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

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 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 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, 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 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.”^[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 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 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.

Aquino, J., in the result.

Santos, J., is on official
leave.

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

^[2]
People v. Beattie, 137 I11.  553,
31 Am. St. Rep. 384.