For the Court’s resolution is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Jose Allan Tan against respondent Pedro S. Diamante, charging him with 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. The Supreme Court affirmed the disbarment of respondent Pedro S. Diamante for gross misconduct, specifically for fabricating a court order and failing to inform his client of the status of his case, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision underscores the high standards of honesty and diligence required of lawyers, reinforcing the principle that engaging in deceitful conduct renders an attorney unfit to practice law.

Fabricated Orders and Broken Trust: When a Lawyer’s Deceit Leads to Disbarment

On April 2, 2003, complainant Jose Allan Tan sought the legal services of respondent Pedro S. Diamante to pursue a partition case concerning the estate of Luis Tan. Diamante filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, which was later dismissed on July 25, 2007, for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence. Diamante was notified of the dismissal on August 14, 2007, but failed to inform Tan until August 24, 2007, when Tan visited his office. On that occasion, Diamante requested P10,000 for appeal fees, and upon Tan’s inability to provide the full amount, accepted P500 as a reservation fee for filing a notice of appeal.

Tan later provided the full amount of P10,000, and Diamante filed a notice of appeal on September 12, 2007. However, the RTC dismissed the appeal on September 18, 2007, for being filed beyond the legal deadline. Diamante concealed this dismissal and presented Tan with a fabricated court order dated November 9, 2007, purportedly directing a DNA test to prove Tan’s filiation. Upon discovering the falsification and the dismissal of his appeal, Tan filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Diamante. In his defense, Diamante claimed that Tan’s failure to provide appeal fees on time led to the late filing, and that he assisted Tan despite the lapse of the reglementary period, without malice.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Diamante administratively liable. The IBP recommended a one-year suspension, finding that Diamante had sidestepped the allegations against him and that the fabricated order was intended to conceal his negligence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Diamante should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The Supreme Court concurred with the IBP’s findings, modifying the penalty to disbarment. The Court emphasized Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, which mandates that lawyers must keep clients informed of their case’s status:

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.

The Court noted that Diamante failed to inform Tan of the initial dismissal of his case promptly and was negligent in filing the appeal late. Furthermore, Diamante’s act of fabricating a court order to conceal the dismissal of the appeal was a clear violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR:

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.

This conduct was deemed unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful, causing prejudice to Tan. The Supreme Court has consistently held that lawyers must maintain high standards of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, and integrity. Failure to meet these standards, whether in a professional or private capacity, renders a lawyer unworthy of practicing law. Diamante’s actions constituted gross misconduct, revealing a fundamental moral flaw that made him unfit to practice law. The Court cited *Sebastian v. Calis*, 372 Phil. 673 (1999), which emphasized that “[d]eception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer.”

The Court distinguished this case from others where lawyers were suspended for failing to inform clients, noting that Diamante’s falsification of a court document warranted a more severe penalty. In cases such as *Brennisen v. Contawi* and *Embido v. Pe*, lawyers who falsified documents were disbarred. Diamante’s actions were reprehensible, demonstrating moral unfitness and an inability to fulfill his duties as a member of the bar. The Supreme Court DISBARRED respondent Pedro S. Diamante for gross misconduct and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, ordering his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an attorney should be disbarred for fabricating a court order and failing to inform his client about the status of the case, thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What specific violations did the attorney commit?	The attorney violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 (engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct) and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 (failing to keep the client informed) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What was the basis for the disbarment?	The disbarment was based on the attorney’s gross misconduct, which included fabricating a court order to deceive his client and failing to inform the client about critical developments in the case.
What is the duty of a lawyer regarding client communication?	A lawyer has a duty to keep the client informed of the status of the case and respond within a reasonable time to the client’s requests for information, ensuring transparency and trust.
What constitutes deceitful conduct for a lawyer?	Deceitful conduct includes any act that involves dishonesty, misrepresentation, or falsification, such as fabricating documents or misleading a client about the true status of their case.
What is the significance of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	The Code of Professional Responsibility sets the ethical standards that all lawyers must adhere to, ensuring integrity, competence, and diligence in their practice to maintain public trust in the legal profession.
How does this case affect the legal profession?	This case reinforces the importance of honesty and transparency in the legal profession, serving as a reminder that lawyers must uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct or face severe disciplinary actions.
Can a lawyer be disbarred for actions outside of court?	Yes, a lawyer can be disbarred for actions in both their professional and private capacity if those actions demonstrate a lack of moral character and fitness to practice law.
What is the role of the IBP in disciplinary cases?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigates administrative complaints against lawyers and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding disciplinary actions.

This decision serves as a stern warning to all members of the bar that deceitful conduct and neglect of client communication will not be tolerated. The Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession remains unwavering, ensuring that only those who demonstrate the highest ethical standards are permitted to practice law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOSE ALLAN TAN VS. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE, AC No. 7766, August 05, 2014