In Re Administrative Case against Samuel Occena (2002) digest.docx

In Re Administrative Case against Samuel Occena (2002) digest.docx
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  In Re: Administrative Case against Samuel Occena (2002) Facts: This administrative case stemmed from the settlement of the estate of testator William C. Oga. The late testator divided his estate among his seven children. One of them,  Necitas Oga-Occeña, was named in the Will as executrix (female executor, the one will manage the estate until distributed to the heirs). The estate consists of bank deposits, securities (both here and in the USA) and real estate in Cebu City and in Ohio, U.S.A. The deceased left no debt. Thus, the settlement of the estate should have been simple and speedy. Atty. Samuel Occena is the husband-lawyer of Necistas. However, since the death of the testator on February 1, 1963, the settlement of his estate has not yet been terminated owing largely to the dilatory tactics of Atty. Occeña. From the start of the testate proceedings in 1963, no less than 13 petitions were filed with the SC and the Court of Appeals by Atty. Occeña, questioning the interlocutory orders of the probate court. But most, if not all, were without merit. On top of that, Atty. Occeña also deliberately refuses to appear in court, comply with Court orders, and submit answers why he should not be cited in contempt. Instead, he will petition for restraining orders or file administrative complaints against the presiding judge, adding to the much delay of the  proceeding. All in all, Atty. Occeña succeeded to delay the estate proceeding for 38 years. Issue: Did Occeña’s acts constitute a gross violation of his oath as a lawyer? Ruling: Yes. Through his atrocious maneuvers, he successfully delayed the disposition of the case for the last 38 years, causing untold hurt and prejudice, not only to the heirs, but also to Judges Ruiz and Beldia who heard the case. 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 immoral conduct. Indeed, he abused beyond measure his privilege to  practice law. Thus, for his serious administrative offenses, punishable under Section 27 of Rule 138, Atty. Occeña deserves the ultimate penalty. WHEREFORE, ATTY. SAMUEL C. OCCEÑA is DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.      

Petrojam Final

Jul 23, 2017
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks