Case Digest (A.C. No. 7766)
Facts:
Jose Allan Tan v. Pedro S. Diamante, A.C. No. 7766, 740 Phil. 382; 111 O.G. No. 11, 1497 (March 16, 2015), Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainant Jose Allan Tan engaged respondent Pedro S. Diamante on April 2, 2003 to pursue a partition case against the heirs of the late Luis and Natividad Valencia‑Tan. Respondent filed the complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City, Branch 46, docketed as Civil Case No. 03‑11947. The RTC issued an order dated July 25, 2007 dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence.
Respondent was notified of the RTC dismissal by August 14, 2007, but Tan learned of it only when he visited respondent’s office on August 24, 2007. On that occasion respondent allegedly requested P10,000 for appeal fees; Tan could only immediately provide P500 as a reservation fee for filing a notice of appeal. On September 12, 2007, Tan delivered P10,000 to respondent, who on the same date filed a notice of appeal. The RTC, however, in an order dated September 18, 2007, dismissed the attempted appeal as filed beyond the reglementary period.
Respondent did not disclose that the appeal had already been dismissed. Instead, he showed Tan an order dated November 9, 2007 (the November 9, 2007 Order) which purportedly directed the submission of DNA test results within 15 days. Acting on that representation, Tan sought an extension at the RTC and then discovered, via certification of the RTC Clerk of Court, that the November 9, 2007 Order was spurious and that the appeal had been dismissed. Aggrieved, Tan filed an administrative complaint for disbarment dated February 1, 2008, accusing respondent of fabricating and using a spurious court order and of failing to keep his client informed.
In his September 4, 2009 comments, respondent attributed the late filing to Tan’s failure to timely produce appeal fees and denied malice, asserting he was blamed for the unfavorable outcome. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner, in a Report and Recommendation dated September 21, 2010, found respondent administrati...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should respondent Pedro S. Diamante be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- If liable, what disciplinary sanction is app...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)