1/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093

VOL. 93, SEPTEMBER 7, 1979 87

Pangan vs. Ramos

*
Adm. Case No. 1053. September 7, 1979.

SANTA PANGAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DION1SIO

RAMOS, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Practice of Law; Role of Attorneys;

Nature Of; Lawyer enjoined to use the name inscribed in the Roll
of Attorneys in his practice of law.—The attorney’s roll or register
is the official record containing the names and signatures of those
who are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is not authorized to
use a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys
in his practice of law.
Same; Same; Same; Oath of Attorney; Obligation of attorney
under his oath of office is to be candor and frank in his dealings
with the court.—The official oath obliges the attorney solemnly to
swear that he “will do no falsehood”. As an officer in the temple of
justice, an attorney has irrefragable obligations of “truthfulness,
candor and frankness”. Indeed, candor and frankness should
characterize the conduct of the lawyer at every stage. This has to
be so because the court has the right to rely upon him in
ascertaining the truth.
Same; Same; Duty of attorney to the courts; General duty of
entire devotion of attorney to client.—The duty of an attorney to
the courts to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes
confided to him, such means as are consistent with truth and
honor, cannot be overemphasized. These injunctions circumscribe
the general duty of entire devotion of the attorney to the client. As
stated in a case, his “high vocation is to correctly inform the court
upon the law and the facts of the case, and to aid it in doing
justice and arriving at correct conclusions. He violates his oath of
office when he resorts to deception, or permits his client to do so.”
Same; Same; Same; Lawyer who use before the courts a name
other than the name inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys resorted to
deception and demonstrated lack of candor in dealing with the
courts; Offending attorney reprimanded and warned; Case at bar.
—In using the name of “Pedro D.D. Ramos” before the courts

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016125f4dfb9d790eb0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
1/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093

instead of the name by which he was authorized to practice law—

Dionisio D. Ramos—respondent in effect resorted to deception. He

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

88

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pangan vs. Ramos

demonstrated lack of candor in dealing with the courts, The

circumstance that this is his first aberration in this regard
precludes Us from imposing a more severe penalty. x x x In view
of the foregoing, respondent Dionisio D. Ramos is severely
REPRIMANDED and warned that a repetition of the same overt
act may warrant his suspension or disbarment from the practice
of law.

RESOLUTION

ANTONIO, J.:

This has reference to the motion of complainant, Santa

Pangan, to cite respondent Dionisio Ramos for contempt. It
appears from the record that on September 7, 1978 and
March 13, 1979, the hearings in this administrative case
were postponed on the basis of respondent’s motions for
postpone-ment. These motions were predicated on
respondent’s allegations that on said dates he had a case
set for hearing before Branch VII, Court of First Instance of
Manila, entitled People v. Marieta M. Isip (Criminal Case
No. 35906). Upon verification, the attorney of record of the
accused in said case is one “Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos, 306
Doña Salud Bldg., Dasmariñas, Manila.” Respondent
admits that he used the name of “Pedro D.D. Ramos” before
said court in connection with Criminal Case No. 35906, but
avers that he had a right to do so because in his Birth
Certificate (Annex “A”), his name is “Pedro Dionisio
Ramos”, and his parents are Pedro Ramos and Carmen
Dayaw, and that the “D.D.” in “Pedro D.D. Ramos” is but

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016125f4dfb9d790eb0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
1/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093

an abbreviation of “Dionisio Dayaw”, his other given name

and maternal surname.
This explanation of respondent is untenable. The name
appearing in the “Roll of Attorneys” is “Dionisio D. Ramos”.
The attorney’s roll or register is the official record
containing the names and signatures of those who are
authorized to practice law. A lawyer is not authorized to
use a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of
Attorneys in his practice of law.
The official oath obliges the attorney solemnly to swear
that he “will do no falsehood”. As an officer in the temple of
justice, an attorney has irrefragable obligations of
“truthfulness, can-
89

VOL. 93, SEPTEMBER 7, 1979 89

Pangan vs. Ramos

1
dor and frankness”. Indeed, candor and frankness should
characterize the conduct of the lawyer at every stage. This
has to be so because the court has the right to rely upon
him in ascertaining the truth. In representing himself to
the court as “Pedro D.D. Ramos” instead of “Dionisio D.
Ramos”, respondent has violated his solemn oath.
The duty of an attorney to the courts to employ, for the
purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means as are consistent with truth and honor, cannot be
overemphasized. These injunctions circumscribe the
general duty of entire devotion of the attorney to the client.
As stated in a case, his “high vocation is to correctly inform
the court upon the law and the facts of the case, and to aid
it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions. He
violates his oath of office when
2
he resorts to deception, or
permits his client to do so.”
In using the name of “Pedro D.D. Ramos” before the
courts instead of the name by which he was authorized to
practice law—Dionisio D. Ramos—respondent in effect
resorted to deception. He demonstrated lack of candor in
dealing with the courts. The circumstance that this is his
first aberration in this regard precludes Us from imposing
a more severe penalty.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent
Dionisio D. Ramos is severely REPRIMANDED and
warned that a repetition of the same overt act may warrant
his suspension or disbarment from the practice of law.
It appearing that the hearing of this case has been
unduly delayed, the Investigator of this Court is directed
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016125f4dfb9d790eb0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
1/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093

forthwith to proceed with the hearing to terminate it as

soon as possible. The request of complainant to appear in
the afore-mentioned hearing, assisted by her counsel, Atty.
Jose U. Lontoc, is hereby granted.
SO ORDERED.

          Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion Jr. and Abad

Santos, JJ., concur.

_______________

1 Jessup, Professional Ideals of the Lawyer 18, Malcolm, Legal and

Judicial Ethics, 116-120.
2 People v. Beattie, 137 111. 553, 31 Am. St. Rep. 384.

90

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pangan vs. Ramos

     Santos, is on official leave.

     Aquino, J., in the result.

Respondent reprimanded.

Notes.—A lawyer as counsel de oficio is duty bound to

exert his best efforts in behalf of an indigent client. (People
vs. Estebia, 27 SCRA 106).
An attorney’s duty of prime importance is to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers. (People vs. Estebia, 27 SCRA 106; Cruz vs.
GSIS, 27 SCRA 174).
It is the duty of lawyers to evaluate the urgency and
importance of registered letters sent by courts. (Antonio vs.
Ramos, 2 SCRA 731).
An award of 15% as attorney’s fees is reasonable.
(Cosmopolitan Insurance Co. vs. Reyes, 15 SCRA 258).
A lawyer is guilty of gross misconduct in office where he
displays his revolver and puts it on his lap in order to
intimidate his client into signing a petition which the
former has prepared. (Vda. de Barrera vs. Laput, 26 SCRA
44).
The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be
disbarred may consist of misconduct in either his
professional or nonprofessional activities. (Rayong vs.
Oblena, 7 SCRA 859).
The standard of personal and professional integrity
which should be applied to persons submitted to practice

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016125f4dfb9d790eb0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
1/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093

law is not satisfied by such conduct as merely enables them

to escape the penalties of criminal law. Good moral
character includes at least common honesty. (Royong vs.
Oblena, 7 SCRA 859.)
When the lawyer’s integrity is challenged by evidence, it
is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he
must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the
relator and show proofs that he still maintains the highest
degree of morality and integrity, which at all is expected of
him. (Quingwa vs. Puno, 19 SCRA 439.)
Where a lawyer makes false statement just to get or
extract money from his client, his acts constitute
professional miscon-
91

VOL. 93, SEPTEMBER 10, 1979 91

Abaigar vs. Paz

duct, for which he deserves disciplined. (In re: Arafiles, 35

SCRA 61.)
The false statement made by a lawyer on an information
sheet sworn and subscribed by him to be true, upon which
same statement, administrative and criminal charges have
been filed against him, may be a ground for disbarment.
(Calo vs. Degamo, 20 SCRA 447.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016125f4dfb9d790eb0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5