Floran vs. Ediza

A lawyer's willful disobedience of a lawful order of the Supreme Court, constituting grave misconduct and gross or willful insubordination, warrants disbarment. The practice of law is a privilege, not a vested right, and a lawyer who obstinately defies the Court's directives demonstrates unfitness to remain in the legal profession.

The complainants, spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Roy Prule Ediza, a member of the Bar. The complaint concerned a 3.5525-hectare parcel of unregistered land in San Martin, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, covered by a tax declaration in the name of Sartiga Epal, a relative who gave the property to the complainants. The Court's disciplinary authority over members of the Bar is recognized under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution, and reinforced by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran filed a Complaint/Affidavit dated 8 September 2000 against Atty. Roy Prule Ediza concerning a 3.5525-hectare parcel of unregistered land in San Martin, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, covered by a tax declaration in the name of Sartiga Epal, a relative who gave the property to the complainants. The Court found that Atty. Ediza deceived the complainants when he asked them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring a portion of their land to him. When the sale pushed through, Atty. Ediza received half of the proceeds given by the buyer and falsely misled the complainants into thinking he would register the remaining portion of their land using the same proceeds.

In its Decision dated 19 October 2011, the Court suspended Atty. Ediza for six months, directed him to return two sets of documents he misled the complainants and Sartiga Epal into signing, and ordered him to pay ₱125,463.38 with legal interest from 8 September 2000. Atty. Ediza's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 8 February 2012. He then filed a Manifestation of Compliance dated 29 May 2012, attaching a sworn statement attesting that he desisted from practice for six months from 18 November 2011 to 29 May 2012.

The Court deferred action and required Atty. Ediza to submit certifications from the IBP Local Chapter and the Office of the Executive Judge, and to show proof of payment and return of documents. The complainants wrote the Court that Atty. Ediza had not complied. In a Verified Compliance, they informed the Court that as of 17 October 2012, Atty. Ediza had not paid any amount nor returned the documents. The Court issued numerous resolutions requiring compliance and ordering Atty. Ediza to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

In his Manifestation Showing Cause dated 22 April 2013, Atty. Ediza claimed the documents were "merely fictional" and that he was at a loss as to which documents the Decision referred to. He also alleged lack of due process. The Court found this explanation unsatisfactory. Atty. Ediza later filed a Compliance with a Motion to Reopen/Reinvestigate dated 2 August 2014, claiming newly discovered evidence that the complainants never had ownership over the property and had employed a poseur to misrepresent Sartiga Epal. The Court denied the motion on 12 November 2014. More than four years after the 19 October 2011 Decision, Atty. Ediza had yet to comply with the Court's directives, instead claiming ignorance, alleging newly discovered evidence, demanding a stay of execution, and reporting compliance with the suspension without submitting required certifications.

• Non-Compliance with the Decision: The complainants informed the Court that Atty. Ediza had not paid any amount nor returned the required documents as of 17 October 2012, and repeatedly wrote the Court requesting assistance in implementing the Decision and information on the status of the case.
• Request for Execution: The complainants requested the issuance of a writ of execution, noting that it had been 17 years since the dispute with Atty. Ediza began.

• Ignorance of Documents: Atty. Ediza claimed he had no intention to defy the Court's authority, but argued that the two sets of documents were "merely fictional" and that he was at a loss as to which documents the Decision referred to because they were not alleged with particularity, and he was barred by the IBP Rules from requesting a bill of particulars.
• Incomplete and Unenforceable Judgment: Atty. Ediza alleged that due to the ambiguity about the documents, the judgment was incomplete and unenforceable.
• Lack of Due Process: Atty. Ediza claimed that the alleged lack of due process in the administrative case rendered the entire proceedings void, and consequently, the order to pay should be stricken off.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: Atty. Ediza filed a Motion to Reopen/Reinvestigate claiming he discovered new evidence that the complainants never had ownership over the subject property and had employed a poseur to misrepresent the real Sartiga Epal, attaching affidavits of allegedly the surviving spouse and sons of Sartiga Epal.
• Stay of Execution: Atty. Ediza asked the Court to stay execution of the 19 October 2011 Decision insofar as it required the return of money and documents, and to note his service of the suspension and lift the same.

• Compliance with Court Directives: Whether Atty. Ediza's failure to comply with the 19 October 2011 Decision and the Court's subsequent resolutions constituted grave misconduct and willful insubordination warranting disbarment.
• Motion to Reopen/Reinvestigate: Whether the Court erred in denying Atty. Ediza's motion to reopen/reinvestigate the case based on alleged newly discovered evidence.

• Compliance with Court Directives: Yes. Atty. Ediza's repeated and blatant disregard of the Court's orders constituted grave misconduct and gross or willful insubordination, warranting disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Motion to Reopen/Reinvestigate: No. The Court denied the motion for lack of merit, as Atty. Ediza's alleged newly discovered evidence did not justify reopening the case.

• Compliance with Court Directives: The Court emphasized that its resolutions should not be construed as mere requests; they should be complied with promptly and completely, citing Tugot vs. Judge Coliflores. Atty. Ediza's failure to comply betrayed not only a recalcitrant streak in his character but also disrespect for the Court's lawful orders and directives. As a member of the legal profession, Atty. Ediza had the duty to obey the orders and processes of the Court without delay and resistance, per Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse Court processes. The Court cited Martinez vs. Zoleta for the proposition that it should not and will not tolerate future indifference to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment. A disregard of Court directives constitutes grave or serious misconduct and gross or willful insubordination which warrant disciplinary sanction. Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution recognizes the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar, reinforced by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which allows disbarment for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. The Court acknowledged that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer, but found that Atty. Ediza's stubborn attitude and unwillingness to comply with the Court's directives constituted an affront to the Court's authority warranting the utmost disciplinary sanction. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege clothed with public interest, and Atty. Ediza's conduct made him unfit to remain in the legal profession.
• Motion to Reopen/Reinvestigate: The Court denied the motion for lack of merit, as Atty. Ediza's claims of newly discovered evidence did not warrant reopening the case, given his pattern of non-compliance and the finality of the 19 October 2011 Decision.

• Disbarment for willful disobedience of a lawful order — Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be disbarred for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. The Court applied this doctrine to disbar Atty. Ediza for his repeated failure to comply with the 19 October 2011 Decision and subsequent resolutions.
• Practice of law as a privilege — The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, as an officer of the court. A lawyer must adhere to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintain the highest degree of morality, and faithfully comply with the rules of the legal profession.
• Disregard of Court directives as grave misconduct — A disregard of Court directives constitutes grave or serious misconduct and gross or willful insubordination which warrant disciplinary sanction by the Court. The Court applied this principle to find Atty. Ediza's conduct warranting disbarment.

• "The intentional delay and utter refusal to abide with the Court's orders is a great disrespect to the Court which cannot be tolerated." — This passage articulates the core rationale for the disbarment, emphasizing the seriousness of Atty. Ediza's defiance of the Court's authority.
• "As a member of the legal profession, Atty. Ediza has the duty to obey the orders and processes of this Court without delay and resistance." — This statement underscores the fundamental duty of lawyers to comply with Court directives, forming the basis for the disciplinary action.
• "The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State - the administration of justice - as an officer of the court." — This passage defines the nature of the legal profession and explains why Atty. Ediza's conduct rendered him unfit to remain in the profession.

• Tugot vs. Judge Coliflores, 467 Phil. 391 (2004) — Cited for the principle that Court resolutions should not be construed as mere requests and should be complied with promptly and completely; also cited for the proposition that disregard of Court directives constitutes grave or serious misconduct.
• Martinez vs. Zoleta, 374 Phil. 35 (1999) — Cited for the holding that the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such complaints.
• Judge Necesario vs. Dinglasa, 556 Phil. 47 (2007) — Cited for the proposition that disregard of Court directives constitutes gross or willful insubordination.
• Palon, Jr. vs. Judge Vallarta, 546 Phil. 453 (2007) — Cited in support of the principle that disregard of Court directives warrants disciplinary sanction.
• Tapucar vs. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66 (1998) — Cited for the principle that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer.
• In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon, 174 Phil. 55 (1978) — Cited for the definition of the practice of law as a privilege clothed with public interest.
• Foronda vs. Atty. Guerrero, 516 Phil. 1 (2006) — Cited for the standard that lawyers must adhere to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintain the highest degree of morality, and faithfully comply with the rules of the legal profession.

• Section 5(5), Article VIII, Constitution — Recognizes the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar, providing the constitutional basis for the disbarment.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Grants the Court the power to remove or suspend a lawyer from the practice of law for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath, or willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. The Court applied this provision to disbar Atty. Ediza for willful disobedience.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; the basis of the original administrative liability.
• Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings with his clients; the basis of the original administrative liability.
• Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; the basis of the original administrative liability.
• Rule 12.04, Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse Court processes; applied to Atty. Ediza's failure to comply with the Court's directives.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno; Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (on leave), Arturo D. Brion (on leave), Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza (on official leave), and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (on official leave).