Title
Batac, Jr. vs. Cruz, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 5809
Decision Date
Nov 23, 2007
Atty. Cruz suspended for one month for failing to attend SEC hearings, disrespecting legal processes; penalty reduced from six months, with a warning against future misconduct.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 5809)

Facts:

Background of the Case
The case involves a disciplinary proceeding against Atty. Ponciano V. Cruz, Jr., who was suspended from the practice of law for six months by the Court in its Decision dated February 23, 2004. The suspension was due to his failure to appear at two scheduled hearings before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Hearing Panel and his lack of respect for legal orders and processes.

Hearings and Non-Appearances

  1. October 28, 1998 Hearing: Respondent failed to appear, citing his expectation of being part of a delegation to an international conference due to his position as Commissioner of the National Telecommunications Commission.
  2. March 4, 1999 Hearing: Respondent again failed to appear, prioritizing another client’s case in Cebu City. He admitted to an "error in semantics" in using the phrase "attending a hearing" instead of "filing a manifestation" to request a stay of execution.

Respondent’s Conduct

  • Respondent caused the cancellation and resetting of eight hearings to adjust to his unavailability.
  • He failed to submit travel orders or appropriate explanations to substantiate his excuses for non-appearance.
  • His last-minute tactics and lack of candor in his explanations demonstrated an indifferent and uncooperative attitude.

Complainants’ Position
Complainants, Servillano Batac, Jr. and Antonio Bonoan, argued that respondent failed to raise new or substantial matters to warrant a reversal or modification of the Court’s Decision. However, they acknowledged that the issue of the severity of the penalty was not previously raised.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent’s failure to attend the SEC hearings and his lack of respect for legal orders and processes constitute professional misconduct.
  2. Whether the penalty of six months’ suspension from the practice of law is commensurate with the offense committed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Court modified its earlier Decision, reducing respondent’s suspension from six months to one month, while reiterating the importance of lawyers’ duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system and respect judicial processes.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.