Serana vs.

Sandiganbayan
FACTS: About government scholar an accused of estafa before the SB. Petitioner, was appointed by then President
Estrada on as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term starting January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2000.
President Estrada gave (P15,000,000.00) to the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. as financial assistance for
the proposed renovation. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The Ombudsman filed estafa case
before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner moved to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have
any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent- four-fold argument
below, namely: (a) the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa; (b) petitioner is not a public officer with Salary
Grade 27 and she paid her tuition fees; (c) the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office; (d) the funds in
question personally came from President Estrada, not from the government.
As a parting note, petitioners counsel, Renato G. dela Cruz, misrepresented his reference to Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 as
a quotation from Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, in her motion to quash before the Sandiganbayan. She repeats
the reference in the instant petition for certiorari and in her memorandum of authorities.
ISSUE: Whether the misrepresentations made by Atty. Dela Cruz violates Canon 10, specifically Rule 10.02 of the Rules
stating that a lawyer shall not misquote or misrepresent.
RULING: Yes. The Court urge petitioners counsel to observe Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Rule 10.02 of the Rules stating that a lawyer shall not misquote or misrepresent.
The Court stressed the importance of this rule in Pangan v. Ramos, where Atty Dionisio D. Ramos used the name Pedro
D.D. Ramos in connection with a criminal case. The Court ruled that Atty. Ramos resorted to deception by using a name
different from that with which he was authorized. We severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a repetition may
warrant suspension or disbarment.
The Court admonish petitioners counsel to be more careful and accurate in his citation. A lawyers conduct before the court
should be characterized by candor and fairness. The administration of justice would gravely suffer if lawyers do not act
with complete candor and honesty before the courts.
Muoz vs. People
FACTS: Delia T. Sutton; a member of the Philippine Bar, connected with the law firm of Salonga, Ordoez, Yap, Parlade,
and Associates. A pleading entitled "Compliance with Resolution" regarding Vicente Muoz v. People of the Philippines
and the Court of Appeals case, by the aforesaid law firm was filed on August 14, 1971. It betrayed on its face more than
just a hint of lack of candor, of minimizing the effects of grave inaccuracies in the attribution to the Court of Appeals of
certain alleged facts not so considered as such. The petition quotes, on page 5 thereof, a portion of the decision appealed
from, summing up the evidence for the defense, and makes reference thereto as findings of the Court of Appeals, which
is not true; that, on page 6 of the petition, petitioner states, referring to a portion of the same quotation, that the same are
the established and uncontroverted facts recognized by the Court of Appeals, which is, likewise, untrue; that, on page 8 of
the petition, it is averred It being conceded that the two versions recounted above are by themselves credible, although
they are conflicting, the same cannot be binding on, and is therefore, reviewable by the Honorable Supreme Court. On
page 9 of the petition, it is alleged that the Court of Appeals had affirmed the minimum penalty of one (1) year and one
(1) day imposed by the lower court, although, in fact, the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court was four (4)
months of arresto mayor; the Court resolved to require counsel for the petitioner to show cause, within ten (10) days from
notice, why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court [or] otherwise subjected to disciplinary action for making
the aforementioned misrepresentations. However, at such a hearing, respondent Delia T. Sutton appeared. While her
demeanor was respectful, it was obvious that she was far from contrite.
ISSUE: Whether Delia Sutton violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by asserting as finding of
fact by the court, which actually is not.
RULING: Yes. She failed to meet the test of candor and honesty required of pleaders when, in a petition
for certiorari prepared by her to review a Court of Appeals decision, she attributed to it a finding of facts in reckless
disregard, to say the least, of what in truth was its version as to what transpired. When given an opportunity to make
proper amends, both in her appearance before us and thereafter in her memorandum, there was lacking any showing of
regret for misconduct so obvious and so inexcusable. Such an attitude of intransigence hardly commends itself. Her
liability is clear. Only her relative inexperience in the ways of the law did save her from a penalty graver than severe
censure.
Yang vs. Batuegas
FACTS: YOUNG is the private prosecutor in People of the Phil v Arana. BATUEGAS, et al are the counsels for the
accused in the said criminal case. On Dec 13, 2000, BATUEGAS filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail alleging that
the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and, as such, is now under detention. Upon verification
with the NBI, YOUNG discovered that the accused surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 (not 13). BATUEGAS, et al in their
defense alleged that on Dec 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they filed a

Manifestation with Motion for Bail. They immediately fetched accused from Cavite and brought him to NBI to
voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at NBI at 2am the next day. That was why the Certificate
of Detention indicated that the accused surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 and not 13. As to lack of notice, YOUNG being a
private prosecutor, is not entitled to such as only the State and City prosecutors should be given notices. Investigating
Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline in a resolution approved said
recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether Batuegas, Et al are guilty of falsehood and should be suspended
RULING: YES. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission that he will do no falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any in court. As officer of the court, his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law
and facts of the case to aid it in arriving at the correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only
complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. His lawyers solemn duty is to defend his client, his
conduct must never be at the expense of truth. In the case at bar, BATUEGAS, et al feel short of the duties and
responsibilities expected of them as members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the
Court found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth alleging that the
accused had voluntarily surrendered. To knowingly allege an untrue statement in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct
that the Court strongly condemns. BATUEGAS, et al violated their oath when they resorted to deception. Hence,
BATUEGAS, et al should be suspended for 6 months.
Florido vs. Florido
FACTS: This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido and his
eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and
using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution.
Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido, the complainant, averred that she was the legitimate spouse of the respondent Atty. James
Benedict Florido, the respondent, but because of the estranged relation, they lived separately. They have two children
whom the complainant has the custody. Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her marriage; meanwhile there, was
another related case pending in the Court of Appeals. Sometime in the middle of December 2001, respondent went to
complainants residence in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor children be
surrendered to him. He showed complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which
supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody.
Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter informed her that he had not received any motion for temporary child
custody filed by respondent. Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of
Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the resolution closely and noted that it bore
two dates: November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, she refused to give custody of their
children to respondent. The complainant verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a certification dated
January 18, 2005 from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering complainant to surrender
custody of their children to respondent had been issued.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florido was liable for making false court resolution.
RULING: Yes. A lawyer who used a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals is presumed to
have participated in its fabrication. Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary
would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted
just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with the due recognition then that
counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the expense of truth.
Roces vs. Aportadera
FACTS: This case arose from the purported sale of a parcel of land located in Dingle, Iloilo by the late, Isabel Roces to a
certain Gregorio Licauan, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale, which was notarized by respondent atty! Aportadera! in
September a verified complaint for Disbarment was filed with this court against respondent alleging, inter alia, that he
caused the execution of the Deed of Sale and made it appear that Isabel had participated therein by forging her signature
thereon, and notarizing it through the use of a fictitious Residence certificate! complainants averments were supported the
findings of the national bureau of Investigation in a report where it was found that respondent admitted he notarized the
deed although it was not signed by Isabel Roces in his presence, and although he knew she was hospitalized at that time
handwriting examinations showed that the signature of Isabel Roces appearing in the deed is a forgery when the deed was
notarized in Iloilo on january 7, Isabel Roces was confined at! the hospital de San juan de Dios in pasay city, and could
not have personally appeared before respondent in Iloilo city and Residence certificate listed in the subscription portion of
the Deed of Sale as that presented by Isabel Roces to respondent at that time of notarization, was fictitious as it was issued
on February at which time Isabel Roces had already passed away.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. aportadera constitute malpractice and gross misconduct

RULING: Yes. In the face of all the evidence, this Court cannot accept respondent's claim that he notarized the
questioned Deed of Sale in good faith, without knowledge of any defect therein. He undoubtedly knew that Isabel Roces
could not have executed the deed in Iloilo City on January 4, 1980 because she was hospitalized in Metro Manila.
Nevertheless, he notarized the same, expressly subscribing that Isabel had appeared before him in Iloilo City on January 4,
1980 exhibiting a Residence Certificate issued on February 1, 1980 (at which time Isabel was already dead) and
acknowledging to him that it was her free and voluntary act. Clearly, respondent's conduct is not an accord with the
Canons of Professional Ethics.
Allied Banking Corp. vs. CA and Galarida
FACTS: The memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano and, worse, the assailed Decision of the Labor Arbiter, both
misquoted the Supreme Courts ruling in Dosch v. NLRC. The phrase [r]efusal to obey a transfer order cannot be
considered insubordination where employee cited reason for said refusal, such as that of being away from the family does
not appear anywhere in the Dosch decision. Galanidas counsel lifted the erroneous phrase from one of the italicized lines
in the syllabus of Dosch found in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA). The syllabus of cases in official or
unofficial reports of Supreme Court decisions or resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor does it state this Courts
decision. The syllabus is simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding of the decision. A counsel should
not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully considered text in the decision of the Court.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Durano and Labor Arbiter violates canon 10 of CPR
RULING: Yes. Tthey deliberately made the quote from the SCRA syllabus appear as the words of the Supreme Court. We
admonish them for what is at the least patent carelessness, if not an outright attempt to mislead the parties and the courts
taking cognizance of this case. Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer
shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority. It is the duty of all officers of the court to
cite the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court accurately.
Olivarez et. Al vs. Villalon Jr.
FACTS: In his complaint, Olivares alleged that respondents client, Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed, repeatedly sued
him for violations of the lease contract which they executed over a commercial apartment in Olivares Building in
Paraaque.
In 1993, Al-Rasheed filed an action for damages and prohibition with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The case was dismissed for improper venue.
Six years later, Al-Rasheed filed an action for breach of contract with damages in the RTC Paraaque, Branch 274.
The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Al-Rasheed, through counsel Atty. Villalon, sought a review of
the order dismissing the said case, but the CA did not give due course to her appeal. The subsequent petition for review on
certiorari filed in the Supreme Court was likewise denied.
On January 29, 2004, Al-Rasheed re-filed the 1999 suit in the RTC of Paraaque. It was dismissed on the grounds of res
judicata (a thing adjudge) and prescription.
Respondent asserts that he was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute the
interests of his client. He denied that he was forum shopping as his client, in her certificate of non-forum shopping,
disclosed the two previous cases involving the same cause of action which had been filed and dismissed. Respondent
further claims he could not refuse his clients request to file a new case because Al-Rasheed was the oppressed party in
the transaction.
This Court referred the complaint, together with respondents comment, to the IntegratedBar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent Atty. Villalon Jr. committed forum shopping.
RULING: Yes. The facts of this case reveal that Atty. Villalon purposely filed the second complaint. Respondent
appealed the 1999 case to the Court of Appeals and subsequently to this Court. Both actions were dismissed for lack of
merit, not on mere technicality.
The certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the 2004 complaint disclosed that Al-Rasheed previously sued Olivares
for violating their lease contract. As if such disclosure was a sufficient justification, Atty. Villalon unapologetically
reproduced his 1999 arguments and assertions in the 2004 complaint. Respondent obviously knew the law and tried to go
around it. This Court therefore concludes that respondent wilfully violated Rule 12.02, Canon 12. A lawyer shall not file
multiple actions arising from the same cause Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Courts processes. It constitutes improper conduct that
tends to impede, obstruct and degrade justice.

Furthermore, he violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall observe the
rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. The penalty was Six-month suspension from
the practice of law. However, in view of respondents death, the penalty can no longer be imposed.
Yap-Paras vs. Paras
FACTS: On September 9, 1998, herein petitioner-movant filed a verified Petition praying for the disbarment of her
estranged husband respondent Atty. Justo J. Paras. On February 14, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution finding Atty.
Paras guilty of committing a falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Thus, the Court resolved to suspend Atty. Paras from the practice of law for 1 year with warning for severe penalty. Per
records, the aforesaid Resolution was received by Atty. Paras on March 18, 2005. Thereafter, he filed a Motion for
Reconsideration dated March 28, 2005.During the pendency of Atty. Paras' motion for reconsideration, complainantmovant filed with the Court the instant Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, alleging Paras violated the suspension
order earlier issued by the Court with his continued practice of law. Court then issued resolution denying for lack of merit
of the motion and required him to comment on the motion for contemp. September 12, 2006 Atty. Paras filed with the
Court a Manifestation6 , stating that he had completely and faithfully served his one (1) year suspension from the practice
of law from August 25, 2005, the day after he received the denial resolution on his motion for reconsideration, to August
24, 2006. Atty. Paras failed to file a comment on the Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, the Court issued another
Resolution dated November 27, 2006 requiring Atty. Paras to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court
for such failure and to comply with the said resolution within ten (10) days from receipt.
We find no sufficient basis to support petitioner-movant's allegation that Atty. Paras violated the Court's suspension order,
what with the fact that Atty. Paras himself took the initiative to inform the lower courts of his one- year suspension from
law practice.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Paras violation of suspension order constitute contempt of court
RULING: Yes. But the Court deems a reprimand with warning as a sufficient sanction for Atty Paras' failure to promptly
comply with its directives. We find no sufficient basis to support petitioner-movant's allegation that Atty. Paras violated
the Court's suspension order, what with the fact that Atty. Paras himself took the initiative to inform the lower courts of his
one- year suspension from law practice.
Open Letter UP Law Re: Plagiarism of one of the Justices of Supreme Court
FACTS: FACTS: Allegations of this intellectual offense were hurled by Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R.
Bagares against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. In said case,
the Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by Filipino comfort women to compel certain officers of the executive
department to espouse their claims for reparation and demand apology from the Japanese government for the abuses
committed against them by the Japanese soldiers during World War II. Attys. Roque and Bagares represent the comfort
women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary.
The authors and their purportedly plagiarized articles are: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent from their
article, A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens published in 2009 in the Yale Journal of International Law; (2)

Christian J. Tams from his book, Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law published by the
Cambridge University Press in 2005; and, (3) Mark Ellis from his article, Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an
International Crime published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law in 2006. The
allegations of plagiarism centered on Justice Del Castillos discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga
omnes.
On August 9, 2010, Members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law published a statement on
the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the Courts decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary.
Essentially, the faculty of the UP College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the
resignation of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in the face of allegations of plagiarism in his work.
ISSUE: Whether SC erred in finding that the respondents are in breach of their ethical obligations for having issued the
restoring integrity statement.
RULING: Law Professors; respect for courts. For the disposition of the Court are the submissions of 37 respondent law
professors in response to the Resolution directing them to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of
the Bar for issuing a statement which alleged acts of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court. Even as
lawyers passionately and vigorously propound their points of view they are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal
profession. This Court is certainly not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court demands is the
same respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under established ethical standards. All lawyers, whether they
are judges, court employees, professors or private practitioners, are officers of the Court and have voluntarily taken an
oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the
courts. There is no exemption from this sworn duty for law professors, regardless of their status in the academic
community or the law school to which they belong.

Lim vs. Montano

FACTS: In the case at bar, complainant charged respondent Atty. Montano with gross misconduct relative to his filing of
Civil Case No. C-19928. Complainant alleged that respondent filed the complaint in the said civil case out of malice,
indicating that it involves the same parties, the same causes of action and relief prayed for as that of Civil Case No. C14542. In respondents comment, he denied the allegations against him. While he admitted filing the civil case stated
herein as a counsel for plaintiff therein, he asserted that it was not filed with malicious intent. Moreover, while the new
case involved the same party, it was for a different cause of action and relief, and, as such, the principle of res judicata did
not apply. He further explained that the complaint in Civil Case No. C-14542 was for declaratory relief or reformation of
instrument, while Civil Case No. 19928 was for annulment of title. He accepted the case based on "his professional
appreciation that his client had a good case." In his reply, the complainant stressed that the respondent was guilty of forum
shopping; Civil Case No. C-19928 was nothing but a revival of the old complaint; and "the lame excuse of the respondent
that the present case is an action in rem while the other case is an action in personam" did not merit consideration.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent and is liable of forum shopping.
RULING: In this case, it is clear that respondent is guilty of forum shopping. By his own admission, he was aware that
Civil Case No. C-14542 was already final and executory when he filed the second case (Civil Case No. C-19928). His
allegation that he "was not the original counsel of his clients" and that "when he filed the subsequent case for nullity of
TCT, his motive was to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed were not properly addressed in the prior case for
reformation and quieting of title," deserves scant consideration. As a responsible member of the bar, he should have
explained the effect of such final and executory decision on his clients rights, instead of encouraging them to file another
case involving the same property and asserting the same rights. The filing of another action concerning the same subject
matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated the lawyers mandate "to delay no man for money or malice. While we
rule that the respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, we also note that the power to disbar should be exercised
with great caution, to be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser
penalty could accomplish the end desired. Thus, respondent lawyer is suspended from practice of law for six months.
Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan
FACTS: Teofilo Gelacio, the then vice mayor of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur filed a case against Ceferino Paredes,
Jr. (who was then the governor of the same province), Atty. Generoso Sansaet (counsel of Paredes), and Mansueto
Honrada (a clerk of court). The three allegedly conspired to falsify a copy of a Notice of Arraignment and of the
Transcript of Stenographic Notes. Gelacio claimed that, in fact, no arraignment notice had ever been issued against him in
a criminal proceeding against him. Gelacio was able to produce a certification from the judge handling the case himself
that the criminal case against him never reached the arraignment stage because the prosecution was dismissed. Atty.
Sansaet on his part maintained that there was indeed a Notice of Arraignment but he later retracted his testimonies.
Paredes claimed that Sansaet only changed his side because of political realignment. Subsequently, the Office of the
Ombudsman recommended that Paredes et al be charged with Falsification of Public Documents. Paredes appealed but
was eventually denied by the Sandiganbayan. Paredes next moved for a reinvestigation of the cases for which the Special
Prosecution recommended the denial of the motion. The present petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction was then
filed to enjoin the trial of the criminal cases claiming that the prosecutors closed their eyes to the fact that in filing the
cases private respondent Teofilo Gelacio engaged in forum-shopping.
ISSUE: Whether complainant Teofilo Gelacio is guilty of forum shopping
RULING: Cases involving substantially different transactions, facts and circumstances, not forum shopping. According to
petitioners, Teofilo Gelacio charged petitioner Paredes, Jr. with perjury on the ground that in 1975 Paredes, Jr. made false
statements in an affidavit which he used in support of his application for a free patent. On 1986, Teofilo Gelacio filed
another complaint against petitioner Paredes, Jr., then the acting governor of the province. The complaint was for violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act., on the allegation that petitioner, as Provincial Attorney, had unduly
influenced the Public Land Inspector to secure the approval of his free patent application. According to petitioners, this
case involved the same application for a free patent of petitioner Paredes, Jr. Although several cases were filed by the
same complainant against the same defendant and the subject matter of the actions of two of the cases was the same
incident (i.e., the application for free patent of petitioner Ceferino Paredes, Jr.), the fact is that the several cases involve
essentially different facts, circumstances and causes of action. The first case was for perjury and the second case was for
violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, On the other hand, as already stated, the present are for falsification
of court records pertaining to an administrative case against petitioner Honrada based on the same incident and facts that
are subject of the preceding criminal cases. Thus the present cases involve substantially different transactions, facts and
circumstances from those involved in the other, though related, cases. Although they arose from the same incident, they
involve different issues.
Edrial vs. Quilat-Quilat

FACTS: Respondents Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao - all surnamed Quilat-Quilat -- filed an action for recovery of
a parcel of land against Petitioners Remedios, Mauro Jr., Marylene, Idelfonso, Rosalind, Mary Jean -- all surnamed Edrial
-- and Susan Edrial-Valenzuela. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6315 and raffled to Branch 39 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City. The CA dismissed petitioners' appeal because, in issuing the questioned Orders, the
trial judge committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In giving petitioners more than ample
time to complete their presentation of evidence and in granting their Motions for Postponement, the judge was
accommodating them more than they actually deserved.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in denying the petitioners prayer due to theirinexcusable delay.
RULING: No. Counsel's excuses are unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The CA ruled that petitioners were given "more
than enough time" to complete their presentation of evidence. Respondents rested their case as early as September 1992.
Petitioners' lawyer, at his own request, was allowed to start presenting evidence only on April 12, 1993. From that day
until April 26, 1996 or for a period of three years, counsel presented only two witnesses. The trial judge was in fact liberal
in granting petitioners' Motions for Postponement. But enough was enough; when they attempted to delay the trial some
more, the trial judge finally and correctly refused to go along. The Code of Professional Responsibility requires that
lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, shall not let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for their failure to do so (Rule 12.03). Moreover, they should avoid any
action that would unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes (Rule 12.04). For the
benefit of the bench and bar, worth repeating is the CA's reminder to petitioners' counsel of his duty to his client and to the
court: "Being an officer of the court a lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like the court itself,
he is an instrument to advance its ends-the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and
the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid
any unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization, charged as he is with the primary
task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice."
Aguilar vs. Manila Bank Corp.
FACTS: Sometime in 1979, petitioners obtained a P600,000.00 loan from the Manila Banking Corporation, secured by a
real estate mortgage over their 419-square meter property located at Pasig City. When petitioners failed to pay their
obligation, the mortgaged property was extra-judicially foreclosed. Respondent was the winning bidder at public auction
sale on May 20, 1982. Consequently, a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor on June 23, 1982. Petitioners failed to
pay the balance of P2,448,000.00. A year and three months later, respondent filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of
Execution to enforce the Decision dated January 30, 1987. On November 28, 1989, RTC Branch 165 issued an Order
granting the motion and issuing a writ of execution: (a) directing petitioners to immediately vacate the property and
surrender possession to the respondent; (b) directing the Register of Deeds of Metro Manila, District II to register any and
all documents needed to transfer title over the property to respondent and to issue a new certificate of title respondents
favor free from any liens, adverse claims and/or encumbrances; (c) issuing a writ of possession in respondents favor to
place it in possession of the property. For more than a decade, petitioners filed different actions and petitions to defer the
enforcement of the writ of execution.
On March 19, 2001, respondent filed its Opposition and Motion to Cite Plaintiffs in Contempt claiming that the Omnibus
Motion is nothing but petitioners desperate attempt to thwart or delay the payment of their obligations and they should be
declared guilty of indirect contempt for their improper conduct calculated to impede, obstruct and degrade the
administration of justice.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners counsel violated Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he advised
his clients to resort to a series of actions and petitions for the purpose of thwarting the writ of execution.
RULING: By the undue delay in the execution of a final judgment in their favor, respondents have suffered an injustice.
The Court views with disfavor the unjustified delay in the enforcement of the final decision and orders in the present
case. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by
some subterfuge devised by the losing party. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants
will multiply to the detriment of the administration of justice. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at
naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable controversies with finality.