Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Pangan V Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Mio Oliver
    The Supreme Court reprimanded and warned attorney Dionisio Ramos for using a different name, "Pedro D.D. Ramos", before the courts instead of the name under which he was authorized to practice law, "Dionisio D. Ramos". The Court found that using a different name demonstrated a lack of candor and violated his oath as an officer of the court. While this was Ramos' first offense, the Court directed that the administrative hearing against Ramos proceed promptly to avoid further delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pangan V Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Mio Oliver
    71 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court reprimanded and warned attorney Dionisio Ramos for using a different name, "Pedro D.D. Ramos", before the courts instead of the name under which he was authorized to practice law, "Dionisio D. Ramos". The Court found that using a different name demonstrated a lack of candor and violated his oath as an officer of the court. While this was Ramos' first offense, the Court directed that the administrative hearing against Ramos proceed promptly to avoid further delays.

    Original Description:

    Pangan v Ramos

    Original Title

    Pangan v Ramos

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reprimanded and warned attorney Dionisio Ramos for using a different name, "Pedro D.D. Ramos", before the courts instead of the name under which he was authorized to practice law, "Dionisio D. Ramos". The Court found that using a different name demonstrated a lack of candor and violated his oath as an officer of the court. While this was Ramos' first offense, the Court directed that the administrative hearing against Ramos proceed promptly to avoid further delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Pangan V Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Mio Oliver
    The Supreme Court reprimanded and warned attorney Dionisio Ramos for using a different name, "Pedro D.D. Ramos", before the courts instead of the name under which he was authorized to practice law, "Dionisio D. Ramos". The Court found that using a different name demonstrated a lack of candor and violated his oath as an officer of the court. While this was Ramos' first offense, the Court directed that the administrative hearing against Ramos proceed promptly to avoid further delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    SECOND DIVISION

    [Adm. Case No. 1053. September 7, 1979.]


    SANTA PANGAN , complainant, vs. ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS ,
    respondent.

    RESOLUTION

    ANTONIO , J : p

    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 postponement. 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 veri cation, 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 Certi cate
    (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 an abbreviation
    of "Dionisio Dayaw", his other given name and maternal surname. cdll

    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 o cial
    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 o cial oath obliges the attorney solemnly to swear that he "will do no
    falsehood". As an o cer in the temple of justice, an attorney has irrefragable
    obligations of "truthfulness, candor and frankness". 1 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 con ded 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." 2
    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
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
    dealing with the courts. The circumstance that this is his rst aberration in this
    regard precludes Us from imposing a more severe penalty. LLphil

    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 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.
    Santos., is on official leave.
    Aquino, J., in the result.
    Footnotes

    1. Jessup, Professional Ideals of the Lawyer 18, Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 116-120.

    2. People v. Beattie, 137 Ill. 553, 31 Am. St. Rep. 384.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like