Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
~;;f~i'"" ~-~~~;
-
~~
. ! ' i i . -
:
:-.t: : .r :J:. .j !~tit ~, r:t ':
~\ \ ~ ;.: i i >~ '.= "i ... -j.s., -; .1~ ,~;:: ~'
..'< \ <. ' ! :_w_, .1. ,~: . ' \.
; I. l l 1.: I'
Promulgated:
ATTY. AL C. ARGOSINO,
Respondent.
DECISION
SERENO, CJ:
(
Decision 2 A.C. No. 7437
ANTECEDENT FACTS
Soon after, Rodman filed a Complaint before the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking the nullification of the rescission
of the Contract to Sell. It also prayed for the accounting of payments and the
fixing of the period upon which the balance of the purchase price should be
pai"d . 18
Id. at 2.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 3.
Id.
10
Id. at 893.
11
Dated 24 September 1998, 13 January 1999, and 1 February 1999.
12
Id. at 841.
11
Id.
14 Id.
is Id.
16 Id.
17
Id.at299-317.
18
Id. at 319-328.
(
Decision 3 A.C. No. 7437
19
Id. at 337-338.
10
Id. at 47-55.
21
Id. at 57-89.
22
ld.at41-45.
23
Id. at 45.
24
Id.at 117-127.
25
Id. at 128-140.
26 Id.
27
Id. at 152-153.
28
Id. at 154-169.
(
Decision 4 A.C. No. 7437
satisfied after the lapse of six months, complainant filed a motion for writs
of execution and possession 29 before the HLURB Board.
42
In its Order dated 31 July 2007, the HLURB Regional Office
accordingly computed the interest due, arriving at the total amount of
P2,685,479.64 as payment due to complainant. It also directed the issuance
of a Writ of Execution implementing the HLURB Board's earlier
. 43
R eso lut1on.
29
Id. at I 70-174.
30
Id. at 442-445.
31
Id. at 432-44 I.
32
Id. at I 75-176.
13
Id. at I 81-185.
34
ld.at186-193.
35
Id. at 469-4 76.
36
Id. at 461-468.
37
Id. at 477-486.
38
Id. at 195- I 96.
39 Id.
40
Id. at 487-490.
41
Id. at 273-285.
42
Id. at 750-752.
43
Id. at 752.
(
Decision 5 A.C. No. 7437
44
Id. at 746-749, issued on 16 August 2007.
45
Id. at 693-698.
46
Id. at 736-744.
47
Id.at776-785.
48 Id.
49
Id. at 786-789.
(
Decision 6 A.C. No. 7437
1. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
(
Decision 7 A.C. No. 7437
5. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.
2. The Motion for Writ of Execution was filed before the HLURB
Board, which as an appellate body had no jurisdiction to issue the
54
wnt.
The Court referred this case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
. 59
recommen dation.
52
Id. at 203-242.
53
Id. at 204.
54
Id. at 207.
55
Id. at 217.
56
Id. at 211.
57
Id. at 230.
58
Id. at 502-508; 583-594; 625-632.
59
Id. at 500.
(
Decision 8 A.C. No. 7437
Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in the HLURB case, the
path towards its resolution became long, tedious, and frustrating because of
the deliberate attempts of respondent to delay the actual execution of the
judgment therein. He continued to file pleadings over issues already passed
upon even after being enjoined not to do so, and made unfounded
accusations of bias or procedural defects. These acts manifest his propensity
to disregard the authority of a tribunal and abuse court processes, to the
detriment of the administration of justice.
w Supra note I.
61
Id. at 887.
62
Parinas v. Paguinto, 478 Phil. 239-247 (2004), citing Ga111alinda v. Alcantara, A.C. No. 3695, 24
February 1992, 206 SCRA 468.
63
Millare v. Montero, 316 Phil. 29-37 ( 1995), citing Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics 579-582 (1986).
64
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 12.
65
Id. Canon 19, Rule 19.01.
66
Millare v. Montero, supra note 63, citing Edtlstein, The Ethics of Dilatory Motions Practice: Time fo1
Change, 44 Fordham L. Rev. 1069 (1976); Overme)'er v. Fide/ista and Deposit Co., 554 F. 2d 539, 543
(2d Cir. 1971 ).
7
r, Garcia v. Francisco, A.C. No. 3923, 30 March 1993. 220 SCRA 512.
(
Decision 9 A.C. No. 7437
He was found to have violated his duty as a member of the bar to pursue
only those acts or proceedings that appear to be just, and only those lines of
defense he believed to be honestly debatable under the law.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of judgment or misuse court processes.
(
Decision 10 A.C. No. 7437
In Saa v. IBP, 75 the petitioner was found to have violated Canon 12, 76
77 78
Rule 12.04, and Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
69
C. Factors to be Considered in Imposing Sanctions
xx xx
6.23 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court order
or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or
potential interference with a legal proceeding.
xx xx
7
Canon 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration ofjustice.
71
Supra note 4.
72
Saladaga v. Astorga, A.C. No. 4697. 25 November 2014.
73
Millare v. Montero, ;mpra note 63.
74
Supra note 67.
75
Saa v. Integrated Bar of the Phil., 614 Phil. 203-209 (2009).
76
Supra note 69.
77
Supra note 4.
Rule 1.03 -~ A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding
78
/
Decision 11 A.C. No. 7437
Thus, We have meted out the penalty of one to two years' suspension
in cases involving multiple violations of professional conduct that have
caused unjust delays in the administration of justice. The IBP Guidelines
similarly provide that "suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that
he is violating a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a
client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal
proceeding." 79
SO ORDERED.
79
Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, C(6.22).
Decision 12 A.C. No. 7437
WE CONCUR:
J~~d~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ESTEL~~ ~AS-BERNABE
Associate Justice