Submitting Altered Evidence in Court: A Lawyer's Duty to Verify Documents

Every lawyer owes the court candor, fairness, and good faith. When a lawyer submits documentary evidence that turns out to be altered, the consequences can extend beyond the case itself. In Bukidnon Cooperative Bank v. Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado (A.C. No. 12734, July 28, 2020), the Supreme Court reminded the legal profession that carelessness in handling evidence is not excused by a plea of good faith.

The Facts of the Case

In November 2013, Bukidnon Cooperative Bank paid P244,640.00 to Asiatique International Travel & Tours Services Co., Ltd. for hotel accommodations and airline tickets to Singapore. When the trip was cancelled, the bank sought a refund but the travel agency's owner, Noel Encabo, refused.

The bank filed a sum of money case against Encabo. During the pre-trial conference, Encabo's counsel, Atty. Jose Vicente Arnado, asked another lawyer to pre-mark four electronic tickets issued by Cebu Pacific Air. Two of the tickets had no booking reference number.

The bank later subpoenaed VIA Philippines to verify the tickets' genuineness. VIA's representative testified that the tickets were altered. The two tickets without booking references were not genuine, while the tickets with reference numbers corresponded to different flight schedules, airlines, and passengers.

The bank filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Arnado, alleging he failed to examine the authenticity of the evidence before presenting it in court. Atty. Arnado claimed good faith, saying there was no indication the tickets were not genuine and that he had no expertise to determine their authenticity.

The Issue

The central question was whether a lawyer who submits altered documentary evidence for pre-marking, without prior knowledge of the alteration, is administratively liable.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court held Atty. Arnado administratively liable and reprimanded him with a stern warning.

The Court first ruled that the bank's withdrawal of the complaint did not automatically end the case. Under Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, no investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by the desistance, settlement, or withdrawal of charges by the complainant. In disciplinary proceedings, the issue is the lawyer's fitness to practice law, and the complainant is merely a witness.

The Court then applied Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. Specifically, Rule 10.01 states that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice.

The Court found that Atty. Arnado failed to measure up to these standards. The tickets were clearly altered, as attested by VIA Philippines' representative. Atty. Arnado could not hide behind the excuse that he lacked expertise to determine authenticity, especially since introducing such evidence could mislead the trial court.

The Court emphasized that lawyers must diligently familiarize themselves with the nature of the cases they represent. This duty flows from Canon 15, Rule 15.05 (giving clients candid and honest opinions on the merits of litigation) and Canon 19 (ensuring representation remains within the bounds of law).

Significantly, the Court noted that Atty. Arnado failed to notice that some tickets had no booking reference number. The fact that Encabo printed the tickets and handed them for pre-marking was of no moment. Atty. Arnado did not observe greater care to prevent the Court from being misled, and his indifference negated any claim of good faith.

Citing Berenguer v. Carranza (136 Phil. 75, 1969), the Court stated that even without intent to deceive, a lawyer whose conduct betrays inattention or carelessness should not escape liability by pleading that the conduct was not willful.

Practical Takeaways

• Verify before you submit. Lawyers must examine documentary evidence for obvious irregularities before presenting it in court, even if the client supplied the documents.
• Good faith is not a shield. A lawyer's honest belief that evidence is genuine does not excuse carelessness when circumstances call for more meticulous review.
• Desistance does not end discipline. Withdrawing an administrative complaint does not automatically dismiss a disbarment case if the records can establish the lawyer's liability.
• Candor is a continuing duty. Lawyers are officers of the court and owe strict accountability for honesty, not just to clients but to the judicial system itself.
• Carelessness has consequences. Even without prior knowledge of alteration, a lawyer can face reprimand, suspension, or more severe penalties.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.