Pangan vs.
Ramos
Facts:
In 1979, a pending administrative case filed by Santa Pangan against Atty. Dionisio Ramos was
delayed because Atty. Ramos allegedly appeared before a court in Manila. When the records of the
said case was checked (one which Atty. Ramos appeared in), it was found that he used the name
“Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos”. In his defense, Atty. Ramos said he has the right to use such name
because in his birth certificate, his name listed was Pedro Dionisio Ramos. “D.D.” stands for Dionisio
Dayaw with Dayaw being his mother’s surname. However, in the roll of attorneys, his name listed
was Dionisio D. Ramos.
ISSUE: Whether or not what Atty. Ramos did was correct.
HELD:
No. 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. In representing himself to the court as
“Pedro D.D. Ramos” instead of “Dionisio D. Ramos”, respondent has violated his solemn oath and
has resorted to deception.
The Supreme Court hence severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a similar
infraction will warrant suspension or disbarment.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. 1053 September 7, 1979
SANTA PANGAN, complainant vs. ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS, respondent,
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
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 Dona Salud Bldg., Dasmarinas 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". Indeed, candor and frankness should characterize the conduct of the lawyer at every
1
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 overempahisized. These
injunctions circumscribe the general duty of entire devotion of the attorney to the client. As stated in
a case, his I nigh 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. The
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 suspencion 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
