THIRD DIVISION
SERVILLANO
BATAC,
JR. AND ANTONIO BONOAN,
Complainants,
A.C.
No.
5809
February 23, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
PONCIANO V.
CRUZ, JR.,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:
In a verified Complaint-Affidavit[1]
dated April 15, 1999, docketed as CBD Case No. 99-269 before the
Commission
on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD),
Servillano
Batac, Jr. and Atty. Antonio Bonoan (complainants) pray that
appropriate
disciplinary sanction be meted against Atty. Ponciano Cruz, Jr.
(respondent).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts which spawned
the filing of the present case are as follows:
Complainants are among
the petitioners, while respondent is one of the respondents, in a case
pending before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
“Servillano
Batac, Jr., Antonio Bonoan, John Chang, Antonio Chua and Virginia
Peñalosa
v. Norma Javier, Alfred Xerex-Burgos, Ponciano Cruz, Jr., Carmencita
Esteban,
Lucito Sioson, Jose Racela, Rex Goquinco and Quezon City Sports Club,”
docketed as SEC Case No. 07-97-5706 (the "SEC case").cralaw:red
As the petitioners in
the SEC case were to present respondent as an adverse party witness,
they,
on several occasions, requested the issuance of subpoena ad
testificandum/duces
tecum upon him.cralaw:red
Thus, acting on complainants’
request, the SEC Hearing Panel (hearing panel) issued on February 4,
1998
a subpoena ad testificandum[2]
to respondent for the February 19, 1998 scheduled hearing. By letter[3]
of February 17, 1998, however, respondent informed the hearing panel
that
he could not attend the February 19, 1998 hearing, alleging that he was
scheduled to appear in the “preliminary investigation” of Civil Case
No.
95-CV-1037, “Al Sarawat Trading Corporation v. Marsson Industrial
Corporation
“ (Al Sarawat case), before Branch 62 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC),
La Trinidad, Benguet on the same date.cralaw:red
On March 19, 1998, the
hearing panel again issued a subpoena ad testificandum[4]
to respondent for the hearing scheduled more than a month later or on
April
22, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. and that on April 29, 1998 at 10:00 a.m., which
subpoena
was received by respondent on March 23, 1998. By letter[5]
of April 21, 1998, however, respondent informed the hearing panel that
he could not attend the said scheduled dates of hearing as he was to
appear
again in the Al Sarawat case on April 23 and 24, 1998, thus
necessitating
his departure from Manila for Benguet on April 22, 1998, adding that he
was also scheduled to appear in “Miladay Jewels, Inc. v. Remedies
Espino”
pending before Branch 142 of the RTC Makati on April 29, 1998 at 8:30
a.m.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 4, 1998, the
hearing panel again issued a subpoena duces tecum/ad testificandum[6]
to respondent for the hearings scheduled on June 10 and 17, 1998, both
at 10:00 a.m., which subpoena was received at respondent’s office on
June
8, 1998.[7]
However, by letter[8]
of June 8, 1998, respondent informed the hearing panel that he did not
possess the two documents subject of the duces tecum and that he could
not attend said scheduled hearing dates as he was scheduled to attend
the
Rotary International Convention in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA to be
held
on June 13 to 17, 1998.cralaw:red
On June 11, 1998, the
hearing panel once again issued a subpoena ad testificandum[9]
to respondent for the hearings of July 21 and 28, 1998, which subpoena
was received at respondent’s office on June 16, 1998. Respondent,
however,
failed to attend the July 21, 1998 hearing, prompting the hearing panel
to, on even date, issue an Order[10]
directing him to show cause why he should not be cited for indirect
contempt
and for him to appear and testify on July 28, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.cralaw:red
By letter of July 24,
1998,[11]
respondent informed the hearing panel that he had just been appointed
by
President Estrada as “the new Commissioner of the National
Telecommunications
Commission” and in his capacity as such, he was on July 21, 1998 in
conference
with certain officials and representatives of the Philippine
Electronics
and Telecoms Federation and Institute of Electronics Engineers of the
Philippines;
and that he was scheduled to meet with Messrs. Raul Concepcion and
Bobby
Estenblar of Concepcion Telecoms and Informatics Philippines, Inc.,
respectively,
in the morning of July 28, 1998, thus rendering him unable to testify
before
the hearing panel on said date.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By Order[12]
of July 28, 1998, the hearing panel directed respondent to file a
manifestation
stating the dates of his availability to appear as witness. Pursuant to
said order, respondent, in a Manifestation[13]
dated August 4, 1998, informed that he was available on October 28, 29
and 30, 1998 all at 10:00 a.m. Conformably to said manifestation, the
hearing
panel, by Order[14]
of September 29, 1998, set the hearing of the SEC case on October 28
and
29 1998 at 10:00 a.m.cralaw:red
During the October 28,
1998 hearing, however, respondent failed to attend. His absence was
explained
by his counsel, Atty. Eric Paul I. Fetalino, in this wise:
ATTY. FETALINO:
Your Honor, Commissioner
Cruz called me yesterday, [Oct. 27, 1998]. I think supervening events
occurred.
He was instructed by President Estrada to proceed to the Unites States
to attend the International Telecommunication Potentiary (sic) Meeting
in Minneapolis as the Deputy Head of the Delegation. He was supposed to
have informed me earlier about this but, I think, he was caught up with
his schedule because of the hearings going on with the telemetering.cralaw:red
ATTY. PACIS:
When is he supposed
to be back?
ATTY. FETALINO:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I think, he is supposed
to leave today [Oct. 27, 1998]. I, therefore, have to apologize to
Atty.
Pacis and move for the cancellation of the hearing today. We will
provide
the travel orders issued by President Estrada.cralaw:red
H.O. ABUGAN
When is he coming back?
ATTY. FETALINO:
Because of the short
notice, we were not able to discuss the time when he is coming back. I
don’t know. Maybe, I think, two weeks, one week. I am not so sure. We
will
make the proper manifestation when he arrives.cralaw:red
H.O. ABUGAN:
So, with that manifestation,
the scheduled hearing also tomorrow because this is set for today and
tomorrow.cralaw:red
ATTY. FETALINO:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Yes, definitely, he
won’t be available tomorrow [Oct. 29, 1998] and on Friday [Oct.
30,1998].cralaw:red
x x x
ATTY. PACIS:
May I suggest Your Honors,
that we follow the same procedure that by Commissioner Cruz return
(sic)
for them to manifest that he has returned and when he would be
available
again. This will be the last time.cralaw:red
H.O. ABUGAN:
I think, we have to
adopt the same arrangement that the counsel of Atty. Cruz will file a
manifestation
with respect to the availability of Atty. Cruz for the hearing.cralaw:red
ATTY. FETALINO:
We will do that, Your
Honor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
H.O. ABUGAN:
So may I suggest counsel
to immediately submit your manifestation once Commissioner Cruz will be
back from the U.S.?
ATTY. FETALINO:
Upon the return of Commissioner
Cruz.cralaw:red
ATTY. PACIS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
May I also suggest,
Your Honor, for purposes of the record that counsel validate this
manifestation
today in writing to give us better proof that, in fact, Atty. Cruz is
leaving
for the States?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. FETALINO:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As a matter of fact,
we will provide the travel orders probably together with the
manifestation.
I think, that would be more sufficient.cralaw:red
ATTY. PACIS:
Yes, also for the satisfaction
of the petitioners.cralaw:red
ATTY. FETALINO:
Very well. We have no
problem.cralaw:red
x x x[15]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
In a “Manifestation
(with Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Relief)” dated December 4, 1998,
petitioners
in the SEC case informed the hearing panel that nothing had been heard
from respondent since the October 28, 1998 hearing. As will be stated
below,
respondent did not leave for abroad on October 27, 1998.cralaw:red
Acting on the December
4, 1998 Manifestation of the petitioners in the SEC case, the hearing
panel
issued on December 9, 1998 an order[16]
directing respondent and/or his counsel to submit “documentary
substantiation”
of his alleged travel abroad within seven days from receipt thereof,
copy
furnished the petitioners’ counsel.cralaw:red
No travel documents
were ever filed by respondent.cralaw:red
As priorly stated, respondent’s
United States trip subject of Atty. Fetalino’s manifestation before the
hearing panel on October 28, 1998 did not push. For by letter[17]
of October 6, 1998, then Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Ramon B.
Cardenas
informed the then Secretary of the Department of Transportation and
Communications
(DOTC) Vicente C. Rivera, Jr. that the request for respondent as NTC
Commissioner
to attend the Plenipotentiary Conference could not be given due course
per instructions of the President for austerity reasons and in light of
the considered opinion that his presence “w[ould] not provide
substantial
contribution to the Philippines’ position and bid for re-election” in
the
International Telecommunications Union Council.cralaw:red
On February 25, 1999,
the hearing panel again issued a subpoena ad testificandum[18]
to respondent for the March 4, 1999 hearing at 2:00 p.m., which
subpoena
was received at respondent’s law office on February 25, 1999. However,
by letter[19]
of March 3, 1999, respondent informed the hearing panel that he would
not
be in Manila on the March 4, 1999 scheduled hearing as he was
“scheduled
to attend the hearing” of LRC Case No. 633, In re Application for
Registration,
Associacion Benevola de Cebu (Benevola case), pending before Branch 6
of
RTC Cebu City.cralaw:red
Based on a Certification[20]
dated March 5, 1999 issued by Atty. Myrna Valderrama-Limbaga, Branch
Clerk
of Court of RTC, Branch 6, Cebu City, the Benevola “principal case” was
not scheduled for hearing on March 4, 1998, and that what was scheduled
for hearing on said date was an incident thereof in which respondent
was
neither a counsel of record nor had he entered his appearance in
representation
of any of the parties.cralaw:red
By motion[21]
dated April 12, 1999, complainants charged before the SEC respondent
and
his counsel Atty. Fetalino with several counts of indirect contempt to
which they filed a comment/opposition[22]
on May 20, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a later move, complainants
filed on April 15, 1999 their Affidavit - basis of the institution of
the
complaint at bar against respondent.cralaw:red
In respondent’s Counter-Affidavit
dated October 13, 1999[23]
to which he annexed his opposition to the motion to cite him in
contempt
which had, at the time, been unresolved, he contended that his failure
to attend the hearings on February 4, March 18, June 4, 11 and 28, 1998
was due to valid grounds duly communicated to and noted and “accepted”
by the hearing panel.[24]
As to his failure to
attend the October 28, 1998 hearing, respondent reiterated his claim
that
he was made to believe by his superiors that he was indeed required to
attend the International Telecommunications Plenipotentiary Meeting in
Minneapolis, adding that he was initially assigned Deputy Head of the
delegation.
He further claimed that the letter of Secretary Cardenas to Secretary
Rivera
did not provide the entire “picture” as he requested for a
reconsideration
of Secretary Cardenas’ decision.cralaw:red
Blaming the ugly side
of politics, respondent claimed that his detractors within the
government
succeeded in blocking his travel order. He, however, maintained that on
October 28, 1998, he was of the bona fide belief that Secretary
Cardenas’
earlier decision had already been reconsidered and that there were
already
instructions of the President for him to proceed to Minneapolis, hence,
he could not be faulted or punished for his failure to attend the
hearing
scheduled on that date.[25]
As to the March 4, 1999
hearing, respondent stood by his manifestation made through his counsel
that he was supposed to be in Cebu City to attend to the Benevola case.
He claimed that the Certification of the Branch Clerk of Court hardly
revealed
the whole “picture” as he was indeed scheduled to proceed to the RTC
Cebu
as early as March 3, 1999 for a very urgent task of filing with said
court
a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which was expected to be issued by
the Court of Appeals, in connection with the petition for certiorari
he,
in collaboration with another counsel, filed to assail the refusal of
the
trial judge to stay the execution of the judgment in the Benevola case;
but as the Court of Appeals issued the TRO only on March 5, 1999, he
left
for Cebu only on March 5, 1999.[26]
Respondent submitted
a Certification of the Clerk of Court of Branch 6 of the RTC Cebu
stating
that he personally appeared before her office on March 5, 1999 at 3:00
p.m. “to file a manifestation[27]
with TRO” in the Benevola case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly, respondent
claimed, he was merely a victim of an unforeseen event, i.e., the delay
in the issuance of the restraining order.cralaw:red
Respondent further asserted
that it was evident that if he had any intention to ignore the orders
and
subpoenas of the hearing panel, he would not have bothered to submit
his
written explanations and manifestations.[28]
On February 12, 2001,
the case at bar was heard by the IBP-CBD wherein the parties agreed to
submit the case for resolution on the basis of the documents they
filed.
The parties on even date were then ordered to submit their simultaneous
memoranda, which they did, after which the case was considered
submitted
for resolution.[29]
The IBP-CBD, through
Investigating Commissioner Caesar P. Dulay, made a Report and
Recommendation[30]
dated April 10, 2002, the pertinent portion of which reads:
We cannot help but take
note of the fact that for a little more than a year respondent did not
appear in any of the ten hearings set by the SEC Hearing Panel
requiring
him to testify therein. Whatever the reasons cited, respondent to our
mind
did not show an attitude of cooperation with the SEC Hearing Panel so
as
not to at least unduly delay the case. This much is demanded of him as
an officer of the court. Canon 12 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer shall exert
every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration
of justice. After six or seven requests, respondent should have at
least
taken steps to cooperate, comply and accommodate in his calendar the
orders
of the SEC Hearing Panel. We see that the last minute motions and
manifestations
made by respondent does not reflect a very cooperative attitude on
[h]is
part toward the SEC Hearing Panel.cralaw:red
As to the March 4, 1999
hearing, respondent says “Evidently, were it not for the delayed
issuance
by the Court of Appeals of its temporary restraining order in the
“Benevola
Case” respondent would have been in Cebu City on March 4, 1999 and
complainants
would not have had the chance to rely on this particular ground for
their
instant complaint.” Respondent says that he was really scheduled for
Cebu
to file the Temporary Restraining Order since March 3, 1999 was that “I
am scheduled to attend the hearing of LRC case No. 633 entitled “In re
Application for Registration, Associacion Benevola de Cebu, Applicant”
presently pending before Branch 6. Accordingly, I will not be in Manila
on the scheduled hearing date therefore justifying my absence thereat.”
We have seen that there was no scheduled hearing of LRC Case No. 633 on
March 4, 1999. Neither was the case scheduled for hearing on March 5,
1999.
Respondent appeared on that date only to file “Manifestation with TRO”
in Case No. 633. There was no scheduled hearing. There is a difference
between attending a hearing and merely filing a manifestation in court
which does not involve a hearing. Respondent used the circumstances
occurring
after the fact to justify and support his reason earlier given for not
attending the March 4 hearing. Respondent was less than candid to the
SEC
Hearing Panel in his letter of March 3, 1999 when he said that he was
to
attend the hearing of LRC Case No. 633 and accordingly he will not be
in
Manila on the scheduled hearing date (March 4, 1999). In truth, LRC
Case
No. 633 was not scheduled for hearing on March 4, 1999. He was not even
counsel of record as of March 3, 1999, the date of the letter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appears to us that
respondent has taken time to schedule a trip to file a Temporary
Restraining
Order which has not yet been obtained and then blame the Court of
Appeals
for not issuing said restraining order early enough (“he did not expect
that he would wait in vain practically the whole day”) and the
resulting
non-issuance of which he uses to justify his absence at the hearing on
March 4,1999 set by the SEC Hearing Panel. We see respondent’s
justification
and argument a bit strained. Respondent has presumed too much in both
the
October 28, 1998 and March 4, 1999 hearings. Coupled with his
non-appearance
in eight previous settings by the SEC Hearing Panel, we find that
respondent
has not displayed the attitude and cooperation with the judicial
process
expected of him as a member of the bar and officer of the court.cralaw:red
We reiterate the off-repeated
reminder that the primary duty of a lawyer is to assist the courts in
the
administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or
obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers’ duty
[Bugaring
vs, Espanol 349 SCRA 687 (2001)].cralaw:red
Respondent raises the
matter of complainants personality to file the instant complain arguing
that the same should be dismissed because the SEC-SICD is the offended
party and should be the one filing the complaint. Respondent also cites
the motion to cite him in contempt filed with the SEC as a prejudicial
question and therefore the instant complaint should be dismissed on
that
basis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To address the above,
we refer to the ruling in the case of Esquivas v. Court of Appeals, 272
SCRA 812 citing In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970) and we quote:
“x
x x Disciplinary proceedings
against
lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they
don’t involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather
investigations
by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being
intended
to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly,
there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be
initiated
by the Court motu propio. Public interest is its primary objective, and
the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is
still
a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the
exercise
of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the
Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the
end
in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper
and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of
members
who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be
entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an
attorney.
In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a
complainant.cralaw:red
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully
recommended that respondent be advised to cooperate more fully with the
processes of the courts and assist more fully in the speedy and
efficient
administration of justice as an officer thereof. Respondent be warned
that
to continuously employ such last-minute tactics and maintain a similar
attitude towards court processes in the future would merit a more
severe
sanction from the Commission. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
On June 29, 2002, the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
passed
the following resolution[31]
adopting and approving the above-mentioned report:
RESOLUTION
NO. XV-2002-240
CBD Case No. 99-629
Servillano Batac,
Jr.,
and
Antonio Bonoan
vs.
Atty. Ponciano V.
Cruz,
Jr.
RESOLVED to ADOPT
and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex “A;” and, finding the
recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules,
Respondent is hereby ADVISED to cooperate more fully with the processes
of the courts and assist more fully in the speedy and efficient
administration
of justice as an officer thereof. Respondent is WARNED that to
continuously
employ such last minute tactics and maintain similar attitude towards
court
processes
in the future would merit a more severe sanction from the Commission.
(Emphasis
in the original.)
This Court finds
respondent
to have violated his oath as a lawyer. The Lawyer’s Oath reads:
I
______________
of__________ do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the
Republic
of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey laws as
well
as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will
do no falsehood, no consent to the doing of any court; I will not
wittingly
nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or
give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or
malice,
and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge
and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients;
and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Respondent disobeyed
legal
orders of a duly constituted authority, the SEC hearing panel. He,
through
his counsel, promised before the hearing panel that he would submit the
pertinent travel orders to substantiate his excuse for failing to
appear
on October 28, 1998. He welched on the promise, however, as nothing was
heard from him since that date, to thus draw the hearing panel, on
motion
of petitioners, to again issue an order in December 1998 directing him
to submit his travel documents. No such documents were ever submitted,
however. It was only by his letter dated March 3, 1999 when the hearing
panel received word from him again, when he was again asking that he be
excused from attending the March 4, 1999 hearing. In his March 3, 1999
letter, however, he was completely silent on the promised submission of
travel documents and the subsequent directive to comply therewith.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Without doubt,
respondent
had exhibited a blatant disrespect for legal orders and processes.
Not only by
disobedience
to SEC’s orders did respondent violate his oath as a lawyer. He
likewise
committed dishonesty concerning his excuses for his failure to attend
the
October 28, 1998 and March 4, 1999 hearings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, with respect
to
the October 28, 1998 hearing, he claimed that he was of the bona fide
belief
that the decision turning down his request to go to the US would be
reconsidered.
Such explanation does not persuade. It is hard to believe that on the
day
that he claims he was supposed to leave, October 27, 1998, when he
didn’t
even have the necessary travel orders, he was still convinced that he
would
join the Philippine delegation to Minneapolis. That he gave such
explanation
only after a contempt case had been filed against him in April 1999,
and
not immediately after he had become convinced that the decision not to
send him to the United States was not reconsidered, only casts doubts
as
to the truthfulness thereof.
But even if this
Court would give him the benefit of the doubt, he still should be
faulted
for having failed to timely inform the hearing panel that his departure
on October 27, 1998 did not push through and that he was thus available
to testify on October 28 & 29, 1998.cralaw:red
With respect to the
March 4, 1999 hearing, respondent, before said date, alleged by letter
that he could not testify as he was scheduled to attend a hearing in
the
RTC Cebu for the Benevola case. As stated earlier, however, the
Certification
of the Branch Clerk of Court showed that he was not counsel of record
in
the Benevola case at the trial court level and there was no scheduled
hearing
of the “principal case” either on March 4 or 5, 1999. Respondent’s
harping
on the delay in the issuance by the Court of Appeals of a TRO does not
excuse him. Since when could the decision to issue a TRO, as well as
the
date and time of its issuance, be accurately predicted?
As correctly noted by
the IBP, there is a difference between attending a hearing and mere
filing
of a manifestation, and it is apparent that respondent only used the
circumstances
occurring after the fact to justify and support his reason for not
attending
the March 4, 1999 hearing. This is a clear case of dishonesty.cralaw:red
Respondent fully knew
that several hearings had been postponed due to his unavailability, and
they were reset on dates to adjust to his availability. The least he
could
have done was, as correctly pointed out by the IBP, to take steps to
cooperate
and accommodate in his schedule the hearings set by the hearing panel.cralaw:red
Respondent cannot deny
the importance of his would-be testimony as shown by the continuous
request
of the petitioners in the SEC case for his appearance. It was thus very
inconsiderate, to say the least, on his part not to have taken time off
from what he wanted to convey to be a hectic schedule. His last minute
motions and manifestations that he be excused from the scheduled
hearings
confirm his indifference to the orders of the SEC hearing panel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Given the facts of the
case, and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court which reads:
Section 27.
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor.
- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
of
the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or
for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case
without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers,
constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
The recommendation that
he be advised and warned does not merit this Court’s approval.
WHEREFORE, respondent
ATTY. PONCIANO V. CRUZ, JR. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law
for SIX (6) MONTHS, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let a copy of this Decision,
upon its finality, be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and
all the courts in the Philippines, and entered in the personal records
of Atty. Cruz in the Office of the Bar Confidant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, J., (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Corona, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 3-7.
[2]
Id. at 8-9.
[3]
Id. at 10.
[4]
Id. at 11-12.
[5]
Id. at 13-14.
[6]
Id. at 15-16.
[7]
Id. at 15.
[8]
Id. at 17-18.
[9]
Id. at 19.
[10]
Id. at 21.
[11]
Id. at 22-23.
[12]
Id. at 24.
[13]
Id. at 25-26.
[14]
Id. at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), October 28, 1998 at 3-9.
[16]
Rollo at 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 44.
[18]
Id. at 45.
[19]
Ibidchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id. at 47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 54-60.
[22]
Id. at 61 -70.
[23]
Id. at 49-53.
[24]
Id. at 50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 50-51.
[26]
Id. at 51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id. at 92-93.
[28]
Id. at 52.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 97.
[30]
Id. at 160-172.
[31]
Id. at 158-159. |