Facts:

The case involves Atty. Ponciano V. Cruz, Jr. as the respondent, with Servillano Batac, Jr. and Antonio Bonoan as the complainants. The events leading to this case began with a series of hearings scheduled in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) case, specifically SEC Case No. 07-97-5706, where the complainants were petitioners and the respondent was among the respondents. Over the course of the proceedings, the respondent caused the cancellation and rescheduling of eight hearings due to his unavailability. Notably, he failed to appear at two critical hearings: one on October 28, 1998, and another on March 4, 1999. For the October hearing, he claimed he was preparing for a potential international conference, while for the March hearing, he prioritized his client's case over the SEC case. The respondent admitted to possibly misusing the term "attending a hearing" instead of "filing a manifestation" to explain his absence. The disciplinary proceedi...

Facts:

Background of the Disciplinary Case

• Respondent, Atty. Ponciano V. Cruz, Jr., was originally penalized with a six-month suspension from the practice of law as per the Court’s Decision dated February 23, 2004.
• A Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently filed by the respondent, seeking a reversal or modification of the said decision.

Non-Appearance at Scheduled Hearings

• The disciplinary matter arose from the respondent’s failure to attend two scheduled hearings in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) case.
• The first hearing was held on October 28, 1998.
• The second was on March 4, 1999.
• Prior to these hearings, there were eight hearings that the respondent caused to be cancelled and reset due to his unavailability.

Respondent’s Explanations and Conduct

• For the October 28, 1998 hearing, the respondent justified his absence by stating he had to be ready at a moment’s notice, believing he might be required to attend an international conference given his position.
• For the March 4, 1999 hearing, he explained that he prioritized his client’s case over the SEC proceedings, and admitted to a possible semantic error when referring to “attending a hearing” instead of “filing a manifestation” to immediately seek a stay on the execution of a judgment in Cebu City.
• Despite these explanations, the respondent failed to produce or submit supporting travel orders or other pertinent documentation which could have substantiated his reasons for non-appearance.

Findings on the Respondent’s Attitude and Accountability

• The Court emphasized that the issue was not merely the absence at the hearings, but rather the respondent’s blatant disrespect for legal orders and the court’s processes.
• The Court found that:
• The respondent exhibited dishonesty in presenting his excuses.
• His failure to submit necessary documentation or propose alternative available dates demonstrated an indifferent and uncooperative attitude.

Complainants’ Position

• Complainants, Servillano Batac, Jr. and Antonio Bonoan, argued that the respondent had not presented any new or substantial matter that could warrant a reversal or modification of the earlier disciplinary decision.
• They concurred that the grounds raised by the respondent had effectively been dealt with in the previous proceedings, except for the issue regarding the severity of the penalty.

Issue:

Validity of the Grounds Raised

• Whether the respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration raised any new or substantial issues that could justify a reversal or modification of the disciplinary decision previously rendered.
• Whether his explanations and justifications for his non-appearance at the hearings were credible and legally sufficient.

Appropriateness of the Disciplinary Penalty

• Whether the originally imposed six-month suspension was commensurate with the nature and gravity of the respondent’s misconduct.
• Whether a lighter penalty, given that this was the respondent’s first offense, would be more appropriate in light of established disciplinary precedents.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)