A.C. No. 2841 - IN RE: Occena

Case Summary (A.C. No. 2841)

Factual Background

Under the Last Will and Testament of William C. Ogan, the residuary estate was divided among his seven children. Necitas Ogan-Occena was named executrix. Through her, Atty. Occena served as counsel. The estate comprised bank deposits, securities located both in the Philippines and in the United States of America, and real property in Cebu City and in Ohio, U.S.A. The testator left no debt, which the Court treated as a circumstance that should have made the settlement simple and prompt.

Instead, from 1963 onward, the settlement did not end, largely because of alleged dilatory tactics attributable to Atty. Occena’s conduct. Judge Ruiz, after inquiring into the reasons for the long delay, concluded that Atty. Occena had caused it by disobeying lawful court orders and by willfully prolonging litigation through repeated maneuvers, in gross violation of his oath as a lawyer.

Probate Proceedings and the Central Dispute

The executrix filed a project of partition on August 4, 1967. On September 22, 1967, the probate court approved the project except for certain portions. The executrix appealed. While the appeal was pending, the other heirs filed motions seeking distribution among all heirs of the estate’s remaining P250,000.00 cash and the shares of stock located in the Philippines and the United States.

Atty. Occena, acting for the executrix, opposed these motions. He claimed that the P250,000.00 cash had already been earmarked for his attorneys’ fees and other expenses. He further contended that shares of stock could not be distributed because stock certificates were allegedly not in the executrix’s possession. The dispute, as the Supreme Court later emphasized, centered on the P250,000.00 cash and the shares of stock.

The probate record also showed that the executrix, through Atty. Occena, interposed numerous appeals from probate orders. Conversely, the heirs persistently prayed for the release of the remaining cash and stock shares, while the executrix and Atty. Occena opposed them, thereby prolonging the proceedings.

The Court of Appeals, in CA-GR No. 48716-R (December, 1974), remanded the case and urged the parties to settle their differences to close the estate pending since 1963. It warned that prolongation could only benefit the executor or administrator and counsel because it burdened the estate with growing administration expenses and attorney’s fees, thereby diminishing the heirs’ shares.

Court Orders Requiring Disclosure and Compliance

As found by Judge Ruiz, the core causes of delay were Atty. Occena’s insistence on attorney’s fees amounting to P250,000.00 and the executrix’s refusal, through Atty. Occena, to account for the estate’s stock shares by asserting that the certificates were not in her possession. On August 8, 1977, Judge Ruiz ordered the executrix to comment on why the securities were not in her possession. She filed a comment through Atty. Occena that certain Philippine and American securities were not in her possession.

To clarify what securities remained with her, Judge Ruiz on October 22, 1977 required submission within thirty days of the latest inventory of all estate securities. The executrix failed to comply. On February 6, 1978, the probate court ordered the executrix to take possession of all certificates of stocks or their replacements belonging to the estate and to make an up-to-date inventory stating their nature and value. Again, she failed to comply.

Judge Ruiz viewed this pattern as willful noncompliance aimed at blocking the release of the P250,000.00 cash to the heirs. In addition, to forestall distribution, the executrix, through Atty. Occena, appealed various interlocutory orders to the Court of Appeals, which the Court held added further delay.

Because of the executrix’s propensity to elevate interlocutory orders, Judge Ruiz issued on June 16, 1978 an order requiring her to refrain from instituting any action or proceeding without first informing the court. The executrix and Atty. Occena disobeyed this directive. The record showed that Atty. Occena filed multiple cases with the Court of Appeals and one with the Supreme Court.

Orders Concerning Assets in the United States and Contempt Findings

On August 15, 1979, Judge Ruiz authorized heir Nancy Ogan-Gibson to travel to Vinton County, Ohio, U.S.A. to take proper action regarding five parcels of land owned by the estate and to submit a report to the probate court. To fund the trip, the probate court ordered the executrix to release $1,000.00 from the estate fund, to be liquidated with supporting receipts upon submission of the report on or before September 30, 1979.

The executrix assailed this order through a petition for prohibition and certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP-10326. The Court of Appeals dismissed it on January 13, 1981 for lack of merit and noted that the order benefited the estate and heirs and that the other heirs agreed with what the probate court had done. The Court also ruled that the probate judge should have been complimented for finding ways to expeditiously determine the estate assets.

Judge Ruiz then cited the executrix for contempt on May 12, 1981 for failure to obey specified orders, including those of October 22, 1977, December 8, 1977, February 6, 1978, and October 16, 1979. On February 11, 1982, the executrix and Atty. Occena were held in contempt of court and fined P250.00 each for disobeying the August 15, 1979 order requiring release of $1,000.00 to Nancy Ogan-Gibson. The Court noted that they were given opportunities to explain but did not do so. It further emphasized that this contempt incident alone delayed the proceedings for about four years.

On October 16, 1979, the probate court ordered the executrix to immediately distribute among the heirs the estate’s shares of stock in specified corporations, report compliance within ten days, and file a written report stating which stock certificates were in her possession and which were not, with reasons. The executrix again failed to comply. Judge Ruiz then directed her to explain why she should not be punished for contempt.

After multiple postponements at the executrix’s and Atty. Occena’s instance, the hearing was set for April 20, 1981, but neither the executrix nor Atty. Occena appeared. The Court treated the nonappearance as causing about one and a half years of additional delay. On May 12, 1981, the probate court adjudged the executrix unfaithful in the performance of duties and found her in contempt.

Groundless Actions and Harassment through Litigation

Following the contempt adjudications, Atty. Occena and his wife filed with the then CFI of Davao City Civil Case No. 14456 for damages, claiming P200,000.00 as moral damages and expenses of litigation against Judge Ruiz. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on October 13, 1981.

After that dismissal, Atty. Occena sent a letter-complaint to the Tanodbayan charging Judge Ruiz with knowingly issuing unjust interlocutory orders, alleging that the judge punished the executrix for indirect contempt without prior notice and hearing and censured her for noncompliance with the probate court’s October 16, 1979 order. The Tanodbayan, through Bernardo P. Fernandez, dismissed the complaint on November 19, 1984 for lack of merit.

Atty. Occena also filed with this Court Administrative Case No. 2345-CFI against Judge Ruiz for gross inefficiency and dishonesty. This Court dismissed it in a resolution dated October 11, 1982 for failure to substantiate the charges. Thereafter, Atty. Occena and his wife filed Civil Case No. 14957 for damages based on alleged injury upon reading Judge Ruiz’s comment filed in the Supreme Court. On June 11, 1982, the CFI dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, holding that the comment was privileged.

The Supreme Court later viewed these civil actions, the criminal charge, and the administrative complaints as groundless. It held that they unduly delayed the probate proceedings with malice and inflicted hardship and pain upon Judge Ruiz. It also stressed that the conduct harmed the administration of justice by diverting judicial time and resources toward responding to repeatedly rebuffed actions. It observed that, since 1963, Atty. Occena had filed no less than 13 petitions with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals questioning interlocutory probate orders, most of which were determined to be groundless and without merit.

Initiation and Handling of Administrative Case No. 44

Judge Ruiz, relying on Section 28, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allowed the CFI to suspend an attorney for cause, filed Administrative Case No. 44 on May 26, 1982 charging Atty. Occena with gross misconduct, violation of his oath as a lawyer, and willful disobedience of lawful court orders.

Atty. Occena did not file an answer. Instead, he filed a motion praying for Judge Ruiz’s inhibition, which was denied. The probate court directed him to file an answer within fifteen days, extended by another fifteen days upon his motion. He still did not comply. He then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which was denied for lack of merit.

The administrative case was set for hearing on December 2 and 3, 1982, but it was repeatedly postponed through Atty. Occena’s requests and motions, and he repeatedly failed to appear. The Court noted that on some occasions the proceedings were interrupted by a temporary restraining order issued in G.R. No. 62453, Samuel Occena vs. District Judge Fernando S. Ruiz, where Atty. Occena sought prohibition. On August 15, 1983, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition for lack of merit.

Hearing was later set for January 30 and 31, 1984, then reset multiple times, but Atty. Occena again failed to appear. On December 7, 1984, he filed an answer and a motion for referral to the Solicitor General or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The motion was denied. The case was reset again f

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 2841)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The administrative case was A.C. No. 2841 filed in connection with Administrative Case No. 44 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City.
The respondent was Atty. Samuel C. Occena, a member of the Bar charged with professional misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful court orders.
The charging judge was Judge Fernando S. Ruiz of the probate court handling Special Proceedings No. 423 for the estate of William C. Ogan.
The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court records showed extensive related litigation involving the interlocutory orders in the estate proceedings, as well as multiple groundless charges filed by Atty. Occena against judges.
The Court sustained the findings based on the record and imposed the ultimate sanction of disbarment.

Underlying Probate Proceedings

The administrative charges arose from the long-pending settlement of the estate of testator William C. Ogan, lodged as Special Proceedings No. 423 in the CFI, later the RTC, Branch 4, Tagbilaran City.
The probate case was initially handled by Judge Paulino S. Marquez, then inherited by Judge Antonio Beldia, and later taken over by Judge Fernando S. Ruiz in 1976.
The testator died on February 1, 1963, yet the settlement remained unfinished for decades.
Under the Last Will and Testament, the residuary estate was divided among seven children, with Necitas Ogan-Occena named as executrix.
The executrix retained her husband, Atty. Samuel C. Occena, as her legal counsel in the probate proceeding.
The estate consisted of bank deposits, securities (in the Philippines and in the United States), and real estate in Cebu City and Ohio, U.S.A., and it left no debt.
The Court regarded the settlement as theoretically simple and speedy, but prolonged due to the respondent’s dilatory tactics.

Key Allegations of Delay

Judge Ruiz inquired into the reasons for the case’s prolonged pendency and concluded that Atty. Occena caused delay by disobeying lawful court orders and willfully prolonging the proceedings.
The Court found that the delays violated the lawyer’s oath, including the promise not to “delay any man’s cause for money or malice.”
The executrix filed a project of partition on August 4, 1967, and the probate court approved it on September 22, 1967, except certain portions.
The executrix appealed, which prompted other heirs to seek distribution of remaining assets, including a P250,000.00 cash portion and shares of stocks in both jurisdictions.
Atty. Occena, on behalf of the executrix, opposed distribution by asserting that the P250,000.00 cash had been earmarked for counsel’s fees and that the stock certificates could not be distributed because they were allegedly not in her possession.
The probate record reflected repeated interlocutory appeals and opposing motions that kept the dispute centered on the P250,000.00 cash and the stock shares, thereby prolonging the proceedings.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-GR No. 48716-R (December, 1974), urged the parties to close the estate and warned that prolonged administration diminishes each heir’s share due to escalating expenses and attorneys’ fees.

Probate Court Orders and Noncompliance

Judge Ruiz issued an order on August 8, 1977 directing the executrix to comment why securities were not in her possession.
The executrix, through Atty. Occena, commented that certain Philippine and American securities were not in her possession.
On October 22, 1977, Judge Ruiz required submission within 30 days of the latest inventory of all securities of the estate, but the executrix failed to comply.
On February 6, 1978, Judge Ruiz ordered the executrix to take possession of all certificates of stock, or replacements, and to submit an up-to-date inventory with value and nature, but noncompliance again followed.
To block the release of the P250,000.00, the executrix, through her counsel, appealed multiple interlocutory orders, thereby adding delay.
Judge Ruiz issued an order on June 16, 1978 directing the executrix to refrain from instituting any action or proceeding without first informing the court, but the executrix and Atty. Occena disobeyed.
The disobedience included filing six cases in the Court of Appeals and one in this Court.
On August 15, 1979, Judge Ruiz authorized Nancy Ogan-Gibson, an heir, to go to Vinton County, Ohio to act regarding estate-owned land and to submit a report, and the court ordered release of $1,000.00 from the estate for liquidation with receipts by September 30, 1979.
The executrix assailed the order via CA-G.R. No. SP-10326, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on January 13, 1981 and remarked that the probate judge was not guilty of grave abuse because the orders benefited the estate and the heirs.
Judge Ruiz cited the executrix for contempt on May 12, 1981 for failure to obey multiple orders, and the executrix and Atty. Occena were held in contempt and fined P250.00 each on February 11, 1982 for disobeying the August 15, 1979 release order, with no explanation provided.
Judge Ruiz later issued an order on October 16, 1979 requiring immediate distribution of specified stock shares among heirs and requiring reports on compliance and the status of other stock certificates, but the executrix and counsel again failed to comply.
The probate court set the contempt incident for hearing after postponements, but the executrix and Atty. Occena did not appear, causing an additional delay of about one and a half years.

Related Litigation Against Judges

Atty. Occena and his wife filed Civil Case No. 14456 for damages against Judge Ruiz after the contempt proceedings, seeking P200,000.00 for moral damages and expenses of litigation.
The court dismissed the damages complaint on October 13, 1981 for lack of merit.
After dismissal, Atty. Occena filed with the Tanodbayan a letter-complaint against Judge Ruiz alleging unjust interlocutory orders, specifically punishment of the executrix for indirect contempt without prior notice and hearing and censure for noncompliance with the October 16, 1979 order.
The Tanodbayan, through Bernardo P. Fernandez, dismissed the complaint on November 19, 1984 for lack of merit.
Atty. Occena then filed with the Supreme Court an administrative complaint against Judge Ruiz in Administrative Case No. 2345-CFI for gross inefficiency and dishonesty, which this Court dis