G.R. No. A.C. No. 1417. April 17, 1996
Investment and Management Services Corporation vs. Atty. Leodegario V. Roxas

FACTS

The complainant corporation filed a disbarment petition in 1975, alleging that respondent Atty. Leodegario V. Roxas, while serving as its Administrative and Legal Officer, misappropriated entrusted funds totaling P7,817.30 from corporate and employee sources and issued bouncing checks for personal debts. The Court required an answer from respondent, but he failed to file one despite notice sent to his Parañaque address. Over two years later, respondent moved for a substitution of the petition copy, claiming illegibility, and provided a new Manila address. A legible copy sent there was returned unclaimed. The Court then directed service to his permanent Bar exam address in Batangas and referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation.
The OSG recommended a five-year suspension in 1990. The Court required an answer to the OSG’s complaint, which respondent finally filed from a Sampaloc address, denying the charges as harassment. The case was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Investigating Commissioner noted that despite several hearings, both parties failed to appear, and later notices to respondent’s Sampaloc address went unclaimed. The Commissioner found insufficient evidence to substantiate the misappropriation charges but recommended disciplinary action for respondent’s conduct during the proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Leodegario V. Roxas should be disciplined for his conduct in the administrative proceedings.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months. The legal logic is anchored on the Court’s inherent power to discipline lawyers and the duty of attorneys as officers of the court. While the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report and recommended a one-month suspension due to lack of evidence on the substantive charges, the Supreme Court, in its review, emphasized that the respondent’s procedural misconduct itself warranted a more severe sanction.
The Court found that respondent clearly evaded the administrative investigation by repeatedly changing his address without notifying the Court or the investigating bodies, leading to unclaimed notices and causing inordinate delay spanning over two decades. This conduct demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process and a failure to uphold the candor and good faith required of every lawyer. A lawyer’s relationship with the court must be characterized by utmost fidelity, and respondent’s actions violated this fundamental duty. The one-month suspension recommended by the IBP was deemed insufficient; thus, the Court imposed a six-month suspension to underscore the seriousness of obstructing the orderly administration of justice.