Disciple of truth

Now that the bar exams are underway, our future lawyers should realize what they are getting into. They should know the tremendous responsibilities lawyers have especially in the service of truth and justice. As held in one case, a lawyer is a "disciple of truth" (Benguet vs. Flores, 287 SCRA 449). Before his admission to the bar upon passing the exams, he takes an oath that he "will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court". Unfortunately, passing the bar is not a guarantee that he will be true to his oath. As shown in the case of these two lawyers, Attys. Remedio and Areglo (not their true names).

Attys. Remedio and Areglo were the lawyers for the accused in a criminal case for murder pending before the Regional Trial of Manila. On Dec. 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority (NBI) and, as such, he is now under detention. The certificate of detention was not however attached to their motion which they set for hearing on Dec. 15, 2000.This motion was received by one of the clerks in the RTC and its inclusion in the court calendar for Dec. 15,2000 was authorized by the Judge.

Upon verification with the NBI where the accused allegedly surrendered on Dec. 13, 2000, it turned out that the accused actually turned himself in, only on Dec. 14, 2003, not Dec. 13 as shown in the certificate of detention, contrary to the allegations of lawyers Remedio and Areglo. When the private prosecutor learned about such falsehood, he filed a complaint for disbarment against Attys. Remedio and Areglo for committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer’s oath.

For their defense, the two lawyers argued that there was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in their subject Motion as they were able to show at the hearing of their motion on Dec. 15, 2000 that their client has indeed actually surrendered and was detained at the NBI. The allegation on their motion as to their client’s detention on Dec. 13, 2000 was merely a statement of an ultimate fact which still has to be proved as they did prove by evidence at the hearing of their motion on Dec. 15, 2000.According to them, after they filed the motion on Dec. 13 2000, they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite but due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI already at 2:00 am of the next day, Dec. 14,2000.

With this explanation, were the two lawyers still guilty of deliberate falsehood?

Yes.

Evidently Attys. Areglo and Remedio fell short of the duties and responsibilities expected of them as members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused who was still at large, they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under detention. Obviously such artifice was deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to injustice. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous and condemnable conduct. They violated their lawyer’s oath when they resorted to deception.

That they were able to show that their client was already in custody at the hearing held on Dec. 15, 2000, does not exonerate them. The fact remains that the allegation that the accused was in the custody of the NBI on Dec. 13, 2000 was false. It is of no moment that the accused eventually surrendered. Such supervening event is of no bearing and immaterial. What is material is that at the time of the application for bail on Dec. 13, 2000, said application should not have been afforded recognition by the court because the person in whose behalf it was filed was devoid of personality to ask such affirmative relief since he was still at large and not under the court’s jurisdiction. So Attys. Areglo and Remedio were suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. (Young vs. Batuegas et.al. A.C. No. 5379, May 9, 2003).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]