Tan vs. Diamante

A lawyer who fabricates a spurious court order to conceal from his client the dismissal of his case, and who fails to keep his client informed of the status of his case, is guilty of Gross Misconduct and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disbarment. The lawyer's inexcusable neglect to serve his client's interests with utmost diligence and competence, coupled with his engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct to conceal such neglect, reveals a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.

Complainant Jose Allan Tan, claiming to be a recognized illegitimate son of the late Luis Tan, secured the services of respondent Pedro S. Diamante, a lawyer, to pursue a case for partition of property against the heirs of the late spouses Luis and Natividad Valencia-Tan. The lawyer-client relationship was governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, which imposes upon lawyers the duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence, to keep clients informed of the status of their cases, and to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.

On April 2, 2003, complainant Jose Allan Tan, claiming to be a recognized illegitimate son of the late Luis Tan, secured the services of respondent Pedro S. Diamante to pursue a case for partition of property against the heirs of the late spouses Luis and Natividad Valencia-Tan. After accepting the engagement, respondent filed the corresponding complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 46, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-11947. The complaint was eventually dismissed by the RTC in an Order dated July 25, 2007 for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence.

While respondent was notified of such dismissal as early as August 14, 2007, complainant learned of the same only on August 24, 2007 when he visited the former's office. On such occasion, respondent allegedly asked for the amount of ₱10,000.00 for the payment of appeal fees and other costs, but since complainant could not produce the said amount at that time, respondent, instead, asked and was given the amount of ₱500.00 purportedly as payment of the reservation fee for the filing of a notice of appeal before the RTC. On September 12, 2007, Tan handed the amount of ₱10,000.00 to respondent, who on even date, filed a notice of appeal before the RTC.

In an Order 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 Order dated November 9, 2007 purportedly issued by the RTC 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. Complainant also found out that, contrary to the representations of respondent, his appeal had long been dismissed.

In his Comments/Compliance dated September 4, 2009, respondent alleged that it was complainant's failure to timely produce the amount of ₱1,400.00 to pay for the appeal fees that resulted in the late filing of his appeal. According to him, he informed complainant of the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, but the latter insisted in pursuing the same. He also claimed to have assisted complainant "not for money or malice" but being a desperate litigant, he was blamed for the court's unfavorable decision.

• Failure to Inform Client: Complainant charged respondent with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility 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.
• Discovery of Spurious Order: Complainant alleged that he discovered the November 9, 2007 Order was spurious when he proceeded to the RTC to request an extension of the deadline for submission of DNA testing results, as certified by the RTC's Clerk of Court, and that he also found out that his appeal had long been dismissed.

• Blame on Client: Respondent alleged that it was complainant's failure to timely produce the amount of ₱1,400.00 to pay for the appeal fees that resulted in the late filing of his appeal.
• Client's Insistence: Respondent claimed that he informed complainant of the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, but the latter insisted in pursuing the same.
• Good Faith: Respondent claimed to have assisted complainant "not for money or malice" but being a desperate litigant, he was blamed for the court's unfavorable decision.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of Gross Misconduct and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and was disbarred.

• Administrative Liability: The Court found that respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment. Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, it is the lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly updated on the developments of his case as it is crucial in maintaining the latter's confidence. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever important information he may have acquired affecting his client's case, and he should notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Records revealed that as of August 14, 2007, respondent already knew of the dismissal of complainant's partition case before the RTC, yet he never bothered to inform complainant of such dismissal. Respondent was also inexcusably negligent in filing complainant's appeal only on September 12, 2007, or way beyond the reglementary period therefor, thus resulting in its outright dismissal. Worse, respondent attempted to conceal the dismissal of complainant's appeal by fabricating the November 9, 2007 Order which purportedly required a DNA testing to make it appear that complainant's appeal had been given due course, when in truth, the same had long been denied. In so doing, respondent engaged in an unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct that caused undue prejudice and unnecessary expenses on the part of complainant, clearly violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. The Court found that respondent's conduct of employing a crooked and deceitful scheme to keep complainant in the dark and conceal his case's true status through the use of a falsified court order evidently constitutes Gross Misconduct. His acts reveal a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law. The Court distinguished this case from those where lawyers merely failed to inform their clients of the status of their cases, which warranted only six months suspension, noting that 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, citing Brennisen vs. Contawi and Embido vs. Pe. In view of the totality of his violations, as well as the damage and prejudice caused to his client, respondent deserved the ultimate punishment of disbarment.

• Lawyer's duty to keep client informed — Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 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. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever important information he may have acquired affecting his client's case, and he should notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. The Court applied this doctrine in finding respondent liable for failing to inform complainant of the dismissal of his case and of his appeal.

• Gross Misconduct — A lawyer's conduct of employing a crooked and deceitful scheme to keep his client in the dark and conceal his case's true status through the use of a falsified court order constitutes Gross Misconduct. Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal moral flaws in a lawyer and render him unfit to continue in the practice of law. The Court applied this doctrine in disbarring respondent for fabricating a spurious court order.

• Prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct — Under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 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. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that respondent's fabrication of the November 9, 2007 Order constituted a violation of this rule.

• "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." — This is the text of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which the Court applied in finding respondent liable for failing to inform his client of the dismissal of his case and appeal.

• "Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyer's relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyer's oath." — Quoted from Sebastian vs. Calis, this passage articulates the standard of conduct expected of lawyers and the basis for finding respondent's acts of falsification as revealing a basic moral flaw making him unfit to practice law.

• "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." — This passage states the Court's rationale for imposing the ultimate penalty of disbarment on respondent, emphasizing that his violations of the CPR were flagrant and exhibited his moral unfitness.

• Sebastian vs. Calis, 372 Phil. 673 (1999) — Cited as instructive authority for the proposition that deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable, reveal moral flaws, and render the lawyer unfit to continue in the practice of law.

• Mejares vs. Romana, 469 Phil. 619 (2004) — Cited as a case where the Court suspended a lawyer for six months for failure to timely and adequately inform his clients of the dismissal of their petition, distinguished from the present case because respondent also engaged in falsification.

• Penilla vs. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013, 705 SCRA 1 — Cited as a case where the Court suspended a lawyer for six months for consistently failing to update his client of the status of his cases, distinguished from the present case because respondent also engaged in falsification.

• Brennisen vs. Contawi, A.C. No. 7481, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 358 — Cited as a case where the Court disbarred a lawyer who falsified a special power of attorney in order to mortgage and sell his client's property, analogous to the present case warranting disbarment.

• Embido vs. Pe, A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013 — Cited as a case where the penalty of disbarment was meted out against a lawyer who falsified a non-existent court decision for a fee, analogous to the present case warranting disbarment.

• Pineda vs. Macapagal, A.C. No. 6026, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 292 — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client's cause.

• Tabang vs. Gacott, A.C. No. 6490, July 9, 2013, 700 SCRA 788 — Cited for the proposition that 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.

• Ronquillo vs. Cezar, A.C. No. 6288, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 1 — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer who fails to maintain high standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing, whether in his personal or private capacity, becomes unworthy to continue his practice of law.

• Spouses Olbes vs. Deciembre, 496 Phil. 799 (2005) — Cited for the proposition that respondent's acts should not just be deemed as unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court applied this provision in finding that respondent's fabrication of the November 9, 2007 Order constituted a violation of this rule.

• Rule 18.04, Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that 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 applied this provision in finding that respondent failed to inform complainant of the dismissal of his case and of his appeal.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (on leave), Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.