[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 58-2012, July 04, 2012 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 58-2012, July 04, 2012 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 58-2012, July 04, 2012 ]

TO ; THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR SIX (6) MONTHS OF ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA

For your information guidance, quoted hereunder is the dispositive portion of the Decision of the Second Division dated 19 October 2011, in Administrative Case No. 5325, entitled "Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran vs. Atty. Roy Prule Ediza," to wit:

" WHEREFORE , we find respondent Atty. Roy Prule Ediza administratively liable for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 15, and Rute 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months, effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is DIRECTED to return to the Spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran the two (2) sets of documents that he misled the spouses and Sartiga Epal to sign. He is further ORDERED to pay Spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran, within 30 days from receipt of this Decision, the amount of P125,463.38, with legal interest from 8 September 2000 until fully paid. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely."

In a Resolution dated 8 February 2012, the Court further DENIED the respondent's motion for reconsideration for lack of substantial merit.

04 July 2012

(SGD.)JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ

Court Administrator