OCA CIRCULARS NO. 45-2002, September 13, 2002

For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is the decision of the Court En Banc in Administrative
Case No. 2841 RE: Administrative Case No. 44 of the Regional Trial
Court, Brach IV, Tagbilaran City, against Atty. Samuel C. Occeña dated 3
July 2002, to wit:

Indeed, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor.^[12] His guilt, however, cannot be presumed.^[13]
It must indicate the dubious character of the acts done, as well as the
motivation thereof. Furthermore, a disbarred lawyer must have been
given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges
against him, produce witness in his own behalf, and to be heard by
himself and counsel.^[14]

As shown by the records, Atty. Oceña gravely violated
his oath of office in handling of Special Proceedings No. 423. The
facts of the case succinctly show that through his atrocious maneuvers,
he successfully delayed the disposition of the case for the last
thirty-eight (38) years, causing untold hurt and prejudice, not only to
the heirs, but also to Judges Ruiz and Beldia who heard the case. For
respondent’s part and that of his wife, such prolonged litigation
obviously benefited them. As aptly declared by the Court of Appeals, the
delay “can only benefit the executor and administrator” and the longer
the proceedings, the bigger the attorney’s fees.” But the more tragic
reality is the fact that Atty. Occeña has caused a mockery of the
judicial proceedings and inflicted injury to the administration of
justice through his deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immortal
conduct. Indeed, he abused beyond measure his privilege to practice law.

This Court held that a lawyer should not abuse his
right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that
bad been repeatedly rebuffed. neither should be use his knowledge of law
as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial process, as
the same constitutes serious transgression of the Code of Professional
responsibility. For a while he owes fidelity to the cause of his
client, it should not be at expense of truth and administration of
justice.^[15]

Clearly Atty. Occeña conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession even for a single moment.

It is a time-honored rule that good moral character
is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law.
It’s continued possession is also essential for remaining in the legal
profession.^[18]A tty. Occeña
has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful,
dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts. This Court has repeatedly
stressed the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of
a lawyer’s equipment in the practice of his possession,^[19]
because it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession in inexorably diminished whenever a member of a Bar betrays
their trust and confidence.^[20]
Thus, for his serious administrative offenses, punishable under Section
27, Rule 138, Atty. Occeña deserves the ultimate penalty, that of
expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers.

WHEREFORE, ATTY. SAMUEL C. OCCEÑA is DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is STRIKEN from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.”

13 September 2002

^[12] Maligsa vs. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408 (1997; Mabuhay vs. Garcia, 330 SCRA 236, 240, 241 (2000)

^[13] Manubay cs. Garcia,
ibid, citing Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. vs. Atty. Primo R.
Naldoza, 315 SCRA 46 (1999) and Santos vs. Dichoso, 84 SCRA 622 (1978)

^[14] Sec. 30 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

^[15] Marcias vs. Uy Kim, 45 SCRA 251 (1970); Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 273 (1976)

^[18] People vs. Tuend, 181 SCRA 692 (1990); Lead vs. Tabaan, 206 SCRA 395(1992).

^[19]  Rivera vs. Angeles, 399 SCRA 692 (1990); citing Fenendez vs. Garcia, 223 SCRA 425 (1993).

^[20]  Busiños vs. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407 (1997), cited Rivera vs. Angeles, Ibid.