Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Santa Pangan vs Atty.

Dionisio Ramos
Canon 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT
Rule 10.01: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to
be misled by any artifice.
FACTS: In 1979, a pending administrative case filed by Santa Pangan
against Atty. Dionisio Ramos was postponed because on the reason
that Atty. Ramos allegedly had a case set for hearing in Manila. When
the records of the said case were checked (the case in Manila which he
has to attend), 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 mothers surname. However, his name listed in the roll of attorneys
was Dionisio D. Ramos

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ramos violated Canon 10.01 of the CPR
for using Pedro D.D. Ramos instead of the name Dionisio D.
Ramos he listed in the roll of attorneys
HELD: YES.
The attorneys 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.