Case Digest: SERVILLANO BATAC, JR., et al. v. ATTY. PONCIANO V. CRUZ, JR.

SERVILLANO BATAC, JR., et al. v. ATTY. PONCIANO V. CRUZ, JR.

538 SCRA 135 (2007)

If it is the first time for the respondent to commit the offense charged, the Court can impose a lower penalty.

Atty. Ponciano Cruz filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s decision, suspending him from the practice of law for six months for non-appearance in scheduled hearings. He was found to (1) have committed dishonesty concerning the excuses for his failure to attend the hearings, and (2) have exhibited a blatant disrespect for legal orders and processes by failing to submit the pertinent travel orders to substantiate his excuse or even an appropriate explanation for his inability to submit the same and, in either case, a manifestation of available dates.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the penalty imposed upon Atty. Cruz is too severe in light of the circumstances surrounding the case

HELD:

At two scheduled hearings in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) case after causing the cancellation and resetting of eight hearings precisely to adjust to his unavailability, Atty. Cruz failed to appear before the SEC Hearing Panel and comply with the subpoenas ad testificandum/duces tecum.

For his non-appearance at the October 28, 1998 hearing, Atty. Cruz stated that he had to be prepared and ready to leave at a moment’s notice for he had every good faith and reason to believe that he would, in the final round, be part of the delegation to an international conference, owing to the nature of his position.

Atty. Cruz assured the Court that he had neither deliberate attempt nor malicious intent behind his failure to attend the hearings, as he could not have even remotely thought of deliberately avoiding attending the hearings or defying the orders of the hearing panel.

It must be emphasized that it was not so much for his non-attendance of the hearings that Atty. Cruz was called upon to account in this disciplinary proceeding, but for his lack of respect for legal orders and his lack of candor in his explanations.

And so Atty. Cruz was found to (1) have committed dishonesty concerning the excuses for his failure to attend the hearings, and (2) have exhibited a blatant disrespect for legal orders and processes by failing to submit the pertinent travel orders to substantiate his excuse or even an appropriate explanation for his inability to submit the same and, in either case, a manifestation of available dates. The latter omission, coupled with his last-minute tactics, speaks well of his indifferent and uncooperative attitude.

Upon a second look at the circumstances of the case vis-à-vis the commensurate penalty imposed in parallel cases, this Court holds that a one-month suspension would suffice, considering further that this is Atty. Cruz’s first offense.