Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 128 views

    S08C05 - CI - Sebastian vs. Bajar

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    The Supreme Court ruled that respondent lawyer Emily A. Bajar violated Canons 12 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bajar was accused of obstructing court decisions and engaging in contemptuous and dilatory tactics. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines indefinitely suspended Bajar for unethical practices that amounted to obstruction of justice and abuse of her right to access the courts. The Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient but disagreed with the penalty. It suspended Bajar from practice for 3 years for misconduct, willful disobedience of court orders, and forum shopping, in violation of the Canons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    S08C05 - CI - Sebastian vs. Bajar

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    128 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that respondent lawyer Emily A. Bajar violated Canons 12 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bajar was accused of obstructing court decisions and engaging in contemptuous and dilatory tactics. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines indefinitely suspended Bajar for unethical practices that amounted to obstruction of justice and abuse of her right to access the courts. The Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient but disagreed with the penalty. It suspended Bajar from practice for 3 years for misconduct, willful disobedience of court orders, and forum shopping, in violation of the Canons.

    Original Title

    S08C05_CI_Sebastian vs. Bajar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that respondent lawyer Emily A. Bajar violated Canons 12 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bajar was accused of obstructing court decisions and engaging in contemptuous and dilatory tactics. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines indefinitely suspended Bajar for unethical practices that amounted to obstruction of justice and abuse of her right to access the courts. The Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient but disagreed with the penalty. It suspended Bajar from practice for 3 years for misconduct, willful disobedience of court orders, and forum shopping, in violation of the Canons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    128 views1 page

    S08C05 - CI - Sebastian vs. Bajar

    Uploaded by

    Marie Claire T. Inductivo
    The Supreme Court ruled that respondent lawyer Emily A. Bajar violated Canons 12 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bajar was accused of obstructing court decisions and engaging in contemptuous and dilatory tactics. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines indefinitely suspended Bajar for unethical practices that amounted to obstruction of justice and abuse of her right to access the courts. The Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient but disagreed with the penalty. It suspended Bajar from practice for 3 years for misconduct, willful disobedience of court orders, and forum shopping, in violation of the Canons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    A.C. No.

    3731             September 7, 2007

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

    Facts:
    In 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."
    Respondent Bajar submitted her comment alleging that the complainant is not the real
    party-in-interest. He is also not authorized to prosecute the disbarment suit. The Court required
    Bajar to submit a Rejoinder but failed, and was later ordered to show cause why she should not
    be subjected to disciplinary action for such failure. The IBP ruled that Bajar be suspended
    indefinitely from the practice of law for unethical practice which amounted to an obstruction of
    justice as well as her abuse of her right of recourse to the courts.

    Issue:
    Whether or not respondent violated Canons 12 and 19 of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility?

    Ruling:

    YES. The Court finds the evidence on record sufficient to support the IBP’s findings.
    However, the Court disagrees with the penalty imposed on respondent.

    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. 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. In addition,
    respondent’s act of filing cases with identical issues in other venues despite the final ruling
    which was affirmed by the CA and the SC is beyond the bounds of law, which is also a clear
    violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility against forum shopping.
    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.

    Hence, 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.

    You might also like