MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EMILY A.

BAJAR, RESPONDENT

The Case:
Manuel S. Sebastian (complainant) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Emily A. Bajar (respondent)

Facts of the Case:

•Respondent is a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) who represented Fernando
Tanlioco. Tanlioco is an agricultural lessee of a land owned by complainant's spouse and sister-in-law
(landowners). The landowners filed an Ejectment case against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order of the
land use from agricultural to residential.
•The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment ordering Tanlioco's ejectment. The RTC's judgment was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
•Respondent, as Tanlioco's counsel, filed another case for Specific Performance to produce the conversion
order. The RTC dismissed the complaint due to res judicata and lack of cause of action.
•
Respondent filed a case for Maintenance of Possession with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board. The case raised the same issues of conversion and disturbance compensation
•It was alleged that the respondent was in violation of Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
since she misused the rules of procedure through forum-shopping to obstruct the administration of justice.
Respondents response are:
1. Complainant is not the real party-in-interest. He is also not authorized to prosecute the disbarment suit
2. Respondent has fulfilled allegiance to the "Attorney's Oath" and performed duties in accordance with Section
20 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
3. Respondent's client, Tanlioco, merely availed of all legal remedies to obtain benefits secured for him by law
•Complainant’s reply is alleged that respondent did not confront the issues of her disbarment squarely but raised
issues that were decided upon with finality by the courts
•The court ordered the respondent on March 25, 1992 to file a rejoinder within 10 Days from notice. Which the
respondent failed to perform
On October 7, 1992, the Court ordered respondent to show cause why she should not be subjected to
disciplinary action for failure to comply with the Court's 25 March 1992 Resolution
• On 4 October 1996, IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved Investigating Commissioner Jose's
recommendation that respondent be "SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY” from the practice of law for Unethical
Practices and attitude. The resolution was noted by the Court
• Despite the resolution for suspension, the respondent continued to practice law as a prosecutor in
Mandaluyong, she believed that a notation by the Court in the 20 January 1997 Resolution did not mean an
implementation of the IBP's Resolution on her indefinite suspension
• The IBP adopted Investigating Commissioner Raval's Report and Recommendation that respondent be
disbarred for her "manifest flagrant misconduct in disobeying the SC Order of her Indefinite Suspension.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the defense that the respondent the she merely availed of all the legal remedies for her client
is tenable?
2. Whether or not disbarment is the proper penalty for the respondent?

Ruling:
1. No, In Suzuki v. Tiamson, the Court enunciated that "while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest
of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's rights, they should not forget that they are first and
foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice."
Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts. Respondent, acting as Tanlioco's counsel, filed cases for
Specific Performance and Maintenance of Possession despite the finality of the decision in the Ejectment case
which involves the same issues. Indeed, "while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be
at the expense of truth and administration of justice

2. No, The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect
the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. In this case, respondent has shown her great
propensity to disregard court orders. Respondent's acts of wantonly disobeying her duties as an officer of the
court show an utter disrespect for the Court and the legal profession.  However, the Court will not disbar a
lawyer if it finds that a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. Respondent's acts constitute
gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court.  Respondent also violated Canon
19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her suspension is consequently warranted. Therefore, the
respondent should not be disbarred, but only suspended for three years, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely

PATROCINIA H. SALABAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANDRES C. VILLARUEL, JR., Respondent.

The Case: complaint for disbarment filed by Patrocinia H. Salabao (complainant) against Atty. Andres C.
Villaruel, Jr. (respondent)

Facts of the Case:

Respondent was a lawyer for Elmer Lumberio who had lost a case of deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking
her precious real property against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court. There after respondent as lawyer of
Lumberio, filed a barrage of cases/pleadings such as an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the
RTC ruling, a petition for review with the Supreme Court which was denied for having been filed out of time; a
petition for annulment of the RTC judgment which was dismissed by the CA; another petition for review before
this Court which was again denied; a petition for certiorari which was dismissed by the CA; another civil case
before the RTC of Mauban, Quezon which was dismissed for "improper venue, res judicata, and violation of
the anti-forum shopping law" and that it involved the same issues as the one filed in Pasig RTC. Moreover, he
filed several inhibitions, motions and an administrative complaint against the presiding judge.

In this case, the judgment in favor of complainant had become final and executory by July 27, 2005.
Respondent however proceeded to file no less than twelve (12) motions and cases in various courts subsequent
to the Entry of Judgment:
Regional Trial Court of Taguig City:
1. Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated April 27,2006
2 Motion to Admit Affidavit of Third-Party Claimant
3. Motion for Early Resolution
4. Motion to Observe Judicial Courtesy while the case is pending appeal with the Court of Appeals
5. Urgent Motion to Defer/Suspend Execution in view of the Order of the CA
6. Urgent Motion to Reconsider Order
Court of Appeals:
1. Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals
2. Motion for Reconsideration
3. Petition for Certiorari
4. Urgent Motion to Reiterate the Issuance of Order for Judicial Courtesy
Supreme Court:
1.Petition for Certiorari
2.Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
Respondents defense was that he was merely exhausting all possible legal remedies available.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the respondent was guilty of abuse of court processes in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and
Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
2. Whether or not disbarment is the proper penalty for the respondent?

Ruling
1. Yes, While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their clients, it cannot be emphasized
enough that their first and primary duty is "not to the client but to the administration of justice
From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed, it is clear that respondent's intention was to delay
the execution of the final judgment
It is quite clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process by abusing Court processes,
employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a final judgment, and feigning ignorance of Ms duties as
an officer of the court. He has breached his sworn duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice, and violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (c) and (g) of the Rules of Court. In so doing, he is administratively liable for his actions.

2. No, In previous decisions involving abuse of court processes, this Court has imposed the penalty of
suspension ranging from six months to two years. In light of the following aggravating circumstances -
multiplicity of motions and cases filed by respondent, the malice evinced by his filing of various motions to
prevent the judges and sheriff from fulfilling their legal duties, feigned ignorance of his duties as an officer of
the court, and his lack of remorse for his actions - the Court finds that a penalty of suspension for 18 months
would be commensurate to the damage and prejudice that respondent has inflicted on complainant Salabao for
his actions.