VOL.

532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 435

Sebastian vs. Bajar
*
A.C. No. 3731. September 7, 2007.

MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; Words and Phrases; The term “noted” means that the Court has
merely taken cognizance of the existence of an act or declaration, without exercising a judicious
deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter—it does not imply agreement or approval.—As culled
from the records, the Court had merely noted IBP Resolution No. XII-96-149 which recommended
respondent’s indefinite suspension. “The term ‘noted’ means that the Court has merely taken cognizance
of the existence of an act or declaration, without exercising a judicious deliberation or rendering a
decision on the matter—it does not imply agreement or approval.” Hence, the penalty of indefinite
suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors has not attained finality. Section 12 of Rule 139B
provides: Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.—x x x (b) If the Board, by the vote
of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the
practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations
which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme
Court for final action.

Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and they

belong to a class of their own—they are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the
Court into the conduct of its officer, and they involve no

_______________

* EN BANC.

436

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar

private interest and afford no redress for private grievance; Clear preponderant evidence is necessary
to justify the imposition of the penalty in disbarment or suspension proceedings.—Administrative
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and they belong to a class of their own. They are neither civil
nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officer. They involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. A disciplinary action against a lawyer is
intended to protect the administration of justice from the misconduct of its officers. This Court requires
that its officers shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men in whom the public may repose
confidence. “Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts,
and to their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or
suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor—or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court.”
Clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the penalty in disbarment or
suspension proceedings.
 Same; Same; Same; A respondent-lawyer’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the
Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution—such conduct indicates a high
degree of irresponsibility.—The evidence presented shows that respondent failed to comply with the
Court’s lawful orders in two instances: x x x These acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful
orders of this Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself a sufficient cause
for suspension or disbarment. Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the
Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a
high degree of irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is “not to be construed as a mere request, nor should
it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively.” Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply with
the Court’s orders “not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her
disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.”

437

VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 437

Sebastian vs. Bajar

Same; Same; Same; Misconduct;  Graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to

uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes; A respondent-lawyer’s failure to
comply with the Court’s directive to file a Rejoinder and to file a Comment also constitutes gross
misconduct.—Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondent’s deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for
contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer
than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. Respondent’s
failure to comply with the Court’s directive to file a Rejoinder and to file a Comment also constitutes
gross misconduct. The Court defined gross misconduct as “any inexcusable, shameful, flagrant, or
unlawful conduct on the part of the person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial
to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of a cause.” It is a “conduct that is generally
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose.”

Same; Same; Same; Parties; The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that

only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases—in fact, the
person who called the attention of the court to a lawyer’s misconduct “is in no sense a party, and generally
has no interest in the outcome.”—The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that
only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. In fact, the
person who called the attention of the court to a lawyer’s misconduct “is in no sense a party, and
generally has no interest in the outcome.” “A compromise or withdrawal of charges does not terminate an
administrative complaint against a lawyer.” In  Heck v. Santos, the Court held that “any interested
person or the court  motu proprio  may initiate disciplinary proceedings.” The right to institute
disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered
injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only
basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges.

Same;  Same;  Same;  A lawyer’s act of filing cases with identical issues in other venues despite the
final ruling which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is beyond the bounds of

438

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar

 the law.—Respondent avers that she merely availed of all the legal remedies for her client. In Suzuki
v. Tiamson, 471 SCRA 129 (2005), the Court enunciated that “while lawyers owe their entire devotion to
the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client’s rights, they should not forget that they
are first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.” Respondent’s act of filing cases with identical issues in other venues
despite the final ruling which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is beyond the
bounds of the law. “To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the
supposed rights of their clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state—the administration of
justice.”

Same;  Same;  Same;  Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to
represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law.—Respondent abused her right of
recourse to the courts. Respondent, acting as Tanlioco’s counsel, filed cases for Specific Performance and
Maintenance of Possession despite the finality of the decision in the Ejectment case which involves the
same issues. The Court held that “an important factor in determining the existence of forum-shopping is
the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim
substantially the same reliefs. Indeed, “while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should
not be at the expense of truth and administration of justice.” Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. It
is evident from the records that respondent filed other cases to thwart the execution of the final
judgment in the Ejectment case. Clearly, respondent violated the proscription in Canon 19.

Same;  Same;  Same;  While respondent’s acts of wantonly disobeying her duties as an officer of the
court show an utter disrespect for the Court and the legal profession, the Court will not, however, disbar a
lawyer if it finds that a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.—The penalty of
suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. In this case, respondent has shown her great propensity
to disregard court orders. Respondent’s acts of wantonly disobeying her duties as

439

VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 439

Sebastian vs. Bajar

an officer of the court show an utter disrespect for the Court and the legal profession. However, the
Court will not disbar a lawyer if it finds that a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.
Respondent’s acts constitute gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior
court. Respondent also violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her suspension is
consequently warranted.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Octaviano Ramirez for complainant.
     Arquillo, Dela Cruz & Albao Law Offices for respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

On 18 October 1991, Manuel S. Sebastian (complainant) filed a disbarment complaint against

Atty. Emily A. Bajar (respondent) for “obstructing, disobeying, resisting, rebelling, and
impeding final decisions of Regional Trial Courts, the Court of Appeals and of the Honorable
Supreme Court, and also for submitting those final decisions for the review and reversal of the
DARAB, an administrative body, and for contemptuous acts and dilatory tactics.”

The Facts

Complainant alleged the following:

1. Respondent is a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the

Department of Agrarian Reform who represented
1
Fernando Tanlioco (Tanlioco) in
numerous cases which raised the same issues.  Tanlioco is an agricultural lessee of a
land owned by complain-

_______________
1 Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.

440

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar

ant’s spouse and sister-in-law (landowners). The landowners filed an Ejectment case
against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order of the land use from agricultural to
residential. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment 2
ordering Tanlioco’s
ejectment subject to the payment of 3disturbance compensation.4
  The RTC’s judgment
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
2. Respondent, as Tanlioco’s counsel, filed another case for Specific Performance to
produce the conversion order. The 5
RTC dismissed the complaint due to  res
judicata and lack of cause of action.
3. Respondent filed a case for Maintenance of Possession with the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication 6 Board. The case raised the same issues of conversion
and disturbance compensation.
4. Respondent has violated Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility since she
misused the7
rules of procedure through forum-shopping to obstruct the administration
of justice.

On 18 November 1991, the Court

8
issued a resolution requiring respondent to comment on the
complaint lodged against her. 9
After a second Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Comment,   respondent submitted
her Comment alleging the following:

_______________
2 Id., at pp. 88-93.
3 Id., at pp. 96-100.
4 Id., at pp. 101-105.
5 Id., at pp. 3, 15-16.
6 Id., at pp. 3-4, 16.
7 Id., at pp. 18-19.
8 Id., at p. 21.
9 Id., at p. 26.

441
 VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 441
Sebastian vs. Bajar

1. Complainant is not 10the real party-in-interest. He is also not authorized to prosecute

the disbarment suit.
2. Respondent has fulfilled allegiance to the “Attorney’s Oath” and performed
11
duties in
accordance with Section 20 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
3. Respondent’s client, Tanlioco,
12
merely availed of all legal remedies to obtain benefits
secured for him by law.

On 10 March 1992, complainant filed his Reply. Complainant alleged that respondent did not
confront the issues of13her disbarment squarely but raised issues that were decided upon with
finality by the courts.
On 25 March 1992, the Court14
issued a Resolution requiring respondent to file a Rejoinder
within 10 days from notice.  On 3 June 1992, complainant filed a Manifestation dated 2 June
1992 stating15that respondent failed to comply with the 25 March 1992 Court Resolution to file
a Rejoinder.
On 7 October 1992, the Court ordered respondent to show cause why she should not be
subjected to disciplinary action for failure to comply with the Court’s 25 March 1992
Resolution. The 16
Court also required respondent to Comment on the complainant’s 2 June 1992
Manifestation.
On 3 February 1993, respondent filed a Manifestation alleging that she had substantially
complied with the Court’s orders relative to her defenses. She advised the Court that she had
transferred to the Public Attorney’s Office and since

_______________
10 Id., at pp. 39-41.
11 Id., at p. 44.
12 Id., at p. 52.
13 Id., at p. 74.
14 Id., at p. 193.
15 Id., at p. 194.
16 Id., at p. 209.

442

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar

she was no longer

17
a “BALA lawyer,” the cases involved in this proceeding had become moot
and academic.
On 1 March 1993, the Court issued a Resolution stating that the administrative case
against respondent “has not been mooted and nothing set out in her ‘Manifestation’18
excuses
her failure to obey this Court’s Resolutions of 25 March 1992 and 7 October 1992.”  The Court
had also resolved to impose a fine of P500 or imprisonment of five days 19and to require
respondent to comply with the 25 March 1992 and 7 October 1992 Resolutions.
On 24 August 1993, complainant 20
filed a Manifestation stating that respondent had not
complied with the Court’s orders.
On 29 September 1993, the Court issued a Resolution ordering the arrest of respondent for
detention at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for five days. The Court reiterated
21
that respondent should comply with the 25 March 1992 and 7 October 1992 Resolutions.
 On 20 October 1993, the NBI arrested22respondent. The NBI detained respondent for five
days and released her on 25 October 1993.
On 10 November 1993, the Court issued a Resolution 23
referring the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for hearing and decision.
On 11 November 1993, respondent filed 24
a Rejoinder. Respondent claimed that complainant
had no legal personality to file this case.  Respondent also alleged that she was merely

_______________
17 Id., at pp. 225-226.
18 Id., at p. 228.
19 Id., at p. 229.
20 Id., at pp. 230-231.
21 Id., at pp. 233-234.
22 Id., at p. 238.
23 Id., at p. 245.
24 Id., at p. 247.

443

VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 443

Sebastian vs. Bajar

protecting the interest of Tanlioco as she was sworn to do so in her oath of office. Respondent
contended that “she had comported herself as [an] officer25 of the court, at the risk of being
disciplined by the latter if only to impart truth and justice.”
On 22 November 1995, Investigating Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose (Investigating
Commissioner Jose) submitted his report and recommendation to the IBP. Investigating
Commissioner Jose enumerated respondent’s violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that rendered her unfit to continue the practice of law:

1. Respondent
26
appealed a case for purposes of delay which amounted to an obstruction of
justice.
2. Respondent abused her right of recourse 27
to the courts. The duplication or
multiplication of suits should be avoided,  and respondent’s acts were tantamount to
forum-shopping
28
which is a reprehensible manipulation of court processes and
proceedings.
3. Respondent uttered disrespectful
29
language and shouted at everybody during the
hearing on 25 May 1995.  The want of intention is not an excuse for the disrespectful
language used.

On 4 October 1996, the IBP transmitted to the Court a copy of IBP Resolution No. XII-96-149
dated 30 March 1996. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved Investigating
Commissioner Jose’s recommendation that respondent be “SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY
from the practice of law for Unethical Practices and attitude showing her propensity and
incorrigible character to violate the basic tenets and requirements of the Code of Professional
Responsibility rendering

_______________
25 Id., at p. 251.
26 Id., at p. 301.
27 Id., at pp. 306-308.
28 Id., at pp. 308-312.
29 Id., at pp. 296-300, 303-304.
 444

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar
30
her unfit to continue in31
the practice of law.”  Governor Angel R. Gonzales recommended her
“outright disbarment.”
In its 20 January 32 1997 Resolution, the Court noted the IBP Resolution suspending
respondent indefinitely.
On 13 April 1999, the Court issued a Resolution directing the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) to circularize the resolution 33
of the IBP dated 30 March 1996 suspending
respondent indefinitely from the practice of law.
On 7 June 1999, the OCA, through Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, issued
Circular No. 30-99 informing all courts that respondent had been suspended indefinitely.
On 30 January 2003, respondent filed a Motion to Consider the Case Closed and
Terminated.
34
Respondent apologized for her demeanor and prayed that the suspension be
lifted.
On 16 June 2003,
35
the Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the IBP for report and
recommendation.
On 29 August 2003, Investigating Commissioner Demaree J.B. Raval (Investigating
Commissioner Raval) conducted a hearing. Respondent claimed 36
that she did not receive any
notice of the OCA’s Circular on her indefinite suspension.  Respondent alleged that the Court
Resolution 37which she received merely noted the IBP’s Resolution on her indefinite
suspension.   Respondent claimed that she only knew38 of the suspension when she filed an
application for a judicial position in Mandaluyong City.

_______________
30 Id., at p. 262.
31 Id.
32 Id., at p. 316.
33 Id., at p. 322.
34 Id., at p. 327.
35 Id., at p. 332.
36 Rollo, Vol. 2, p. 11.
37 Id., at p. 13.
38 Id.

445

VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 445

Sebastian vs. Bajar

In the hearing, respondent admitted that she continued to practice law as a Prosecutor in
Mandaluyong City despite her suspension because she believed that a notation by the Court in
the 20 January 1997 Resolution
39
did not mean an implementation of the IBP’s Resolution on
her indefinite suspension.
Due to the absence of complainant and his counsel, another hearing was held on 19
September 2003. Complainant’s counsel asserted that respondent had been practicing law in
the midst of her suspension
40
and this constituted a violation of the suspension order which she
wanted to be lifted.  Investigating 41Commissioner Raval asked respondent to present a valid
ground to lift the suspension order.  Respondent requested that her detention for five days at
the NBI be converted into a five-year suspension, one year42 for every day of detention such that
she would have served five years of indefinite suspension.
Investigating Commissioner
43
Raval then directed the parties to file simultaneously their
Verified Position Papers.
In his Position Paper and Comment, complainant posited that respondent’s motion did not
state valid grounds to convince the Court to lift the suspension order. Complainant stated that
by continuing to practice law, “she is flaunting her defiance of44 the Supreme Court by showing
that she can hoodwink another branch of government.” 45
Complainant also prayed for
respondent’s disbarment due to the gravity of her offense.

_______________
39 Id., at pp. 15-18.
40 Id., at pp. 53-54.
41 Id., at p. 59.
42 Id., at p. 60.
43 Id., at p. 84.
44 Id., at pp. 89-90.
45 Id., at p. 97.

446

446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar

In respondent’s Position Paper, she reiterated that complainant is not the real party-in-
interest since the property that was litigated was owned by complainant’s wife. She asserted
that she never betrayed her client’s cause, she was never unfaithful to her oath, and it was
complainant who filed this case for harassment. 46Respondent prayed that the case be
considered closed and terminated due to lack of merit.
Respondent also sent a letter to Investigating Commissioner Raval and attached a copy of a
Resolution in a Preliminary Investigation case which she handled. Respondent contended that
in this Preliminary Investigation case, 47she recommended its dismissal because the offended
party was not the real party-in-interest.
Respondent insisted that complainant did not have the personality 48
to file the disbarment
complaint against her; hence, it should have been dismissed outright.
After the parties filed their position papers, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution
No. XVI-2004-229 dated 16 April 2004. The IBP adopted Investigating Commissioner Raval’s
Report and Recommendation that respondent be disbarred for 49her “manifest flagrant
misconduct in disobeying the SC Order of her Indefinite Suspension.”
As culled from the records, the Court had merely noted IBP Resolution No. XII-96-149
which recommended respondent’s indefinite suspension. “The term ‘noted’ means that the
Court has merely taken cognizance of the existence of an act or declaration, without exercising
a judicious50 deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter—it does not imply agreement or
approval.”  Hence, the penalty of indefinite suspen-

_______________
46 Id., at p. 93.
47 Id., at p. 100.
48 Id.
49 IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-229.
50 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 310, 321.

447
 VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 447
Sebastian vs. Bajar

sion imposed by the IBP Board of Governors has not attained finality. Section 12 of Rule 139-B
provides:
“Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.—
xxx
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent
should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its
findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.” (Emphasis supplied)

Necessarily, the Court will now give its “final action” on this complaint.

The Ruling of the Court

After a careful review of the records, the Court finds the evidence on record sufficient to
support the IBP’s findings. However, the Court disagrees with the penalty imposed on
respondent. 51
Administrative
52
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis   and they belong to a class of
their own.  They are neither civil53
nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court
into the conduct 54of its officer.   They involve no private interest and afford no redress for
private grievance.
A disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to protect the administration of justice
from the misconduct of its offi-

_______________
51 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 15 September 2004, 438 SCRA 306, 317.
52 Heck v. Santos, 467 Phil. 798, 823; 423 SCRA 329, 350 (2004).
53 Arienda v. Aguila, A.C. No. 5637, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 282, 287.
54 Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 349 Phil. 7, 15; 285 SCRA 93, 101 (1998).

448

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar

cers. This Court requires that its officers55

shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men in
whom the public may repose confidence.  “Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to their clients. Their conduct must always
reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any
professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, 56
honesty,
probity, and good demeanor—or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court.”
Clear preponderant evidence is necessary
57
to justify the imposition of the penalty in
disbarment or suspension proceedings.
The evidence presented shows that respondent failed to comply with the Court’s lawful
orders in two instances:

1. In the 25 March 1992 Court Resolution, respondent was required to file a rejoinder
within 10 days from notice. However, she only submitted the rejoinder on 11 November
 1993 after she was detained at the NBI for five days for failure to heed the Court’s
order.
2. In the 7 October 1992 Court Resolution, respondent was required to comment on
complainant’s manifestation. She instead submitted a manifestation on 3 February
1993 or almost four months thereafter. In her manifestation, respondent alleged that
she had substantially complied with the Court’s orders. However, the Court in its 1
March 1993 Resolution stated that nothing

_______________
55 De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces, 111 Phil. 569, 572; 1 SCRA 954, 957 (1961).
56 Barriosv. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585, 12 November 2004, 442 SCRA 324, 335-336.
57 Berbano v. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331, 341; 410 SCRA 258, 265 (2003).

449

VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 449

Sebastian vs. Bajar

set out in respondent’s manifestation excused her failure to obey the Court’s
Resolutions.

These acts constitute58 willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court, which under
Section 27, Rule 138   of the Rules of Court is in itself a sufficient cause for suspension or
disbarment. Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring
59
the orders of the Supreme
Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a
high degree of irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is “not to be construed
60
as a mere request,
nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively.”  Respondent’s obstinate
refusal to comply with the Court’s orders “not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character;
it also underscores
61
her disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of
reproof.”
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondent’s deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to
punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is
imposed upon a lawyer than 62
any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show
respect to their processes.

_______________
58 Sec. 27 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 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 to do so.
59 Ong v. Grijaldo, 450 Phil. 1, 12; 402 SCRA 1, 10 (2003).
60 Id., at p. 13; pp. 10-11.
61 Id.
62 Bantolo v. Castillon, Jr., A.C. No. 6589, 19 December 2005, 478 SCRA 443, 448-449.

450

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar
Respondent’s failure to comply with the Court’s directive to file a Rejoinder and to file a
Comment also constitutes gross misconduct. The Court defined gross misconduct as “any
inexcusable, shameful, flagrant, or unlawful conduct on the part of the person concerned in the
administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right
determination of a cause.” It is a63 “conduct that is generally motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate, or intentional purpose.”
64
In Bernal Jr. v. Fernandez,  the Court held that failure to comply with the Court’s directive
to comment on a lettercomplaint 65
constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination, or
disrespect. In Cuizon v. Macalino,  a lawyer’s failure to comply with the Court’s Resolutions
requiring him to file his comment was one of the infractions that merited his disbarment.
Furthermore, respondent’s defenses are untenable.  Firstly, respondent contends that
complainant is not the real partyin-interest since the property that was litigated was owned
by complainant’s wife. The Court is not persuaded with this defense.
The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-
in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. In fact, the person who
called the attention of the court 66to a lawyer’s misconduct “is in no sense a party, and generally
has no interest in the outcome.”  “A compromise 67
or withdrawal of charges does not terminate
an administrative complaint against a lawyer.”

_______________
63 Yumol, Jr. v. Ferrer, Sr., A.C. No. 6585, 21 April 2005, 456 SCRA 475, 491-492.
64 A.M. No. P-05-2045, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 29, 33.
65 A.C. No. 4334, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 479, 484-485.
66 Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, supra note 54 at p. 15; p. 101.
67 Pariñas v. Paguinto, A.C. No. 6297, 13 July 2004, 434 SCRA 179, 184.

451

VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 451

Sebastian vs. Bajar
68
In Heck v. Santos,  the Court held that “any interested person or the court motu proprio may
initiate disciplinary proceedings.” The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not
confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the
alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public 69
interest and the only basis
for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges.
Secondly, respondent 70
avers that she merely availed of all the legal remedies for her client.
In Suzuki v. Tiamson, the Court enunciated that “while lawyers owe their entire devotion to
the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client’s rights, they should not
forget that they are first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.” Respondent’s act of filing cases
with identical issues in other venues despite the final ruling which was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals and the Supreme Court is beyond the bounds of the law. “To permit lawyers to
resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights
71
of their clients is to
defeat one of the purposes of the state—the administration of justice.”
Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts. Respondent, acting as Tanlioco’s
counsel, filed cases for Specific Performance and Maintenance of Possession despite the
finality of the decision in the Ejectment case which involves the same issues. The Court held
that “an important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation
caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of

_______________
68 Supra note 52 at p. 822; p. 349.
 69 Navarro v. Meneses III, 349 Phil. 520, 582; 285 SCRA 586, 592-593 (1998).
70 A.C. No. 6542, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 129, 140.
71 Id., at pp. 139-140.

452

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sebastian vs. Bajar
72
similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. Indeed, “while a lawyer owes fidelity 73to
the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and administration of justice.”
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their
clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. It is evident from the records that
respondent filed other cases to thwart the execution of the final judgment in the Ejectment
case. Clearly, respondent violated the proscription in Canon 19.
The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. In this case,
respondent has shown her great propensity to disregard court orders. Respondent’s acts of
wantonly disobeying her duties as an officer of the court show an utter disrespect for the Court
and the legal profession. However, the Court will not disbar a lawyer if it finds that a lesser
penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.
Respondent’s acts constitute gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a
superior court. Respondent also violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Her suspension is consequently warranted.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Emily A. Bajar is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of THREE YEARS effective from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
respondent’s personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the

_______________
72 Foronda v. Guerrero, A.C. No. 5469, 10 August 2004, 436 SCRA 9, 23.
73 Id.

453

VOL. 532, SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 453

Sebastian vs. Bajar

Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.