Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=83307:57296&amp;catid=1586&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:31:30+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 7766, August 05, 2014 - JOSE ALLAN TAN, Complainant, v. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE, Respondent.
JOSE ALLAN TAN, Complainant, v. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE, Respondent.
For the Court’s resolution is an administrative Complaint1 for disbarment dated February 1, 2008 filed by complainant Jose Allan Tan (complainant) against respondent Pedro S. Diamante (respondent), charging him of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the lawyer’s oath for fabricating and using a spurious court order, and for failing to keep his client informed of the status of the case.
In an Order11 dated September 18, 2007, the RTC dismissed complainant’s appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period provided for by law. Respondent, however, did not disclose such fact and, instead, showed complainant an Order12 dated November 9, 2007 purportedly issued by the RTC (November 9, 2007 Order) directing the submission of the results of a DNA testing to prove his filiation to the late Luis Tan, within 15 days from receipt of the notice. Considering the technical requirements for such kind of testing, complainant proceeded to the RTC and requested for an extension of the deadline for its submission. It was then that he discovered that the November 9, 2007 Order was spurious, as certified by the RTC’s Clerk of Court.13 Complainant also found out that, contrary to the representations of respondent, his appeal had long been dismissed.14 Aggrieved, he filed the instant administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent.
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the IBP’s findings, subject to the modification of the recommended penalty to be imposed upon respondent.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client’s request for information.
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing,25 failing in which whether in his personal or private capacity, he becomes unworthy to continue his practice of law.26 A lawyer’s inexcusable neglect to serve his client’s interests with utmost diligence and competence as well as his engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in order to conceal such neglect should never be countenanced, and thus, administratively sanctioned.
Jurisprudence reveals that in analogous cases where lawyers failed to inform their clients of the status of their respective cases, the Court suspended them for a period of six (6) months. In Mejares v. Romana,31 the Court suspended the lawyer for the same period for his failure to timely and adequately inform his clients of the dismissal of their petition. In the same vein, in Penilla v. Alcid, Jr.,32 the same penalty was imposed on the lawyer who consistently failed to update his client of the status of his cases, notwithstanding several follow-ups.
However, in cases where lawyers engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct by falsifying documents, the Court found them guilty of Gross Misconduct and disbarred them. In Brennisen v. Contawi,33 the Court disbarred the lawyer who falsified a special power of attorney in order to mortgage and sell his client’s property. Also, in Embido v. Pe,34 the penalty of disbarment was meted out against the lawyer who falsified an inexistent court decision for a fee.
As already discussed, respondent committed acts of falsification in order to misrepresent to his client, i.e., complainant, that he still had an available remedy in his case, when in reality, his case had long been dismissed for failure to timely file an appeal, thus, causing undue prejudice to the latter. To the Court, respondent’s acts are so reprehensible, and his violations of the CPR are so flagrant, exhibiting his moral unfitness and inability to discharge his duties as a member of the bar. His actions erode rather than enhance the public perception of the legal profession. Therefore, in view of the totality of his violations, as well as the damage and prejudice caused to his client, respondent deserves the ultimate punishment of disbarment.
WHEREFORE, respondent Pedro S. Diamante is hereby DISBARRED for Gross Misconduct and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the roll of attorneys.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent Pedro S. Diamante’s record in this Court. Further, let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and guidance.
Carpio,** (Acting Chief Justice), Velasco, Jr., De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
** Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 1743 dated August 4, 2014.
3 Id. at 5-8. Complaint for Partition of Real Property filed on April 2, 2003 (partition case).
4 Id. at 9-13. Penned by Judge George S. Patriarca.
6 See Order dated September 18, 2007; id. at 15.
9 See Notice of Appeal dated September 11, 2007; id. at 16.
13 See Certification dated December 10, 2007; id. at 18.
14 Id. at 2-3 and 146.
16 Id. at 28 and 147.
17 Id. at 146-150. Penned by Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero.
21 See Notice of Resolution; id. at 145.
22 See Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619, 629 (2004).
23Penilla v. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA 1, 13.
24Pineda v. Macapagal, A.C. No. 6026, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 292, 296.
25Tabang v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6490, July 9, 2013, 700 SCRA 788, 804.
26 See Ronquillo v. Cezar, A.C. No. 6288, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 1, 5-6.
27 See Mejares v. Romana, supra note 22; Penilla v. Alcid, Jr., supra note 23; Embido v. Pe, A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013; and Brennisen v. Contawi, A.C. No. 7481, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 358.
28 See Spouses Olbes v. Deciembre, 496 Phil. 799, 812 (2005).
29 372 Phil. 673 (1999).
33 See supra note 27.
34 See supra note 27.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.