AM 1053; (September, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 1053 September 7, 1979
SANTA PANGAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS, respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case involves a motion by complainant Santa Pangan to cite respondent Atty. Dionisio Ramos for contempt. The hearings for this case were postponed on September 7, 1978, and March 13, 1979, based on respondent’s motions. He justified these postponements by alleging he had a conflicting hearing scheduled on those same dates before Branch VII of the Court of First Instance of Manila in People v. Marieta M. Isip (Criminal Case No. 35906).
Upon verification by the Court, it was discovered that the attorney of record for the accused in that criminal case was listed as “Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos.” Respondent admitted to using that name before the trial court. He sought to justify this by presenting his Birth Certificate, which showed his name as “Pedro Dionisio Ramos,” with his parents being Pedro Ramos and Carmen Dayaw. He claimed that “D.D.” in “Pedro D.D. Ramos” was merely an abbreviation for “Dionisio Dayaw,” representing his other given name and maternal surname.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Dionisio Ramos committed a violation of his professional oath and ethical duties by practicing law under a name different from the one inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys.
RULING
Yes, the respondent violated his solemn oath and his ethical duties as a lawyer. The Court found his explanation for using the name “Pedro D.D. Ramos” untenable. The official and authoritative record for the practice of law is the Roll of Attorneys, wherein his duly registered and authorized name is “Dionisio D. Ramos.” A lawyer is not permitted to use any other name in his legal practice. The attorney’s oath imposes a fundamental duty to “do no falsehood,” and as an officer of the court, a lawyer is bound by obligations of truthfulness, candor, and frankness in all dealings with the judiciary.
By representing himself to a court as “Pedro D.D. Ramos,” respondent engaged in deception. The Court relies on an attorney’s representations concerning their identity and schedule; such candor is essential for the proper administration of justice. This act demonstrated a lack of the required frankness and violated his oath, which mandates that he employ only means consistent with truth and honor in maintaining his causes. While the Court considered this his first such offense, warranting some leniency, his conduct could not be excused. Consequently, Atty. Dionisio D. Ramos was SEVERELY REPRIMANDED and sternly warned that a repetition of the same act could result in suspension or disbarment. The Court also directed the expedited continuation of the underlying administrative case.