EN BANC
RICARDO
A.
FORONDA,
Complainant,
Adm.
Case
No. 5469
August 10, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
ARNOLD V.
GUERRERO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
CALLEJO, SR.,
J.:
The instant disbarment
case arose when Ricardo A. Foronda, acting as attorney-in-fact for
Ramona
Patricia Alcaraz and Concepcion D. Alcaraz, filed a verified
Letter-Complaint[1]
dated June 29, 2001 with the Office of the Bar Confidant charging Atty.
Arnold V. Guerrero with abusing “procedural rules to defeat the ends of
substantial justice by filing appeals, complaints and petitions to
frustrate
and delay the execution of a judgment.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Antecedents
The complainant alleged
that his principals, Ramona and Concepcion Alcaraz, filed Civil Case
No.
Q-44134 entitled “Concepcion Alcaraz, et al. v. Romeo Coronel, et al.”
for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 83. The case involved a parcel of land which
the defendants therein sold to the Alcarazes, and, thereafter, while
the
case was pending, to Catalina Balais-Mabanag. Assisted by her
husband
Eleuterio Mabanag, and with the respondent as their lawyer, Catalina
intervened
in the case.cralaw:red
On March 1, 1989, the
RTC rendered a Decision[2]
in favor of the plaintiffs, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment
for specific performance is hereby rendered ordering defendant to
execute
in favor of plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale covering that parcel of
land embraced in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
327403
(now TCT No. 331582) of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, together
with all the improvements existing thereon, free from all liens and
encumbrances
and once accomplished, to immediately deliver said document of sale to
plaintiffs, and upon receipt thereof, the plaintiffs are ordered to pay
defendants the whole balance of the purchase price amounting to
P1,190,000.00
in cash. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 331582 of the Registry of
Deeds
of Quezon City in the name of intervenor is hereby cancelled and
declared
to be without any force and effect. Defendants and intervenor, and all
other persons claiming under them, are hereby ordered to vacate the
subject
property and deliver possession thereof to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’
claim
for damages and attorney’s fees, as well as the counterclaims of
defendants
and intervenors, are hereby dismissed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No pronouncement as
to costs.cralaw:red
So ordered.[3]
The Mabanag Spouses,
through the respondent as their counsel, appealed the decision to the
Court
of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 23000. In its Decision[4]
promulgated on December 16, 1991, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision
of the RTC in toto. Unsatisfied with the judgment of the
appellate
court, the respondent elevated the matter to this Court, docketed as
G.R.
No. 103577. The petition for review was dismissed, and the
judgment
appealed from was, likewise, affirmed in toto in the Court’s Decision[5]
dated October 7, 1996.[6]
The Court found that the questioned sale of the parcel of land between
therein petitioners and Mabanag on February 18, 1985 was correctly
upheld
by both courts below.cralaw:red
Thereafter, according
to the complainant, the respondent, acting for and in behalf of his
clients,
the Mabanag Spouses, filed several cases[7]
questioning the ruling of the Court in G.R. No. 103577. The
complainant
contended that the multiple pleadings and actions pursued by the
respondent
indicate that he violated his oath as an officer of the court and
breached
the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. The
complainant
thereafter prayed that the instant complaint be referred to the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for proper investigation and action.[8]
The Respondent’s
Defense
The respondent, for
his part, filed a Motion to Cite Complainant and Counsel in Contempt
Without
Prejudice to Disciplinary Action Against Counsel,[9]
alleging that in an attempt to cause disrepute, dishonor and to cast
aspersion
on him, the complainant’s counsel virtually “published and made known
publicly”
the instant administrative case against him by filing a Manifestation
in
Civil Case No. Q-01-43396 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City,
Branch 80. According to the respondent, this grossly violated the
confidentiality
in administrative proceedings.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment,[11]
the respondent did not deny that the decision in Civil Case No. Q-44134
was already final and executory, as it had already been affirmed by the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in their respective
decisions.
The respondent put forth the following arguments to justify the
dismissal
of the instant complaint:
A.
THE SUBSEQUENT CASES
FILED INVOLVED LEGITIMATE AND VALID RESORT TO JUDICIAL PROCESSES AND
REMEDIES;
HENCE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE CHARGE THAT THE RESPONDENT COUNSEL HAS
ABUSED PROCEDURAL PROCESSES TO DEFEAT THE ENDS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
B.
THE COMPLAINT MUST
AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING AND VIOLATION
OF
SECTION 5, RULE 7 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
C.
THIS ADMINISTRATIVE
CASE IS PREMATURE CONSIDERING THAT THE MATTERS RAISED THEREIN ARE STILL
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED IN PENDING CASES; HENCE, ITS OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL
IS
APPROPRIATELY CALLED FOR AND WARRANTED.[12]
The respondent was vehement
in denying that he abused legal processes and remedies, as the issues
raised
in the subsequent actions he filed were valid and meritorious, the
resolution
of which were indispensable for the orderly administration of justice.
Thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is basic that a counsel
may resort to all legal reliefs and remedies available and to invoke
all
pertinent provisions of the law and rules, to protect the interest of a
client in order that justice may be done and duly administered.
In
fact, it is not only the right of a counsel to do so but rather, it is
his bounden and sacred obligation as an officer of the court and as an
advocate who is tasked to protect the interest of a client within the
bounds
of law.cralaw:red
Thus, in Civil Case
No. Q-91-31268, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which is
the first complaint, what was challenged therein is the eligibility of
Ramona Patricia Alcaraz, to own urban commercial lands, within the
ambit
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 185, considering that she is not a Filipino
citizen
or at least, she does not appear nor was she alleged to be so.
Evidently,
therefore, this is not intended to forestall the execution of the
judgment
which must be executed, pursuant to the rules that is, in accordance
with
the dispositive portion thereof. Otherwise stated, the execution,
if it must be undertaken, must be made in accordance with and
consistently
(sic) the dispositive portion thereof. It is well settled that
execution
must conform to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of
the decision. …
As shown in the earlier
narrations, the foregoing case is presently on appeal with the
Honorable
Court of Appeals and is still pending thereat, up to the present.cralaw:red
With regards to the
petition for certiorari filed with the Honorable Court of Appeals,
docketed
thereat as CA-G.R. SP No. 4770 (sic), whereby a decision was already
rendered
and such decision is already final and executory, the issues therein
disposed
as raised, pertinently pertained to the questioned and assailed Orders
of the trial court which granted the writ of execution, upon motion of
parties who are purportedly the principals of the complainant and his
counsel.
After the denial of the said petition and the finality of the judgment
of such denial, partial execution ensued and was not of course, even
attempted
to be forestalled by the herein respondent counsel and his clients.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the execution
being undertaken later on was shown to have been exceeded when, despite
the fact that there is no showing that the parties who were supposed to
execute a deed of absolute sale pursuant to the dispositive portion of
the subject decision being sought to be implemented, had refused or at
least failed, after demand, to so execute and perform the foregoing
acts,
the trial court ordered its branch clerk of court to perform the said
acts.
In fact, it was pointed out that it does not even appear that the other
parties whose acts are sought, were already served with the writ of
execution;
hence, the trial court’s act was without basis and/or premature.
Nevertheless, the trial court’s branch clerk of court
notwithstanding,
proceeded as in fact, executed the deed of absolute sale in favor of
the
Alcarazes. This act of the trial court, with due respect, unduly
created chaos and confusion, which are antithetical to its function for
an orderly administration of justice and the fair approximation thereof.cralaw:red
The matter was, thereafter,
complicated further, when despite the fact that the citizenships of the
Alcarazes were not indicated in the deed of absolute sale which appears
to have been presented with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, the
said
Register of Deeds cancelled the title of the client of the herein
respondent
counsel and issued a new title over the subject property in favor of
the
Alcarazes and in order to validate and to give a semblance of legality
or color to the validity of the issuance of the said title, by making
it
appear that the Alcarazes are Filipino citizens, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO
INDICATION
OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP IN THE SUBJECT DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE,
nevertheless,
indicated in the new title that the Alcarazes are Filipinos.cralaw:red
Thus, the herein respondent
counsel, in behalf of his client and to protect their interest, this
time,
was constrained to institute a petition with the Honorable Court of
Appeals,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 55576, whereby they assailed the
jurisdiction
of the trial judge in decreeing the foregoing execution of acts not
included
in the disposition portion of the decision being sought to be executed
and to perform acts within the exclusive competence and direction of
the
Register of Deeds pursuant to Providential Decree No. 1529, otherwise
known
as the Board Registration Decree. This case is still pending with
the Honorable Court of Appeals up to the present; hence, it is
misleading
for the complainant to even insinuate that a decision thereon is
already
final, which, of course, as shown in the earlier discussions, are
farthest
from the truth.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While all of the foregoing
issues were still pending as they are still pending up to the present,
the complainant and counsel, purportedly sold and transferred the
subject
property, using the title being assailed and questioned in CA-G.R. SP
No.
55576, to a third person, one Emelita Mariano, with the purported deed
of absolute sale being notarized by the same counsel of the herein
complainant,
Atty. Oscar R. Ferrer, who is representing the Alcarazes in the
abovesaid
cases; hence, he cannot feign ignorance of the pendency of the said
cases
and the issues involved therein which cast questions on the said title
and, thus, rendered the purported transfer or sale fatally defective.cralaw:red
True to his duty to
his client and as an officer of the court and in order to maintain the
integrity, dignity and orderliness in the administration of justice,
herein
respondent counsel, filed in behalf of his client, the Complaint in
Civil
Case No. Q-01-43396, on February 15, 2001, with the Regional Trial
Court
of Quezon City, for the annulment of the title issued in favor of the
third
person, Emelita L. Mariano, for the annulment of the Deed of Absolute
Sale
to her and Damages with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or
writ of preliminary injunction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When no temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction were issued by the trial
court,
herein respondent counsel, in behalf of his client, availed of the
legally
available remedy of a special civil action of certiorari, assailing on
jurisdictional/grave abuse of discretion grounds, the refusal and/or
failure
of the trial court to issue the prayed for preliminary injunctive
reliefs,
among others. Thus, respondent, as counsel for his client, filed with
the
Honorable Court of Appeals, on July 24, 2001, a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or
writ
of preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65783, which is
still
pending resolution of the said Honorable Court up to the present.[13]
The respondent also
alleged that the complainant’s failure to disclose the pendency of
Civil
Case No. Q-01-43396 in the certification against non-forum shopping in
the case at bar was in gross violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. Because of this, the respondent
reasoned,
the complaint should be dismissed.cralaw:red
Finally, the respondent
averred that the instant administrative case is premature, considering
that there are still issues to be resolved in the pending cases.
As such, no cause of action could accrue against him. The
respondent
prayed that the complaint be dismissed for “utter and palpable lack of
merit.”
In his Compliance and
Comment,[14]
the complainant asserted that there was no malice nor inaccuracy
resorted
to in the filing of the complaint against the respondent. The
complainant
averred that he was constrained to file the instant complaint out of
exasperation,
if not desperation, upon the instruction of his principals, so as to
stop
the respondent from continuing with his “dilatory and obstructionist
strategies”
to deprive them of their rights already confirmed by the courts, from
the
RTC to the Supreme Court. Thus:
In order to stall the
execution of the favorable decision obtained by my principals
Concepcion
Alcaraz and her daughter Ramona Patricia Alcaraz as early as March 1,
1989,
in Civil Case No. Q-44134, respondent acting in behalf of his clients,
went to this Court three (3) times in said case and several times also
to the Court of Appeals on appeals, petitions for certiorari, etc.cralaw:red
Although respondent
admits the fact that the subject decision of the court a quo is already
final and executory, he insists that “the issues in the other cases are
indeed different.” He argues in his comment that the issue in his
petition (Annex “2” to Comment) pertained to the issuance of a writ of
execution to implement the abovesaid final and executory
decision.”
This is plain hair-splitting aimed to muddle the issues and ultimately
mislead the Honorable Court.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Recommendation of
the Integrated Bar Of The Philippines (IBP) Commission On Bar Discipline
On October 25, 2003,
the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2003-237, finding
that the foregoing recommendation of the Commissioner was fully
supported
by the records, as well as the applicable laws. The Board found
that
the respondent violated Rule 12.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,
and recommended his suspension for one (1) year.
The Court’s Ruling
At the outset, the Court
would like to stress that administrative cases against lawyers belong
to
a class of their own.[16]
As we held in the leading case of In re Almacen:[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither purely civil
not purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a
suit,
but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of
its
officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in
no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a
plaintiff
nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the
Court
motu proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and
the
real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still
a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the
exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a
member
of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court
with
the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and
the
proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession
of
members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer
worthy
to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the
office of an attorney.[18]
As such, the instant
complaint cannot be dismissed as prayed for by the respondent.cralaw:red
We agree that the respondent
is administratively liable.cralaw:red
The respondent, by his
own admission, filed multifarious petitions, motions and actions
concerning
the sale of the property in question, after the Court already ruled in
G.R. No. 103577 that the said sale was correctly upheld by both the
trial
and appellate courts. He, thereafter, filed two other initiatory
pleadings before the RTC of Quezon City, namely, Civil Case No.
Q-97-31268
and Civil Case No. Q-01-43396. The same matter subject of the original
complaint was elevated to the Court of Appeals no less than four (4)
times:
CA-G.R. CV No. 65124, CA-G.R. SP No. 65783, CA-G.R. CV No. 75911, and
CA-G.R.
SP No. 55576. And from there, the matter was again brought before
this Court twice: G.R. No. 135820 and G.R. No. 153142.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We concur with the following
observations made by IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala in her
Report
and Recommendation dated October 3, 2003:
The issue being raised
by the respondent on behalf of his clients in all the complaints,
appeals,
petitions and motions he has filed is the question of non-eligibility
of
Ramona Alcaraz to acquire property in the Philippines and the nullity
of
the sale between Alcaraz and the Coronels. These issues have already
been
passed upon and upheld by both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court.
In the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65783, the First Division of the
Court of Appeals “observed that Mabanag’s counsel, (respondent herein)
has questioned the non-eligibility of Ramona Alcaraz to acquire
property
in the Philippines for the nth time although as early as 30 July 1998,
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47710 had already affirmed the
lower
court’s ruling that the petitioner is not the proper party to question
the eligibility of Alcaraz to own property in the Philippines. The
petition
for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 135820
upheld
the right of Ramona Alcaraz as one of the vendees in the deed of sale.
The Supreme Court passed judgment on her capacity to buy the property.
The issue was recycled in CA-G.R. SP No. 55576, Entry of Judgment was
already
issued by the Supreme Court on 2 January 1997. However, petitioner has
succeeded for more than five (5) years now to hold at bay the full
implementation
of the judgment in point.” Likewise, in dismissing the complaint filed
by respondent on behalf of his client before RTC QC Branch 83 docketed
as Case No. Q-97-31268 entitled Mabanag vs. Patricia Ramona Alcaraz,
et.
al. to declare Patricia Alcaraz ineligible to acquire real property,
the
court observed that for failure of the plaintiffs to get a favorable
decision
of the earlier case, they tried to prevent the execution by
disqualifying
herein defendant. (Emphasis Ours).cralaw:red
In the case docketed
as CA-G.R. SP [No.] 65783, a pertinent portion of the Court of Appeals
decision reads “While lawyers owe (sic) entire devotion to the interest
of their client’s right, they should not forget that they are officers
of the court bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and
efficient
administration of justice – they should not, therefore, misuse the
rules
of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case,
impede
the execution of a judgment or misuse the court processes (Eternal
Gardens
Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 622).”[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It has, thus, been clearly
established that in filing such numerous petitions in behalf of his
client,
the respondent thereby engaged in forum shopping. The essence of
forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same
parties
for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively,
for
the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as
a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable
opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or
proceedings
grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a
favorable
decision. An important factor in determining the existence of
forum
shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants
by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[21]
Indeed, while a lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the
expense
of truth and the administration of justice. Under the Code of
Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient
administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case
by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.[22]
Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court’s
processes
and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the
administration
of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to
add, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which
obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment)
subjects
himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any
better)
or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all
good
fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to
him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor.[23]
We note that while lawyers
owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in
the defense of their client’s right, they should not forget that they
are,
first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.[24]
In filing multiple petitions
before various courts concerning the same subject matter, the
respondent
violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides
that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to
assist
in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He also
violated
Rule 12.02[25] and Rule 12.04[26] of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s
mandate
“to delay no man for money or malice.”
We find that the IBP’s
recommended penalty of one year’s suspension from the practice of law
is
not commensurate to the respondent’s transgression. He shall thus be
meted
a two-year suspension from the practice of law, effective immediately.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, for trifling
with judicial processes by resorting to forum shopping, respondent
Atty.
Arnold V. Guerrero is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period
of Two (2) Years. The respondent is DIRECTED to inform the Court
of the date of his receipt of this Decision. Let a copy of this
Decision
be included in the respondent’s files which are with the Office of the
Bar Confidant, and circularized to all courts and to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
J., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-6.
[2]
Penned by Judge Reynaldo V. Roura.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 1, 7-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Annex “A,” Id. at 7-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Penned by then Associate Justice Jose A. R. Melo, entitled Coronel v.
Court
of Appeals (263 SCRA 15).
[6]
Annex “B,” Rollo, pp. 17-42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
According to the complainant, the respondent filed the following cases:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer
for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
filed
with the Court of Appeals on May 19, 1998 and docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No.
47710, entitled Catalina B. Mabanag, et al. v. Hon. Estrella T.
Estrada,
et al.;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) Civil Case No. Q-97-31268 entitled Spouses Mabanag v. Ramona Alcaraz
and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, for “declaration of inability
to acquire real property and damages” before the Regional Trial Court
of
Quezon City, Branch 91, which was dismissed on July 9, 1999 on the
grounds
of res judicata and forum shopping;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) CA-G.R. CV No. 65124 filed before the Court of Appeals questioning
the
ruling of the trial court in Civil Case No. Q-97-31268;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d) Petition for review dated December 1, 1998 before the Supreme Court,
docketed as G.R. No. 135820, to review the decision of the Court of
Appeals
dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 47710;
e) Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court
filed with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 55576,
questioning
the orders of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 83, in Civil Case No.
Q-44134
dated July 29, 1999 and September 23, 1999; and,chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
f) Civil Case No. Q-01-43396 entitled Catalina Balais-Mabanag v.
Emelita
L. Mariano, Concepcion D. Alcaraz and Ramona P. Alcaraz, Ricardo A.
Foronda,
Atty. Cecilia V. Santoyo and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City,
before
the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80, for annulment of sale.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 101.
[10]
The pertinent portion of the said Manifestation is as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally,
Alcarazes’ thru their attorney-in-fact, Ricardo A. Foronda, has filed
Adm.
Case No. 5469 against Atty. Arnold V. Guerrero, now pending before the
Second Division of the Supreme Court, for relentlessly pursuing the
cyclic
filing of cases before the hierarchy of courts to hold the
implementation
of a final and executory decision, the entry of judgment of which the
Supreme
Court issued as early as January 2, 1997 in G.R. No. 13577 (sic). This
is to manifest to this Honorable Court that herein defendants have not
slept on their rights for all intents and purposes (Id. at 98-99 and
104).
[11]
Id. at 111-166.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 149.
[13]
Id. at 151-154.
[14]
Id. at 399-408.
[15]
Id. at 400.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406
(1999).
[17]
31 SCRA 562 (1970).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Cited in Heinz R. Heck v. Judge Anthony E. Santos, RTC, Br. 19, Cagayan
de Oro City, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004.
[19]
The records show that the respondent filed the following petitions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag v.
Hon.
Estrella T. Estrada, et al. docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 47710 (Annex
“2,”
Comment)
This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer
for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
filed
with the Court of Appeals, on the ground that the respondent judge
committed
grave abuse of discretion, excess or lack of jurisdiction “in issuing
and/or
refusing to stay the execution of its decision.” The respondent put
forth
the argument that the private respondent therein, Ramona Patricia
Alcaraz,
being a foreign national, was incapacitated to purchase the subject
property
due to the limitations embodied in the 1987 Constitution.
The petition was denied, with the appellate court ratiocinating as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We
are not impressed. We find the trial court’s stand on the matter to be
legally unassailable. In the first place, petitioner is not the proper
party to question the qualification or eligibility of Ramona Alcaraz.
It
is the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, which has
the
legal personality and the authority to question the qualification of
Ramona
Alcaraz to own rural or urban land. In the second place, the decision
sought
to be executed has already gained finality. As held by the Supreme
Court,
when a court’s judgment or order becomes final and executory it is the
ministerial duty of the trial court to issue a writ of execution to
enforce
its judgment (Rollo, p. 65-66).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
Catalina Balais-Mabanag, et al. v. Concepcion Alvarez, et. al. docketed
as G.R. No. 135820 (Complaint, Rollo, p. 3; Records, p. 40 [IBP
Commission
on Bar Discipline])
This petition was filed by the respondent on behalf of his clients
asking
the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals
dismissing
the petition for injunction in CA-G.R. SP No. 47710. The petition was
denied
for having been filed out of time, and the motion for reconsideration
therefrom
was denied with finality on April 21, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
Spouses Eleuterio & Catalina Mabanag v. Ramona Patricia Alcaraz and
the Register of Deeds for Quezon City docketed as Civil Case No.
Q-97-31268
(Annex “3,” Comment)
This was a complaint for “Declaration of Inability to Acquire Real
Property
and Damages” before RTC QC, Branch 83. In its Order dated July 9, 1999,
the court dismissed the case on the grounds of res judicata and forum
shopping.
The court observed that “for failure of the plaintiffs in this case to
get a favorable decision from the earlier case, they tried to prevent
the
execution by disqualifying the herein defendant Alcaraz” (Report and
Recommendation
dated October 3, 2003, p. 3).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4.
Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband, Eleuterio Mabanag v.
Emelita L Mariano, Concepcion D. Alcaraz and Ramona P. Alcaraz, et al.
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-43396 (Annex “11,” Comment)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is an action for “Annulment of Title and Deed of Absolute Sale and
Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary
Injunction. In its Order dated March 20, 2001, acting on the injunctive
aspect of the case, the court denied the injunction prayed for “for
failure
of the plaintiff to make at least a prima facie showing of a right to
the
issuance of the writ.” The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed
by the respondent on behalf of his clients was denied on June 18, 2001.
Acting on the defendant’s Special and Affirmative Defenses and Motion
to
Dismiss, the court issued an order dated January 16, 2002 dismissing
the
complaint finding that the decision in Civil Case No. Q-44134 had
already
been turned over to complainant as attorney-in-fact of defendants
Alcarazes
(Report and Recommendation dated October 3, 2003, p. 3).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5.
Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband, Eleuterio Mabanag v.
Emelita L Mariano, Concepcion D. Alcaraz and Ramona P. Alcaraz, et al.
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65783 (Annex “12,” Comment)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is a special civil action for certiorari filed by the respondent
on
behalf of his client for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The Court of
Appeals
denied the petition on June 14, 2002, and pointed out the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a)
On December 5, 2000, the Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals had
already
affirmed the decision of the lower court that the authority of the
Register
of Deeds is confined only to the determination of whether all the
requisites
for registration are complied with. To authorize him to determine
whether
Ramona Alcaraz is qualified to own real property in the Philippines is
to clothe the Register of Deeds with judicial powers which only courts
can exercise.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b)
The issue as to whether Ramona Alcaraz is qualified to own real
property
had been passed upon by the Third Division of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R.
SP No. 47710.
c)
The Third Division of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 103577, when it
ruled
on October 7, 1996 that the sale of the subject land between Alcaraz
and
the Coronels perfected before the sale between Mabanag and the
Coronels,
was correctly upheld by both courts (Report and Recommendation dated
October
3, 2003, p. 4).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6.
Catalina Balais-Mabanag, etc. v. Emelita L. Mariano et al. docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 75911 (Annex “3,” Verified Position Paper for the
Respondent)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is an appeal filed by the respondent on behalf of his client on
February
1, 2003 after Civil Case No. Q-01-43396 for Annulment of Title and Deed
of Absolute Sale and Damages was ordered dismissed by RTC QC, Branch
80.
The case is still pending before the Court of Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7.
Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband, Eleuterio Mabanag v.
Hon. Estrella Estrada, The Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Concepcion
D. Alcaraz and Ramona Patricia-Alcaraz docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 55576
(Annex “7,” Comment)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules
of Civil Procedure, questioning the order of the RTC in Civil Case No.
Q-44134, ordering the respondent’s client to surrender the owner’s
duplicate
copy of TCT No. 331582 to the plaintiffs therein. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition in its Decision dated December 5, 2000 with the
final note, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Supreme Court Third Division as well as in G.R. No. 103577, on
October
7, 1996, ruled: “Thus the sale of the subject parcel of land between
petitioners
and Romana P. Alcaraz, perfected on February 6, 1985, prior to that
between
petitioners and Catalina B. Mabanag on February 18, 1985, was correctly
upheld by both the lower courts below.[”]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Obviously,
the lower court’s judgment has become final and executory as per Entry
of Judgment issued by the Supreme Court. “It is axiomatic that final
and
executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or
be
modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the
land…”
(Annex “E,” Rollo, p. 74).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8.
Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag v.
Register
of Deeds of Quezon City, et al. docketed as G.R. No. 153142 (Annex “2,”
Verified Position Paper for the Respondent)
A petition for review filed by the respondent on behalf of his client,
Mabanag, before the Supreme Court on June 12, 2002, asking the Court to
review the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55576.
The
case is still pending before the Court (Annex “1,” Id.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Report and Recommendation, pp. 7-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
T’boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. v. Solilapsi, 394 SCRA 269
(2002).
[22]
Garcia v. Francisco, 220 SCRA 512 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Millare v. Montero, 246 SCRA 1 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 622
(1998).
[25]
Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution
of a judgment or misuse court processes. |