Case Digest (G.R. No. 36786)
Facts:
Jose Allan Tan v. Pedro S. Diamante, A.C. No. 7766, promulgated March 16, 2015, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The case arises from an administrative complaint for disbarment dated February 1, 2008, in which complainant Jose Allan Tan charged respondent Pedro S. Diamante with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the lawyer’s oath for fabricating a spurious court order and failing to keep his client informed.On April 2, 2003, Tan, alleging to be an illegitimate son of the late Luis Tan, engaged Diamante to prosecute a partition case for certain properties. Diamante filed the complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City, Branch 46, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-11947. The RTC dismissed the complaint in an Order dated July 25, 2007 for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence. Although Diamante was notified of the dismissal as early as August 14, 2007, Tan only learned of the dismissal on August 24, 2007 during a visit to Diamante’s office.
At that office visit, Diamante allegedly asked Tan for P10,000 for appeal fees; when Tan could not immediately produce the amount, he paid P500 as a reservation fee for filing a notice of appeal. On September 12, 2007, Tan gave Diamante P10,000; a notice of appeal was filed on that date. The RTC, however, dismissed the appeal in an Order dated September 18, 2007 for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Instead of informing Tan of the dismissal, Diamante showed him a purported RTC Order dated November 9, 2007 directing submission of DNA test results within 15 days. Relying on this, Tan sought an extension from the RTC and later discovered, via certification from the RTC Clerk of Court, that the November 9, 2007 Order was spurious and that the appeal had long been denied. Aggrieved, Tan filed the administrative disbarment complaint.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner, in a Report and Recommendation dated September 21, 2010, fo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to keep his client informed and by negligently filing an untimely appeal (Rule 18.04, Canon 18)?
- Did respondent’s fabrication and use of a spurious RTC order constitute unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct amounting to Gross Misconduct warranting disb...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)