Corp.

Date Court Order Necitas Action - The Masonic Hall, Inc

Aug 4, 1967 Necitas filed a project for partition - The Motor Service Co.
Sept 22, Probate Court Approved the project for Necitas interposed an appeal
1967 partition except certain portions That she must comply in 10 days and
During the pendency of the appeal: submit in a wriiten report all:
Other heirs filed several motions praying that the remaining P250K as well as its - Stock certificates belonging to the
shares in PH and in US be distributed among all the heirs. estate which are in her possession
- And other stock certificates which
Necitas opposed contending that: are not with her.
The P250K has already been reserved for her husbands attorneys fees. The The Probate court ordered her to explain Necesitas and her huband
said stocks cannot be distributed yet because the stock certificates were not in her why she should not be punished for filed for postponement.
possession. contempt of court
Nov 13, 1979 Atty OCCEA filed an administrative
Necitas continuously interposed numerous appeals from the orders of the probate court. complaint against Judge Ruiz for gross
inefficiency and dishonesty.
The heirs, however, were reminded by the court to settle the issues to close the estate THE COURT dismissed the complaint due to
proeedings which has been pending since 1963. ATTY OCCEAs failure to substantiate his
That further delay will only incur bigger attorneys fees charged to the heirs and would charges during the investigation.
obviously benefit OCCEA. ATTY OCCEA filed for damages against Judge
Ruiz alleging they suffered damages upon
The causes of the delay was because of Necitas refusal to account the shares of stock reading Judges comments filed with SC.
while in the first place, being the executrix, she was the one responsible for it. Jan 13, 1981 CA affirmed the order on Aug 5, 1977
Aug 8, 1977 Judge Ruiz issued an order directing Necitas Necitas answered by just Apr 20, 1981 Hearing on incident of punishment for Both did not appear,
to explain why the stock certificates were stating that said stock contempt was set. delaying the proceedings for
not in her possession. certificates were not in her 1 year and a half.
possession. May 12, 1981 Judge Ruiz cited Necitas for contempt of
Oct 22, 1977 Judge Ruiz issues another order directing However, Necitas failed to Court for her failure to obey the court orders
Necitas to submit the latest inventory of all comply. on:
the securities of the estate within 30 days. Oct 22, 1977, Dec 8 1977, Feb 6, 1978, Oct
Feb 6, 1978 Another court order to take possession of Necitas, again, failed to 16, 1979
all the stock certificates and to make an up- comply. Oct 13, 1981 Necesitas and her husband, Atty Occea filed
to-date inventory. with CFI Davao for damages (P200K) against
Jun 16, 1978 Judge Ruiz issued an order directing Necitas Necitas, failed to obey the Judge Ruiz. BUT THE SAID ACTION WAS
to refrain from instituting any action order and filed additional 7 DISMISSED.
without first informing the court. This cases instead. After the dismissal, Atty OCCEA filed the the
because of the numerous appeal against TANODBAYAN a letter complaint against
the interlocutory orders of CA. JUDGE RUIZ, charging him of rendering
Aug 5, 1979 Judge Ruiz issued an order authorizing Necitas, disobeyed the order unjust interlocutory orders and without prior
Nancy Ogan Gibson, 1 of the Heirs, to go by her petition for notice, ther were charged with indirect
to Ohio, USA to verify the Properties. To prohibition. contempt
shoulder the expenses, the court ordered Feb 11, 1982 Necitas and her husband Atty Occea were Both did not submit any
Necitas to provide $1000 from the estate held in contempt and fined P250 for explanation.
fund. disobeying the Aug 5, 1977 Court Order.
SURPRISINGLY, NECITAS OPPOSED THE ORDER WHILE THE PURPOSE OF THE NOW, IT BEARS THE EMPHASIS THAT THIS INCIDENT DELAYED THE PROCEEDINGS IN 4
ORDER SHALL BE BENEFICIAL TO ALL THE HEIRS YEARS
DATE COURT ORDER NECITAS ACTION .Jun 11, 1982 CFI dismissed the complaint on Nov 13,
Oct 16, 1979 An order was issued directing Necitas to Necesitas and her husband 1979 b stating that the comment being an
distribute immediately among the heirs all did not comply absolutely a privilege communication.
the shares of stocks of the estate in: Nov 19 1984 Case Filed on Oct 12, 1981 was dismissed
- Batangas-Laguna Transportation by the TANODBAYAN.
LEGAL ETHICS 1

Atty OCCEA, being the partner of the EXECUTRIX has delayed the proeeedings with MALICE
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.
Total of 13 petitions, were filed by Atty OCCEA questioning the interlocutory orders of the
probate court.
Atty Occea also harassed Judge Beldia, the predecessor of Judge Ruiz, with groundless
charges and suits, both criminal and civil.
On May 26, 1982 Judge Ruiz then filed an administrative case against Atty OCCEA charging
him with:
gross misconduct,
violation of his oath as a lawyer and
willfull disobedience of lawful court orders.
pursuant to Section 28, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court that CFI may suspend an
Attorney from practice of law.
Atty then filed a motion for inhibition, instead of filing his answer. But DENIED by the court.
He was directed to file his answer but after 30 days (with 15 days extension), he failed to file
an answer.
Hearing was set on December 2 and 3, 1982 and extended to 15 days but he did not comply
nor appeared before the court.
Another hearing was set on January 30 and 31, 1984, but then again, he did not appear.
After numerous reschedule oh hearing and non-appearance, the probate court considered his
non appearance as a waiver of his right to present evidence.
On November 14, 1985, Judge Ruiz rendered the decision to suspend Atty OCCEA from
practice of law for 3 years based on the evidence that Atty OCCEA has abused, misused and
overused the judicial system.
Judge Ruiz was restrained from enforcing his decision for suspension against Atty Occea,
upon the motion of the latter.
LEGAL ETHICS
ISSUE: WON the acts committed by Atty Occea constitutes violation of the Lawyers Oath?
RULING:
Yes.
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
to Ohio to check and validate the estate properties, and the refusal to report the
securities belonging to the estate unnecessarily delayed the estate proceedings.
He violated the Lawyers oath by willful disobedience of lawful orders of the court
and Gross misconduct in office.
II. Atty Occeas frivolous and unmeritorious cases filed against Judge Ruiz, as an act
of harassment caused unduly delayed settlement of the estate proceedings. This
caused the judge to spend time, effort and money to defent himself with such
groundless and unsubstantiated cases. This was a clear violation of the 4 th and 5th
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
for money or malice.
III. Atty Occea disobeyed the clear provision of Rule 140 Section 6 of the Revised
Rules of Court where he violated the private and confidential nature of the
proceedings against the respondent judge. In his several petition for prohibition
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
petition.
Occea being an officer of the court has the responsibility to protect the personal
and professional reputation of the judges from baseless charges.
IV. Atty Occeas complaint for damages filed against Judge Ruiz that his wife Necitas
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
proceedings conducted by Judge Ruiz because there was hearing with notice but
Necitas and himself did not attend.
The TRO against Judge Ruiz was lifted and the Bar Confidant has recommended the
Disbarment of Atty Occea for grave violation of his oath of office as attorney and his name be
stricken out from the roll of attorneys.
2