Case Digest (A.C. No. 3731)
Facts:
Manuel S. Sebastian v. Atty. Emily A. Bajar, A.C. No. 3731, promulgated September 15, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. The petition arises from an administrative complaint for disciplinary action filed on October 18, 1991.Complainant Manuel S. Sebastian accused Atty. Emily A. Bajar, formerly of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the Department of Agrarian Reform, of obstructing and impeding final judicial decisions and of using dilatory and contemptuous tactics in representing her client, Fernando Tanlioco, who was sued in an ejectment case by landowners (complainant’s spouse and sister‑in‑law). The trial Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered Tanlioco’s ejectment subject to disturbance compensation; that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and by the Supreme Court.
Despite the finality of those rulings, respondent, as Tanlioco’s counsel, filed additional actions — a specific performance suit (dismissed by the RTC on res judicata and lack of cause of action) and a maintenance of possession case before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board — which raised the same issues as the ejectment case. Complainant alleged these filings and other conduct amounted to forum‑shopping and misuse of procedure in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Supreme Court required respondent to comment (Nov. 18, 1991) and issued subsequent orders to file rejoinder and otherwise comply. Respondent repeatedly delayed filings, filed a manifestation claiming mootness after transferring to the Public Attorneys Office, and, after repeated noncompliance, was arrested and detained for five days by the NBI pursuant to a Court order in October 1993. The Court later referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
Investigating Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose recommended sanctions in a report transmitted to the IBP; the IBP Board of Governors in IBP Resolution No. XII‑96‑149 (Mar. 30, 1996) adopted the recommendation that respondent be suspended indefinitely, and one governor recommended outright disbarment. The Supreme Court noted the IBP resolution in a January 20, 1997 resolution and the Office of the Court Administrator circularized the suspension (Circular No. 30‑99) in June 1999.
Respondent continued to practice law and later sought termination of the case and lifting of the suspension. The Court referred the matter back to the IBP in 2003; after further hearings and position papers, Investigating Commissioner Demaree J.B. Raval’s report was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XVI‑2004‑229 (Apr. 16, 2004), which recommended disbarment for manifest flagrant misconduct in disobedience of the Court’s order. The IBP record and recomm...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In disbarment proceedings, did complainant have the legal capacity to institute the disciplinary complaint against respondent?
- Did respondent commit professional misconduct — specifically willful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s orders, gross misconduct, and improper forum‑shopping — that warrants disciplinary sanctions?
- If misconduct is established, is disbarment ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)