Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50054:ac-3731-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:01:40+00:00

Document:
MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR, Respondent.
On 18 October 1991, Manuel S. Sebastian (complainant) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Emily A. Bajar (respondent) for "obstructing, disobeying, resisting, rebelling, and impeding final decisions of Regional Trial Courts, the Court of Appeals and of the Honorable Supreme Court, and also for submitting those final decisions for the review and reversal of the DARAB, an administrative body, and for contemptuous acts and dilatory tactics."
3. Respondent uttered disrespectful language and shouted at everybody during the hearing on 25 May 1995.29 The want of intention is not an excuse for the disrespectful language used.
On 7 June 1999, the OCA, through Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, issued Circular No. 30-99 informing all courts that respondent had been suspended indefinitely.
Necessarily, the Court will now give its "final action" on this complaint.
After a careful review of the records, the Court finds the evidence on record sufficient to support the IBP's findings. However, the Court disagrees with the penalty imposed on respondent.
1. In the 25 March 1992 Court Resolution, respondent was required to file a rejoinder within 10 days from notice. However, she only submitted the rejoinder on 11 November 1993 after she was detained at the NBI for five days for failure to heed the Court's order.
2. In the 7 October 1992 Court Resolution, respondent was required to comment on complainant's manifestation. She instead submitted a manifestation on 3 February 1993 or almost four months thereafter. In her manifestation, respondent alleged that she had substantially complied with the Court's orders. However, the Court in its 1 March 1993 Resolution stated that nothing set out in respondent's manifestation excused her failure to obey the Court's Resolutions.
In Bernal Jr. v. Fernandez,64 the Court held that failure to comply with the Court's directive to comment on a letter-complaint constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination, or disrespect. In Cuizon v. Macalino,65 a lawyer's failure to comply with the Court's Resolutions requiring him to file his comment was one of the infractions that merited his disbarment.
Furthermore, respondent's defenses are untenable. Firstly, respondent contends that complainant is not the real party-in-interest since the property that was litigated was owned by complainant's wife. The Court is not persuaded with this defense.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. It is evident from the records that respondent filed other cases to thwart the execution of the final judgment in the Ejectment case. Clearly, respondent violated the proscription in Canon 19.
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.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Emily A. Bajar is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE YEARS effective from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.
1 Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.
6 Id. at 3-4, 16.
29 Id. at 296-300, 303-304.
36 Rollo, Vol. 2, p. 11.
49 IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-229.
50 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 310, 321.
51 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 15 September 2004, 438 SCRA 306, 317.
52 Heck v. Santos, 467 Phil. 798, 823 (2004).
53 Arienda v. Aguila, A.C. No. 5637, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 282, 287.
54 Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 349 Phil. 7, 15 (1998).
55 De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces, 111 Phil. 569, 572 (1961).
56 Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585, 12 November 2004, 442 SCRA 324, 335-336.
57 Berbano v. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331, 341 (2003).
58 Sec. 27 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
59 Ong v. Grijaldo, 450 Phil. 1, 12 (2003).
62 Bantolo v. Castillon Jr., A.C. No. 6589, 19 December 2005, 478 SCRA 443, 448-449.
63 Yumol, Jr. v. Ferrer, Sr., A.C. No. 6585, 21 April 2005, 456 SCRA 475, 491-492.
64 A.M. No. P-05-2045, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 29, 33.
65 A.C. No. 4334, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 479, 484-485.
66 Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, supra note 54 at 15.
67 PariÃ±as v. Paguinto, A.C. No. 6297, 13 July 2004, 434 SCRA 179, 184.
68 Supra note 52 at 822.
69 Navarro v. Meneses III, 349 Phil. 520, 582 (1998).
70 A.C. No. 6542, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 129, 140.
72 Foronda v. Guerrero, A.C. No. 5469, 10 August 2004, 436 SCRA 9, 23.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.