A.C. No. 5809 (Formerly CBD-99-629) - SERVILLANO BATAC, JR. AND ANTONIO BONOAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. PONCIANO V. CRUZ, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, I will not be in Manila on the scheduled hearing date therefore justifying my absence thereat. We have seen that there was no scheduled hearing of LRC Case No. 633 on March 4, 1999 . Neither was the case scheduled for hearing on March 5, 1999 . Respondent appeared on that date only to file Manifestation with TRO in Case No. 633. There was no scheduled hearing. There is a difference between attending a hearing and merely filing a manifestation in court which does not involve a hearing. Respondent used the circumstances occurring after the fact to justify and support his reason earlier given for not attending the March 4 hearing. Respondent was less than candid to the SEC Hearing Panel in his letter of March 3, 1999 when he said that he was to attend the hearing of LRC Case No. 633 and accordingly he will not be in Manila on the scheduled hearing date (March 4, 1999). In truth, LRC Case No. 633 was not scheduled for hearing on March 4, 1999. He was not even counsel of record as of March 3, 1999, the date of the letter. It appears to us that respondent has taken time to schedule a trip to file a Temporary Restraining Order which has not yet been obtained and then blame the Court of Appeals for not issuing said restraining order early enough (he did not expect that he would wait in vain practically the whole day) and the resulting non-issuance of which he uses to justify his absence at the hearing on March 4,1999 set by the SEC Hearing Panel. We see respondents justification and argument a bit strained . Respondent has presumed too much in both the October 28, 1998 and March 4, 1999 hearings. Coupled with his non-appearance in eight previous settings by the SEC Hearing Panel , we find that respondent has not displayed the attitude and cooperation with the judicial process expected of him as a member of the bar and officer of the court . We reiterate the off-repeated reminder that the primary duty of a lawyer is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers duty [Bugaring vs, Espanol 349 SCRA 687 (2001)]. Respondent raises the matter of complainants personality to file the instant complain arguing that the same should be dismissed because the SEC-SICD is the offended party and should be the one filing the complaint. Respondent also cites the motion to cite him in contempt filed with the SEC as a prejudicial question and therefore the instant complaint should be dismissed on that basis. To address the above, we refer to the ruling in the case of Esquivas v. Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 812 citing [I]n re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970) and we quote: x x x x Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they dont involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punis