A.C. No. 7766 - Tan vs. Diamante

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7766)

Factual Background

On April 2, 2003, Jose Allan Tan retained Pedro S. Diamante to prosecute a partition case as a recognized illegitimate son of the late Luis Tan. Diamante filed the partition complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 46, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-11947. The RTC dismissed the complaint on July 25, 2007 for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence.

Post-Dismissal Conduct and Payments

Although Diamante was notified of the RTC dismissal by August 14, 2007, Tan only learned of the dismissal when he visited Diamante’s office on August 24, 2007. At that visit Diamante requested P10,000.00 for appeal fees and costs; when Tan could not produce the sum, Diamante accepted P500.00 as a reservation fee to file a notice of appeal. On September 12, 2007, Tan remitted P10,000.00 and a notice of appeal was filed.

Dismissal of the Appeal and Fabricated Order

The RTC dismissed the appeal in an Order dated September 18, 2007 for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Rather than disclose that dismissal, Diamante presented Tan with an Order dated November 9, 2007 purportedly directing submission of DNA test results within fifteen days. Trusting that representation, Tan sought an extension from the RTC and then discovered, upon inquiry and certification by the RTC Clerk of Court, that the November 9, 2007 Order was spurious and that his appeal had long been dismissed.

Respondent’s Explanation

In his Comments dated September 4, 2009, Diamante attributed the late filing of the appeal to Tan’s failure to timely produce PHP 1,400.00 for appeal fees and asserted that he informed Tan of the lapse of the reglementary period. Diamante contended that he assisted Tan without malice and suggested that he was blamed for an unfavorable court decision.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner, Oliver A. Cachapero, issued a Report and Recommendation dated September 21, 2010 finding Diamante administratively liable and recommending suspension for one year. The Investigating Commissioner found Tan’s allegations well-founded, noted Diamante’s evasive responses, and determined that the November 9, 2007 Order was likely fabricated by Diamante to conceal his failure to timely file the appeal. The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted the recommendation on April 16, 2013.

Issue Presented to the Court

The essential issue before the Court was whether Pedro S. Diamante should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to inform his client of case developments and by fabricating and using a spurious court order.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Duty to Inform and Competence

The Court reiterated that 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 the client’s requests for information. The Court found that Diamante knew of the dismissal as of August 14, 2007 but failed to inform Tan, who learned of the dismissal only on August 24, 2007. The Court further found that Diamante negligently delayed filing the appeal until September 12, 2007, beyond the reglementary period, thereby causing its dismissal. Those failures, the Court held, demonstrated a lack of the skill, care, and diligence required of a member of the Bar.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Deceit and Fabrication

The Court concluded that Diamante attempted to conceal the dismissal by fabricating the November 9, 2007 Order directing DNA testing and presenting it to Tan to create the false impression that relief remained available. The Court characterized that conduct as unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful and as causing undue prejudice and unnecessary expense to Tan. The Court held that such conduct violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which forbids unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and that it demonstrated moral unfitness to remain a member of the Bar.

Doctrinal Application and Analogous Jurisprudence

The Court applied established doctrine that deception and fraudulent acts by a lawyer constitute gross misconduct and reflect moral flaws rendering a lawyer unfit to practice, citing Sebastian v. Calis and other authorities. The Court contrasted cases in which failure to inform clients resulted in suspensions of six months, such as Mejares v. Romana and Penilla v. Alcid, Jr., with cases where falsification of documents warranted disbarment, including Brennisen v. Contawi and Embido v. Pe. Given the totality of Diamante’s violations and the prejudice inflicted up

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 7766)

Parties and Posture

Jose Allan Tan, Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Pedro S. Diamante, Respondent alleging fabrication and use of a spurious court order and failure to keep the client informed.
The complaint was docketed before this Court as an administrative matter resolved En Banc by a Per Curiam decision.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines acted through an Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors in recommending disciplinary action.

Key Factual Allegations

Jose Allan Tan retained Pedro S. Diamante on April 2, 2003 to prosecute a partition case against heirs of the late spouses Luis and Natividad Valencia-Tan.
Pedro S. Diamante filed the partition complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 46, as Civil Case No. 03-11947.
The RTC dismissed the partition complaint in an Order dated July 25, 2007 for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence.
Pedro S. Diamante was notified of the dismissal as early as August 14, 2007, but Jose Allan Tan only learned of the dismissal on August 24, 2007 when he visited the respondent’s office.
Pedro S. Diamante asked for P10,000 for appeal fees and accepted P500 on the earlier visit as a purported reservation fee for the filing of a notice of appeal.
Jose Allan Tan paid P10,000 on September 12, 2007, and the respondent filed a notice of appeal on or about that date.
The RTC dismissed the appeal in an Order dated September 18, 2007 for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.
Pedro S. Diamante concealed the dismissal and showed Jose Allan Tan a purported RTC Order dated November 9, 2007 directing submission of DNA test results within 15 days.
Jose Allan Tan discovered the November 9, 2007 Order was spurious after inquiry at the RTC, which was confirmed by the Clerk of Court’s certification.

Procedural History

Jose Allan Tan filed the administrative complaint for disbarment on February 1, 2008.
Pedro S. Diamante submitted Comments/Compliance dated September 4, 2009 denying culpable intent and attributing the late appeal to the complainant’s failure to timely produce appeal fees.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation on September 21, 2010 finding the respondent administratively liable and recommending suspension for one (1) year.
The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation in a Resolution dated April 16, 2013.
The case was resolved by this Court En Banc with a Per Curiam decision.

IBP Findings

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Pedro S. Diamante administratively liable for failing to disclose the dismissal and for resorting to fabrication rather than confronting the allegations.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner did not credit the respondent’s accusation that the spurious November 9