SANTA PANGAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS, RESPONDENT.

On November 29, 1971, Santa Pangan filed before this Court a verified
complaint charging respondent Atty. Dionisio Ramos with gross immorality, the
latter having misrepresented himself as still “single” when he
started courting complainant, proposed marriage to her and finally succeeded in
marrying her even with full consciousness that his first marriage to his first
wife was still valid and subsisting.^[1]
(A Criminal Case for bigamy was also filed by the complainant against the re­spondent
in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 15528).

In his answer to the complaint, respondent denied the material
allegations thereof for being without legal or factual basis.  He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint
for fail­ure to state cause of action against respondent.^[2]

The case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for
report, investigation and recommendation. 
On June 1, 1976, the Solicitor General submitted his report finding
respondent Ramos guilty as charged, with a recommendation for his suspension
from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to Section
7, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.^[3]
Subsequently, the corresponding complaint for his suspension from the practice
of law was filed.

On September 13, 1976, respondent filed his answer to the complaint
and moved for the appointment of a commissioner to hear and take additional
evidence in his behalf, which, how­ever, was denied by the Court per its
Resolution of October 6, 1976.  At the
hearing of February 25, 1977, respondent, acting as counsel for his own behalf,
moved for the presenta­tion of additional evidence, which was, however, opposed
by complainant’s counsel on the ground that respondent is resorting to dilatory
tactics.  At the hearing of September 2,
1977, complainant and respondent appeared and the Court set the hearing of the
case for the purpose of reception of additional evidence before its Legal
Officer-Investigator.

Meanwhile, on September 7, 1979, the Court, speaking through
Justice Felix Antonio, severely REPRIMANDED respondent Dionisio Ramos, with
warning that a repetition of the same overt act may warrant his suspension or
disbarment from the practice of law.^[4]
The reprimand was administered because respondent used the name “Pedro
D.D. Ramos” in connection with Criminal Case No. 35906.  He averred that he had a right to do so
because in his Birth Certificate 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.  The Court opined that
“respondent in effect resorted to deception.  He demonstrated lack of candor in dealing
with the courts.”

At the hearing of October 23, 1979, Solicitor Celia Reyes
appeared submitting the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Branch XXI, in Criminal Case No. 15528, acquitting respondent of the charges of
bigamy on grounds of insufficiency of evidence, for having contracted the
second marriage with the complainant.

On January 15, 1980, the Legal Officer-Investigator submitted his
report concurring in the findings of the Solicitor General, although he
recommended a penalty of a minimum five-year suspension from the practice of
law, with prospect for the imposition of a total disbarment from the practice
of law, as the Court finds fit and appropriate.^[5]

On February 27, 1981, counsel for complainant filed its motion to
expedite disposition of the case, further alleging that respondent Ramos is
still using the name of Pedro Dionisio Ramos and P.D.D. Ramos in two pleadings
filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila, disregarding the Resolution
of this Court dated September 7, 1979.^[6]
Commenting, respondent admitted the allegations of complainant’s counsel but
alleged that he signed the pleadings inadvertently because of poor eyesight.

The facts, as found by the Solicitor General who inves­tigated
the case, and the Legal Officer-Investigator before whom the additional
evidence was presented, are as follows: 
Respondent was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1964.  He was legally married to and living with
Editha Encarnado, the marriage with her having been celebrated on September 4,
1963.  Both complainant and respondent
were officemates in the Office of Councilor Lito Puyat, City Hall, Manila since
1967.  With the convenience thus offered,
respondent, representing him­self to be “single,” began courting
complainant, proposed civil marriage to her to be later followed with a church
celebration after which they will live together as husband and wife.  From January 1968 to February 1971, thay had
carnal knowledge of each other in various hotels in Manila, particularly the
Golden Gate Motel and Salem Motel.  Some­time
in June 1970, complainant informed respondent that she was pregnant.  Whereupon, both agreed to get a quick
marriage.  Accordingly, complainant and
respondent filed their respective applications for a marriage license (Exhs.
“H”, “H-1” and “H-2”) and based thereon, they
obtained a marriage license issued on June 16, 1970 (Exh. “D”) and
celebrated their mar­riage before Minister Isidro L. Dizon on June 18, 1970
(Exh. “B”).  After the
marriage, complainant and respondent agreed to have a church marriage before
they live together as husband and wife, although they continued to have sexual
trysts.  Respondent was invited by
complainant to meet the latter’s mother to whom respondent expressed his desire
to marry complainant, and to which proposal complainant’s mother agreed,
provided respondent bring his parents with him to ask for complainant’s
hand.  Several weeks had passed and
respondent failed to bring his parents to complainant’s home.  Complain­ant and her mother became
suspicious.  They made inquiries about
the personal status of respondent and they ultimately discovered that respondent
was already married to one Editha Encarnado (Exhs. “C” and
“E”).  After discovering that
respon­dent was a married man, complainant resigned from her job as
receptionist from the office of Councilor Lito Puyat.  She stopped having intimate relationship with
respondent and because of the humiliation and embarassment she suffered before
her friends and officemates, she filed the present disbarment case.

Upon the other hand, respondent tried to prove, through his
affidavit subscribed before Asst. City Fiscal Primitivo Peñaranda of Manila,
that he never misrepresented himself to be “single” and that
complainant knew at the outset of his married status; that it was purely
complainant’s wish to carry on a love affair with him as described in his
affidavit; that he was threatened and forced to sign blank marriage contract
forms and applications for marriage license by the brothers of the complainant
who are allegedly notorious police characters; that his signature in the
marriage contract (Exh. B) was forged and falsified; that the marriage contract
was only celebrated as a cover-up of the pregnancy of the com­plainant; and
that the disbarment proceedings were initiated by complainant because he
refused to elope with complainant and abandon his wife Editha Encarnado, and he
stopped giving her money and avoided seeing her again.

Upon a review of the record, We are convinced that re­spondent
Dionisio Ramos is guilty of grossly immoral conduct which warrants proper
action from this Court.  His own dec­larations
in his affidavit corroborate this imputation of immorality.  Thus, in his affidavit subscribed before
Asst. Fiscal Primitivo Peñaranda of Manila on Feb. 22, 1967, re­spondent
frankly admitted having carnal relations with complainant for several
times.  What is more, respondent claimed
that he was threatened and forced by complainant’s brothers to celebrate the
marriage dated June 18, 1980, but in the same breath, he admitted having carnal
affair with complainant after the celebration of the marriage.  Worse still, respondent misrepresented his
civil status as “single”, courted complainant, proposed marriage to
her – knowing his legal impediments to marry complainant, respondent’s motives
were clearly and grossly immoral – won her confidence and married her while his
first marriage to his present wife still validly subsists.

In Villasanta vs. Peralta,^[7]
where respondent was dis­barred because he made love with complainant, procured
the preparation of a false marriage contract and arranged a false wedding with
complainant while his first wife was still alive and their marriage still valid
and existing, this Court held:  “the
act of respondent of contracting the second marriage (even his act in making
love to another woman while his first wife is still alive and their marriage
still valid and exist­ing) is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
morality.  Respondent made a mockery of
marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.”

It is of importance that members of the ancient and learned profession
of law must conform with the highest stan­dards of morality.  As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics:  “The lawyer should
aid in guarding the Bar against the admission to the profession of candidates
unfit or unqualified because deficient in either moral char­acter or
education.  He should strive at all times
to up­hold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to
improve not only the law but also the administration of justice.”^[8]

Respondent, however, submits that having been acquitted by the
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI, of the charge of bigamy, the
immorality charges filed against him in this disbarment case should be
dismissed.  The acquittal of respondent
Ramos upon the criminal charge is not a bar to these proceedings.  The standards of legal profession are not
satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of the
criminal law.  Moreover, this Court in
disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different capacity from that
which courts assume in trying criminal cases.^[9]

This Court has already severely reprimanded respondent from using
a name other than authorized name in the “Roll of Attorneys” and was
warned that a repetition of the same overt act may warrant his suspension of
disbarment from office in the future. 
Notwithstanding such reprimand and warning, however, respondent repeated
the same overt act of using unauthorized name in two pleadings filed before the
Court of First Instance of Manila.  His
explanation that he had done so inadvertently because of poor eyesight appears
unsatisfactory.  He should have employed
more caution and prudence in filing pleadings before courts considering the
fact that he had already been warned and reprimanded by this Court.  Respondent’s conduct, thus, suggests lack of
candor and respect in his dealing with this Court.  He has violated his oath of office of
assuming the duty of good faith and honorable dealings with the court, of being
respectful to it and of being obedient to its rules and lawful orders.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that
respondent committed a grossly immoral act, as found both by the Solicitor
General and this Court’s Legal Officer-Investigator, and as recommended by the
Solicitor General, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for
a period of three (3) years, for gross immorality, and an additional one (1)
year for his willful disregard of a law­ful order against his using an
unauthorized name, in serious disrespect of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
pp. 1-3, Rollo.

^[2]
p. 21, Rollo.

^[3]
p. 30, Rollo

^[4]
Adm. Case No. 1053, September 7, 1979, 93 SCRA 87.

^[5]
pp. 305-322, Rollo.

^[6]
????? ????? ?????

^[7] April
30, 1957, 101 Phil. 313, see also Mortel vs. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 591.

^[8]
Quingwa vs. Puno, Adm. Case No. 389, 19 SCRA 439.

^[9]
In re del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399.