RULING:
Atty OCCEA, being the partner of the EXECUTRIX has delayed the proeeedings with MALICE Yes.
and inflicted hardship and pain upon Judge Ruiz by the numerous civil actions, criminal
charges and administrative complaint that were later found to be groundless. I. Atty Occeas refusal to obey the court order directing Necitas to provide Nancy
Ogan-Gibson the sum of $1000 that will be used to shoulder the expenses going
Total of 13 petitions, were filed by Atty OCCEA questioning the interlocutory orders of the to Ohio to check and validate the estate properties, and the refusal to report the
probate court. securities belonging to the estate unnecessarily delayed the estate proceedings.
He violated the Lawyers oath by willful disobedience of lawful orders of the court
Atty Occea also harassed Judge Beldia, the predecessor of Judge Ruiz, with groundless and Gross misconduct in office.
charges and suits, both criminal and civil.
On May 26, 1982 Judge Ruiz then filed an administrative case against Atty OCCEA charging II. Atty Occeas frivolous and unmeritorious cases filed against Judge Ruiz, as an act
him with: of harassment caused unduly delayed settlement of the estate proceedings. This
gross misconduct, caused the judge to spend time, effort and money to defent himself with such
violation of his oath as a lawyer and groundless and unsubstantiated cases. This was a clear violation of the 4 th and 5th
willfull disobedience of lawful court orders. sentence of the lawyers oath that Lawyers shall not wittingly or willingly promote
or sue groundless suit or give aid nor consent to the same, and will delay no man
pursuant to Section 28, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court that CFI may suspend an for money or malice.
Attorney from practice of law.
III. Atty Occea disobeyed the clear provision of Rule 140 Section 6 of the Revised
Atty then filed a motion for inhibition, instead of filing his answer. But DENIED by the court. Rules of Court where he violated the private and confidential nature of the
He was directed to file his answer but after 30 days (with 15 days extension), he failed to file proceedings against the respondent judge. In his several petition for prohibition
an answer. and letter of complaint, he used the copy of the administrative complaint as
attachment although it is not relevant or immaterial to the issue raised in his
Hearing was set on December 2 and 3, 1982 and extended to 15 days but he did not comply petition.
nor appeared before the court.
Occea being an officer of the court has the responsibility to protect the personal
Another hearing was set on January 30 and 31, 1984, but then again, he did not appear. and professional reputation of the judges from baseless charges.
After numerous reschedule oh hearing and non-appearance, the probate court considered his IV. Atty Occeas complaint for damages filed against Judge Ruiz that his wife Necitas
non appearance as a waiver of his right to present evidence. was held in contempt and censured for not obeying the probate courts order on
Oct 1979, without any hearing. This is a clear falsehood against the lawful
On November 14, 1985, Judge Ruiz rendered the decision to suspend Atty OCCEA from proceedings conducted by Judge Ruiz because there was hearing with notice but
practice of law for 3 years based on the evidence that Atty OCCEA has abused, misused and Necitas and himself did not attend.
overused the judicial system.
The TRO against Judge Ruiz was lifted and the Bar Confidant has recommended the
Judge Ruiz was restrained from enforcing his decision for suspension against Atty Occea, Disbarment of Atty Occea for grave violation of his oath of office as attorney and his name be
upon the motion of the latter. stricken out from the roll of attorneys.
LEGAL ETHICS 2