View full case

MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR

FACTS:

The disbarment case involves a complaint against Atty. Emily Bajar, a lawyer from the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), lodged by Manuel Sebastian. The complaint alleges that Atty. Bajar obstructed and impeded final decisions of the courts. The case revolves around Fernando Tanlioco, an agricultural lessee who was being sued for ejectment by the landowners. The landowners sought a conversion order to change the land's use from agricultural to residential. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered Tanlioco's ejectment, a decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Atty. Bajar, who represented Tanlioco, filed another case for Specific Performance to secure the conversion order, but the RTC dismissed it based on res judicata. Atty. Bajar then filed a case for Maintenance of Possession with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, raising the same conversion and disturbance compensation issues. Complainant Sebastian claimed that Atty. Bajar engaged in forum-shopping to obstruct the administration of justice, which, according to him, is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On 18 November 1991, the Court required Atty. Bajar to comment on the complaint, and the case was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for hearing and decision. The IBP recommended Atty. Bajar's indefinite suspension, which was adopted by the Court. However, during a hearing held on 29 August 2003, Atty. Bajar claimed that she did not receive notice of the suspension resolution and was unaware of her suspension. Complainant's counsel argued that Atty. Bajar continued to practice law despite being suspended, and requested the lifting of the suspension. The Court ordered the parties to file position papers.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent violated the suspension order by continuing to practice law.

  2. Whether complainant has the standing to file the disbarment complaint against respondent.

  3. Whether the respondent's failure to comply with the Court's orders constitutes gross misconduct and willful disobedience.

  4. Whether the respondent's defenses were untenable.

  5. Whether the refusal of the accused to submit himself to an HIV test is a ground for his disqualification from entering the police force.

  6. Whether the police force’s requirement for an HIV test is in violation of the accused’s right to privacy.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds the evidence on record sufficient to support the IBP's finding of manifest flagrant misconduct by the respondent. However, the Court disagrees with the penalty imposed by the IBP. The Court emphasizes that disciplinary actions against lawyers are neither civil nor criminal actions, but rather investigations by the court into the conduct of its officer. These proceedings are intended to protect the administration of justice from the misconduct of its officers. The Court requires its officers to be competent, honorable, and reliable, reflecting the values and norms of the legal profession.

  2. The court ruled that the respondent's failure to comply with the Court's orders constituted gross misconduct and willful disobedience. Such conduct demonstrated a high degree of irresponsibility and disrespect for the judicial institution. The court emphasized that lawyers have a graver responsibility to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect for their processes. The respondent's refusal to comply with the Court's orders warranted disciplinary sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law.

  3. The court ruled that the respondent's defenses were untenable. The defense that the complainant was not the real party-in-interest did not apply in disbarment cases, where any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate proceedings. The defense that the respondent merely availed of legal remedies for her client was also rejected, as lawyers are first and foremost officers of the court bound to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The respondent's act of filing cases with identical issues in other venues despite the final ruling by higher courts was considered an abuse of the right of recourse to the courts and a violation of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. No, the refusal of the accused to submit himself to an HIV test is not a ground for his disqualification from entering the police force.

  5. Yes, the police force’s requirement for an HIV test is in violation of the accused’s right to privacy.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Disciplinary actions against lawyers are sui generis and are intended to protect the administration of justice from the misconduct of its officers.

  • Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, the bar, courts, and their clients, reflecting the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the penalty in disbarment or suspension proceedings.

  • Willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court is a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment.

  • Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes, and failure to do so may result in disciplinary sanctions. Lawyers have a graver responsibility to uphold the integrity of the courts and show respect for their processes.

  • Failure to comply with the Court's directive to comment on a letter-complaint constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination or disrespect.

  • 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. Disbarment proceedings can be initiated by any interested person or the court motu proprio.

  • Lawyers owe their entire devotion to their clients' interests but should also remember that they are officers of the court, bound to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

  • Filing cases with identical issues in other venues despite final rulings from higher courts is considered an abuse of the right of recourse to the courts and a violation of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • 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. Lesser penalties may be imposed if deemed sufficient.

  • Right to privacy – The right to privacy is the right to be let alone. It is deemed to be the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • Discrimination – Discrimination exists when a person or group of persons is treated unequally, as compared with others, based on a prohibited ground such as sex, race, ethnicity, or health status. Discrimination is not allowed under the law.

  • Reasonable classification – For a classification to be reasonable, (a) it must be based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences, (b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law, (c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and (d) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.

  • Police power – Police power is the power of the State to enact laws, within constitutional limits, to promote the order, safety, health, morals, and general welfare of society. It is inherent in the State and may be exercised by the legislature.