You are on page 1of 2

Bongcayao, Cesar Jr. M.

LLB 1 Viada Legal Writing Monday/Tuesday 5-6 /6-7pm July 11, 2011 Encarnacion Banogon, et al vs. Melchor Zerna et al. G.R. No. L- 35469 October 9, 1987 154 SCRA 593 Facts On February 9, 1926 the Court of First Intance of Negros Oriental, Br III rendered a decision of a land dispute in favored of Melchor Zerna (respondent).The decision became final and executory after thirty days. After thirty one years, on March 6, 1957 Encarnacion Banogon (petitioner) filed a motion to amend the decision and followed by a petition for review on judgment on that same year. After fourteen years, on October 11, 1971 respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. On December 8, 1971 the petition for review on judgment of the petitioner was dismissed and the motion for reconsideration filed was denied by the court considering the fact that it was beyond the allowable period. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Issue Whether or not the petition for review and amendment of judgment will be recognized and accepted by the court after thirty one years of inaction? Holding The petition is dismissed. The petitioner is guilty of laches of being unreasonable delayed of action in claiming the rights, considering the fact that it took thirty one years for the petitioner to file for amendment of the decision and petition for review. In relation to that, the action taken was beyond the allowable period for filing of amendment and petition for review. The delayed of filing for their petition for amendment and review of the decision constitutes bar to their petition. Policy Lawyers have duties and responsibilities to assist in the proper administration of justice. But in this case the lawyer violates the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him by filing of motion and petition way beyond the cope of allowable period. As officer of the court he or she ought to know by heart their mandated duties and responsibilities. It manifested in this case that the profession was put to shame and creates public distrust. The lawyer must be responsible enough to his or her client in helping especially in claiming his or her clients right. As officer of the court they should exercise properly and correctly the mandates entrusted to them in assisting the administration of justice, by doing this, in order to uplift the image of the legal profession in the society due to the fact that nowadays legal professions merely perceived as money making profession, in a sense that it misinterpreted the law to the point of distortion in order to achieve their purposes.