ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 2841. November 12, 2002]

RE:ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 44 AGAINST ATTY. SAMUEL C. OCCE�A

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Courtdated 12 NOV 2002.

A.C. No. 2841(Re:Administrative Case No. 44 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City, against Atty. Samuel C. Occe�a.)���

For resolution is the motion of Samuel C Occe�a, respondent, seeking a reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated July 3, 2002 which disbarred him from the practice of law. In essence, respondent claims that the Decision was "rendered without due process On a fabricated charge." He thus prays that this Court (1) suspend the execution of its Decision; (2) refer the complaint for disbarment against him to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation; and (3) after such investigation, set aside the Decision.

Respondent's prayer that the complaint against him be referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation. had long been denied by this Court in its En Banc Resolution dated September 28, 1989, as stated in our Decision.

Contrary to respondent's claim that the charges against him were fabricated and that the was denied due process, our Decision specifies factual instances showing that he deliberately delayed the disposition of the estate proceedings subject of the case by: (a) disobeying lawful court orders; (b) willfully prolonging the litigation through his various maneuvers with malice and for money; (c) filing civil actions for damages, criminal charge and administrative complaints against the presiding judge, which were found to be utterly baseless; and (d). interposing groundless, frivolous and unmeritorious appeals.These facts, it must be stressed, are based on documentary evidence which he cannot feign ignorance.

The trial before the court below was postponed many times at his instance. In fact, he waived his right to be heard.After the ex parte proceedings, the trial corn found him guilty of the charges and suspended him from the practice of law for three (3) years.However, his disgraceful and outrageous conduct, which manifested a glaring mockery of the judicial system, constrained this Court, in its Decision, to expel him from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers.He became an apostate to his calling as an officer of the court. He allowed himself to be an instigator of controversy instead of a mediator for concord, a "master of technicality" in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the truth and justice.

WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE