G.R. No. A.C. No. 12734. July 28, 2020
Bukidnon Cooperative Bank, represented by General Manager Wilhelmia P. Ferrer, complainant, vs. Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado, respondent.

FACTS

Bukidnon Cooperative Bank engaged a travel agency for a trip to Singapore. The trip was cancelled, and the bank demanded a refund, which was not heeded. The bank filed a civil case for sum of money against the travel agency owner, Noel Encabo. Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado represented Encabo. During pre-trial, another lawyer appearing on Atty. Arnado’s behalf pre-marked four electronic tickets as exhibits. The bank later discovered these tickets were not listed in the Pre-Trial Brief and moved to verify their authenticity. A representative from VIA Philippines testified that the pre-marked tickets were altered; two were not genuine, and the others corresponded to a different flight, airline, and passengers. The bank filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Arnado, alleging he failed to examine the authenticity of the evidence and tolerated fraud. Atty. Arnado claimed good faith, stating there was no indication the tickets were not genuine and he lacked expertise to determine authenticity. The bank later withdrew the complaint. The IBP recommended dismissal, finding Atty. Arnado had no knowledge of the alteration.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado is administratively liable for violating his duties as a lawyer by submitting altered documentary evidence for pre-marking in court.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Arnado is administratively liable. The Court found that the pre-marked electronic tickets were altered. Atty. Arnado failed to measure up to the standards of candor and honesty required by the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He cannot rely on the excuse of lacking expertise to determine authenticity, especially when the evidence could mislead the court. Lawyers must diligently familiarize themselves with their cases and exercise greater care to prevent the court from being misled. His indifference negates any claim of good faith. While it was not established that he had prior knowledge of the alteration or willfully submitted false evidence, his carelessness does not free him from liability. Citing precedent, the Court held that even without intent to deceive, a lawyer whose conduct betrays inattention or carelessness is not exempt from responsibility. Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado is REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.