View full case

NEMESIO FLORAN v. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA

FACTS:

This case involves respondent Atty. Roy Prule Ediza who was administratively charged for violating certain rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from a 3.5525 hectare parcel of unregistered land owned by the complainants, spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran. Atty. Ediza asked the complainants to sign a deed of sale unknowingly transferring a portion of their land to him. He then received half of the proceeds from the sale and falsely led the complainants to believe that he would register the remaining portion of their land. The Court found Atty. Ediza liable for his actions and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. In a Motion for Reconsideration, Atty. Ediza's request was denied. He then filed a Manifestation of Compliance stating that he desisted from practicing law for the required period. The Court deferred action on his manifestation and required him to submit certifications and proof of payment to the complainants. The complainants informed the Court that Atty. Ediza had not complied with the Court's decision. In subsequent resolutions, the Court ordered Atty. Ediza to show cause why he should not be disciplined for his failure to comply and warned him of a more severe penalty. Complainants continuously followed up on the case, and Atty. Ediza filed a compliance claiming that he discovered new evidence that would prove the complainants' fraudulent schemes.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Ediza complied with the Court's Decision dated 19 October 2011.

  2. Whether Atty. Ediza should be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court's directives.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Ediza failed to comply with the Court's Decision dated 19 October 2011. He did not return the required documents to the complainants nor did he pay them the amount he deceived them into paying him.

  2. Atty. Ediza is required to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or be held in contempt for his continued failure to comply with the Court's Decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 15, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility can lead to administrative liability for a lawyer.

  • Lawyers are expected to exhibit behavior befitting a member of the legal profession.

  • Lawyers should not deceive their clients and should act in their clients' best interests.

  • Failure to comply with the Court's disciplinary decision can result in further penalties and disciplinary action against the lawyer.