Name: SORIANO, Portia Wynona

Section: 1F

NEMESIO FLORAN and CARIDAD FLORAN, complainants, vs. ATTY.

ROY PRULE EDIZA, respondent.

AC No. 5325, February 9, 2016

Per Curiam

Facts: Nemesio and Caridad Floran filed a complaint against Atty. Roy Ediza

(Ediza) regarding the complainants’ 3.5525 hectare parcel of land in Misamis

Oriental. The said land was not registered. The Court found that Ediza deceived the

complainants by asking them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale of the part of the

subject land to him. Aside from that, the complainants also gave Ediza half of the

proceeds of the sale of a part of the of the subject land. Such proceeds amounted to

P125,463 and such was given for the registration of the land. In its resolution in

2011, the Court suspended Ediza and ordered him to return the documents of the

land and the P125,463 to the complainants. Ediza was able to serve his suspension.

However, he failed to return the documents and the money to the complainants. As

such, the complainants kept on sending the letters to the Chief Justice to follow up

with the case. In response to the letters of the complainants, the Court kept on

ordering Ediza to return the documents and the money. Despite repeated orders of

the court, he still failed to deliver the documents and the money. Some of the reasons
provided by Ediza everytime he was asked to show cause include: (1) vagueness of

the description on the documents that should be returned; (2) finding new evidence

to reopen the case and support his defense; and (3) demanding that he should not be

ordered to return the same for already complying with the suspension.

Issue: Whether or not Ediza should be disbarred

Held: Yes. The Court finds that Ediza should be disbarred because he failed to obey

the orders and processes of the Court. First, it is mandated under Canon 12 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility that “A lawyer shall exert every effort and

consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.”

Second, it is provided in Rule 12.04 of the same code that “A lawyer shall not unduly

delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court process.” In this

case, it is clearly seen that Ediza kept on delaying the case by claiming ignorance

over the documents, allegedly discovering new evidence, and filing motions. Lastly,

Section 27 or Rule 138 provides that the Court can disbar a lawyer for a willful

disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. In this case, Ediza kept on

disobeying the Court by not returning the documents and the money to the

complainants despite numerous order. Thus, the Court disbarred Ediza.