Back

Floran etc. vs. Ediza

NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 5325 | 2016-02-09

D E C I S I O N
 
PER CURIAM:
 
In a Decision dated 19 October 2011, the Court found respondent Atty. Roy Prule Ediza (Atty. Ediza) administratively liable for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 15, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court upheld the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and suspended Atty. Ediza from the practice of law for six months.

Atty. Ediza's liability stemmed from a Complaint/Affidavit[1] dated 8 September 2000 filed by the spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran (complainants). The subject of the complaint was a 3.5525 hectare parcel of unregistered...