LUZON MAHOGANY VS.

CASTRO, 69 SCRA 384 FACTS: Respondent Manuel Reyes was alleged for assisting a third party in a dishonest and illegal scheme. Moreover, he failed to file a comment on a motion for reconsideration due to caring for his sister who suffered nervous rea!down and his parents who were e"periencing several ailments. #SS$%: &hether respondent's failure compliance to his o ligations a su (ect for dis arment. R$)#*+: Respondent must e reminded that as an officer of the Court, he is li!ewise called upon to discharge certain responsi ilities. The Court dismissed the motion for reconsideration for complainant. Respondent Manuel Reyes Castro is reprimanded, his e"planation of the failure to su mit the comment re,uired of him eing only partially satisfactory. P. VS, MEDINA, 62 SCRA 253 FACTS: Respondent Cesar +. Fa(ardo, who for a period close to four months paid no attention to a resolution of the Court, and when re,uired to pay a fine for such omission did nothing a out it due to the mental and emotional state he was in. #SS$%: &hether or not his failure to comply his o ligation is su (ect to suspension. R$)#*+: Respondent should e aware of his o ligations as in lieu to mem ership in the ar, especially so where a command is tracea le to an order of the Court. The resolution of August -, ./01 suspending respondent Cesar +. Fa(ardo from the practice of the law is will e granted only if respondent Fa(ardo will pay the fine of 2.33.33. GEESLIN VS. NAVARRO, 185 SCRA 230 FACTS: Respondent *avarro admitted that he has sold, and is still selling, properties covered y Torrens titles in the names of 4RT#+AS 5 C4., Madrigal, and other companies. 6e has o viously shown a complete and total disregard for asic norms of honesty and decency. 6e also pre(udiced the interest of his clients ecause of his gross neglect to appeal in a timely manner from the decision of the court. 6e even influenced them into commencing a case that is intended to harass and coerce the 6onora le 2residing 7udge. #SS$%: .. &hether or not respondent *avarro sold properties titled in the names of other persons without the consent of the latter8 and

9. #f in the affirmative, whether or not such acts constitute sufficient grounds for suspension or dis arment. R$)#*+: Such acts of respondent are evidential of reach resistance to lawful orders of constituted authority and illustrate his ha itual despiciency for an attorney:s duty to society. Respondent has proven himself unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed in him y law and y this Court, through his deli erate re(ection of his oath as an officer of the court. Thus, he is ;#S<ARR%; and his name is ordered STR#C=%* from the Roll of Attorneys.