Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

2. Sps. Nemesio & Caridad Floran vs. Atty.

Roy Ediza

AC # 5325, February 9, 2016

FACTS: Atty. Roy Ediza (respondent) was found administratively liable by the SC for violating Canon 1 (Rule
1.01) and Canon 18 (Rule 18.03) of the CPR in an October 2011 decision from a case filed by Sps. Nemesio
and Caridad Floran (complainants). The SC upheld the IBP findings and suspended respondent for 6 months
from the practice of law.

The previous case against respondent stemmed from his deception of complainants when he asked
them to sign a deed of sale that transfers a portion of their land to him. Respondent misled complainants
when he mentioned that he would use the proceeds that he acquired from the sale of said land to register the
land under the complainant’s name. Ultimately, the SC suspended him for 6 months and ordered the return of
two sets of documents that he misled complainants from signing, plus payment of P125,463 plus legal interest
(representing the amount he deceived complainants from paying him).

Respondent filed MRs but was denied by the SC for lack of merit. He then filed a Manifestation of
Compliance (on the suspension order), attesting that he did not practice his profession for 6 months from the
receipt of the SC decision. The OBC required respondent to submit certifications from his local IBP chapter and
from the Office of the Executive Judge where he practices his profession, both stating that he desisted from
practicing law for 6 months and that he show proof of payment to complainants on the amount he owed them,
plus the return of the two sets of documents. Unfortunately, respondent did not comply with the
aforementioned, which led complainants to write to the court stating his non-compliance.

Respondent manifested that he had no intention on defying the Court’s authority, but he asked the
Court to consider that the two sets of documents were merely fictional. He also asserted that he was confused
as to which “documents” the SC decision was referring to since such were not alleged with specificity, even
going as far as stating that the judgment was incomplete and unenforceable due to the ambiguity about the
“documents”. Furthermore, he claimed that the alleged lack of due process in the administrative case against
him rendered the entire proceedings void, and even the order of payment should be stricken off.

The SC found his arguments untenable and ordered him to comply with the 2011 Decision. He would
not comply even after time has passed, prompting the complainants to keep on writing to the SC to follow up
on their case. Respondent would further allege that complainants were engaged in fraudulent schemes that
resulted in him becoming a victim of their actions, in which the SC found no shred of merit. The SC would then
order him to comply with the original decision multiple times, but he would refuse to do so even after four
years has passed from the 2011 decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ediza should be disbarred from his actions towards the Court.

HELD: YES.

The intentional delay and utter refusal to abide with the Court's orders is a great disrespect to the
Court which cannot be tolerated. Atty. Ediza willfully left unheeded all the warnings imposed upon him, despite
the earlier six-month suspension that was meted out to him for his administrative liability. In Tugot v. Judge
Coliflores, the Court held that its resolutions should not be construed as mere requests from the Court. They
should be complied with promptly and completely. The failure of Atty. Ediza to comply betrays not only a
recalcitrant streak in his character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful orders and directives.

The SC found him unfit to practice law, therefore making the disbarment decision meritorious in the
case at bar.