ELPIDIO SY vs.

EDGAR ESPONILLA and JENNIFER DE LA CRUZ-BUENDIA

AM P-06-2261; December 11, 2013
Jaime Ang Tiao and Maria Gagarin paid supersedeas bond and monthly rentals to Branch 32 of Manila RTC upon appeal of the
decision of the Manila MeTC to eject them. Ang Tiao and Gagarin likewise deposited P264,000 in monthly rentals to Branch 54
following the filing of a case contesting the validity of the deed of sale executed between Systems Realty Development Corp. and BPI.
Atty. Walfredo Bayhon, Ang Tiao and Gagarins counsel, filed an ex-parte motion to withdraw the rental deposits made in Branch 54
since a (sufficient) supersedeas bond was already posted in the ejectment appeal, rendering the deposit superfluous and (duplicitious).
Judge Hermogenes Liwag approved the motion.
Sy however disputes the withdrawal saying there is no duplication because the deposit in Branch 32 was for rental fees from
September 30, 1994 to January 3, 1997 while the one in Branch 54 was for June 30, 1989 to August 5, 1994. Sy also claims he was not
given a copy of the ex-parte motion and it was never set for hearing.
The assailed ex-parte motion however cannot be found in the records of Branch 54. Sy accuses Branch 54 assistant clerk of court De
la Cruz-Buendia and officer-in-charge Esponilla for conspiring to conceal the file.
Further probing by OCA reveals that Judge Liwags order allowing the release of the deposit was prepared by the Branch 55
stenographer, redirecting the investigation to former Branch 55 officers. One officer testifies Atty. Bayhon actually filed the motion in
Branch 55 not in Branch 54.
Bayhon snubbed several orders of the SC to explain. When he finally did, he merely rehashed his old excuse that he has turned over
the case to Ang Tiao and Gagarin following his resignation as their attorney hence he has no access to the case documents.
The SC ordered the current officers of Branch 54 and the CA which handled the appeal on July 11, 1996 to produce the questioned
motion to no avail. Furthermore, OCA reports that the motion was not attached to the disbursement voucher for the rental fees.
HOLDING:
Atty. Bayhon is suspended from law practice for 6 months in view of violations of the Lawyers oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
RATIONALE:
Bayhon has attempted to mislead the court and his non-compliance with the resolutions of the court ordering him to explain on March
35, 2009, December 1, 2010 and August 24, 2011 shows nothing but an indifference to court directives which cannot be taken lightly
especially that it has affected and protracted the investigation and resolution of an administrative matter where his explanation and
assistance is a crucial factor.
A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely.
Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character but also disrespect for the Courts lawful order and
directive.
Atty. Bayhons unsubstantiated claim that the deposits withdrawn were replaced by a supersedeas bond is a legal incredulity. It is a
preposterous excuse that does not only attempt to mislead the court it was proffered in an attempt to evade the directive of the Court
to produce a copy of the ex parte motion which may open a can of worms. The order clearly states that the attachments to the motion
showed that there was already a supersedeas bond posted with Branch 32 in the amount of P260,000, that is why Judge Liwag
ordered and authorized the withdrawal of the same amount from Branch 54.
It is precisely the claim of herein complainant that it was fraudulent representation on the part of Atty. Bayhon to make it appear that the
Branch 54 deposits were superfluous because the deposits mad with Branches 32 and 54 were separate, distinct and covered different
periods a false claim that Atty. Bayhon has continuously denied making in the ex parte motion. But instead of producing and
submitting to his court a copy of the motion to conclusively prove that he did not make such false averment, Bayhon hides behind the
rules of evidence claiming that without the motion, this allegation about him is but hearsay.