November 29, 1969 G.R. No. L-29543 GLORIA PAJARES, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUDGE ESTRELLA A AD SANTOS, !

UNI"IPAL "OURT O# !ANILA $%& UD'ARA! Tee)$%*ee, J.+ #A"TS+ Udharam Bazar & Co. sued Gloria Pajares for recovery of a certain sum of money. The la suit "ud!e #$ad %antos. &n its complaint the Udharam Bazar & Co. averred, amon! others, as follo s' (). That defendant in *+,*, ordered from the plaintiff -uantities of ready made !oods and delivered to her in !ood condition and same ere already sold, $ut did not ma.e the full payment up to the present time/ (0. That defendant is still inde$ted to the plaintiff in the sum of P012.31, representin! the $alance of her account as the value of the said !oods, hich is already overdue and paya$le.4 &nstead of ans erin! the complaint a!ainst her, Pajares, moved for a $ill of particulars to re-uire Udharam Bazar & Co. to itemize the .inds of !oods hich she supposedly purchased from the said company. The inferior court denied the motion and her motion for reconsideration has $een li.e ise denied. %he then $rou!ht the incident on certiorari to the Court of 5irst &nstance, alle!in! respondent jud!e acted in !rave a$use of discretion. Udharam Bazar & Co. filed a motion to dismiss the petition for a of certiorari and rit as eventually assi!ned to the sala of the respondent A(AR "O., respondents-appellees.

havin! $een similarly denied $y the court, Pajares undertoo. the present appeal to this Court. ISSUE+ 678 counsel for petitioner failed in his duty to encoura!e amica$le settlement or a confession of jud!ment to accord respect to the other party9s claim, savin! his client additional e:penses and help prevent the clo!!in! of court doc.ets. RULING+ The circumstances surroundin! this liti!ation definitely prove that the appeal is frivolous and a plain tric. to delay payment and prolon! liti!ation unnecessarily. %uch attitude deserves condemnation, time that the courts could astin! as it does, the ell devote to meritorious cases.

This simple collection case has needlessly clo!!ed the court doc.ets for over seven years. ;ad appellant $een $ut prudently advised $y her counsel to confess jud!ment and as. from her creditor the reasona$le time she needed to dischar!e her la ful inde$tedness, the e:penses of liti!ation that she has incurred $y ay of filin! fees in the Court of 5irst &nstance, premiums for her ould have $een much more than sufficient to pay off her just ith the same de$t, appeal $ond, appellate court doc.et fees, printin! of her appellant9s $rief, and attorney9s fees de$t to appellee. <et, here she still remains saddled than the amount in liti!ation in this orthless cause. The cooperation of liti!ants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clo!!in! of the court doc.ets ith unmeritorious cases may $e avoided. # hich may ell $e avoided liti!ation involves time, e:pense and ill feelin!s, compromise or even a confession of jud!ment clo!!in! of court doc.ets.

$urdened $y accumulated interests, after havin! spent uselessly much more

$y the settlement of the action. #nd in those clearly unmeritorious cases, a ill accord respect to the just claim of the other party, save the client additional e:penses and help prevent

as !ranted. # su$se-uent motion for reconsideration