thus introducing in
evidence the Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer which turned out to be false,
in the preparation of which, however, he had nothing to do, the charge of
deliberate deception obviously cannot be sustained.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.
Carranza violated his oath for prolongation of the cadastral suit.
HELD: A
lawyer's oath is one impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be
taken lightly. Every lawyer must do his best to live up to it. 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. If, as unfortunately happened in
this case, even without any intent on the part of a member of the bar to
mislead the court, such deplorable event did occur, he must not be allowed to
escape the responsibility that justly attaches to a conduct far from
impeccable.
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. Respondent Pedro B. Carranza is reprimanded and warned that a
repetition of an offense of this character would be much more severely dealt
with. The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, through any of the district
judges, is hereby directed to administer in public the reprimand thus imposed
on respondent Pedro B. Carranza.
