Floran v. Ediza

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDERS OF THE COURT FOR AN UNREASONABLE
PERIOD AMOUNTS TO GROSS DISRESPECT TO THE COURT PUNISHABLE BY

DISBARMENT
Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran v. Atty. Roy Prule Ediza
A.C. 5325, February 9, 2016
Per Curiam
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Roy Prule Ediza was found administratively liable for having deceived
complainant spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran when the former asked the latter to to
unknowingly sign a deed of sale which transferred a portion of their land and half of the amount
of the proceeds to him while misleading complainants into thinking that he would register, using
the same proceeds, the remaining portion of their land.
The Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months and directed him to
return to complainants the two sets of documents that he misled them into signing and ordered Commented [SR1]: Not necessary
respondent to pay complainants the amount representing the amount he deceived them into
paying him, with legal interest. Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. He then Commented [SR2]: Can be shortened. Please paraphrase
filed a Manifestation of Compliance on the Order of Suspension and attached a sworn Commented [SR3]: irrelevant
statement attesting that he desisted from the practice of law for six months. Complainants
however wrote the Court that respondent had yet to pay any single centavo and neither had he
returned the required documents. Commented [SR4]: paraphrase to shorten
To his defense, respondent claimed that he had no intention to defy the Court's authority or
challenge its orders and that he had served his suspension, but asked the Court to consider that
the two sets of documents were merely fictional. Atty. Ediza alleged that due to the ambiguity
about the 'documents,' the judgment was incomplete and unenforceable. Moreover, Atty. Ediza
claimed that the alleged lack of due process in the administrative case rendered the entire
proceedings void; and consequently, even the order to pay the sum should be stricken off.
The Court found this explanation unsatisfactory and further required Atty. Ediza to comply with
its decision, warning him of a more severe penalty in the event of his continued failure to do so.
The Court also issued Resolutions ordering Atty. Ediza to show cause why he should not be
cited for contempt. However, Atty. Ediza refused to comply with the Court's directives and the
complainants noted that the former has failed to perform the orders of the Court for 17 years
now. Commented [SR5]: paraphrase. There are many words
which can be pulled out
ISSUE:
Does Atty. Ediza’s actions and failure to comply with the orders of the Court constitute delay in
the administration of justice?
HELD:
Yes, failure to comply with the orders and resolutions of the Court is violative of the Canons in
the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers. The intentional delay and utter refusal to
abide with the Court's orders is a great disrespect to the Court which cannot be tolerated.
Court 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.
As a member of the legal profession, Atty. Ediza has the duty to obey the orders and processes
of this Court without delay and resistance. 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.
Atty. Ediza repeatedly and blatantly disregarded and obstinately defied these orders from the Commented [SR6]: One par for application
Court. Instead, Atty. Ediza responded by (1) claiming ignorance over the documents stated in
the Decision, and worse, adjudged that the documents were fictional; (2) alleging newly
discovered evidence; (3) demanding to stay the execution of the Decision; and (4) reporting that
he has complied with the order of suspension without submitting any required certifications from
the IBP and the Office of the Executive Judge. Commented [SR7]: Make separate pars for legal basis
and application. Choose a clearer basis since your first par
Thus Atty. Ediza should be disbarred for his stubborn attitude and unwillingness to comply with mentioned there was a violation of the CPR, indicate what
the Court's directives, making him unfit to remain in the legal profession provisions were violated

Floran v. Ediza

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Floran v. Ediza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDERS OF THE COURT FOR AN UNREASONABLE

PERIOD AMOUNTS TO GROSS DISRESPECT TO THE COURT PUNISHABLE BY

You might also like