AM 1053; (August, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. 1053. August 31, 1981. SANTA PANGAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Santa Pangan filed a verified disbarment complaint against Atty. Dionisio Ramos for gross immorality. The complainant alleged that respondent, while legally married to Editha Encarnado, misrepresented himself as single, courted her, proposed marriage, and subsequently contracted a second marriage with her on June 18, 1970. Their relationship, which began in 1967 when they were officemates, involved carnal knowledge. The complainant discovered the respondent’s existing marriage and filed this administrative case alongside a criminal case for bigamy. The Solicitor General, after investigation, found respondent guilty and recommended a three-year suspension.
In a related prior incident, the Court had severely reprimanded respondent on September 7, 1979, for using the name “Pedro Dionisio Ramos” in court pleadings instead of his registered name, warning that repetition could lead to suspension or disbarment. Despite this, respondent again used the unauthorized name in two subsequent pleadings, offering the explanation of poor eyesight.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Dionisio Ramos should be disciplined for gross immorality and for willful disregard of a lawful order of the Court.
RULING
Yes, respondent is suspended from the practice of law. The Court found respondent guilty of gross immorality. The factual findings of the Solicitor General and the Court’s Legal Officer-Investigator established that respondent, a married man, deceived the complainant into a second marriage. His acquittal in the criminal case for bigamy on grounds of insufficient evidence is not a bar to these administrative proceedings. The standards of the legal profession demand a higher degree of moral integrity than merely avoiding criminal liability. A lawyer’s conduct must uphold the dignity of the profession.
Furthermore, respondent exhibited disrespect to the Court by repeatedly using an unauthorized name in his pleadings, despite a prior reprimand and explicit warning. His excuse of inadvertence due to poor eyesight was deemed unsatisfactory, demonstrating a lack of candor and prudence required of a lawyer in dealings with the court. This act constituted a violation of his oath and a willful disregard of a lawful order.
Consequently, the Court imposed a suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years for gross immorality, with an additional one year for his disrespectful conduct, for a total suspension of four years.