Castaneda vs Ago, 65 SCRA 512, G.R. No. L-28546, July 30, 1975
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
In 1955, the petitioners,
Venancio Castañeda and Nicetas Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor Ago
in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover certain machineries. In
1957 judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Ago to return
the machineries or pay definite sums of money.
In 1961, Ago appealed to the
Supreme Court which affirmed the 1957 judgment, and the case was remanded to
trial court. The trial court then issued a writ of execution for the sum of
P172,923.87. Ago moved for a stay of execution but his motion was denied, and
levy was made on Ago's house and lot located in Quezon City. The sheriff then
advertised them for auction sale on October 25, 1961. Ago moved to stop the
auction sale, failing in which he filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition and Ago appealed.
In 1966, Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
Ago thrice attempted to obtain
a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the sheriff from enforcing the
writ of execution "to save his family house and lot;" his motions
were denied.
In 1963, the sheriff sold the
house and lots to the highest bidders, the petitioners Castañeda and Henson. In
1964, Ago failed to redeem and the sheriff executed the final deed of sale in
favor of the vendees Castañeda and Henson. Upon their petition, the Court of
First Instance of Manila issued a writ of possession to the properties.
In 1964, however, Pastor Ago,
now joined by his wife, Lourdes Yu Ago, as his co-plaintiff, filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City to annul the sheriff's sale on
the ground that the obligation of Pastor Ago upon which judgment was rendered
against him in the replevin suit was his personal obligation and which did not
benefit the conjugal partnership. They alleged that the wife own’s half of the
share of the property. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City issued an ex
parte writ of preliminary injunction restraining the petitioners, the Register
of Deeds and the sheriff of Quezon City, from registering the latter's final
deed of sale, from cancelling the respondents' certificates of title and
issuing new ones to the petitioners and from carrying out any writ of
possession. A situation thus arose where what the Manila court had ordered to
be done, the Quezon City court countermanded.
In 1965, the Quezon City court
lifted the preliminary injunction it had previously issued, and the Register of
deeds of Quezon City cancelled the respondents' certificates of title and
issued new ones in favor of the petitioners. But enforcement of the writ of
possession was again thwarted as the Quezon City court again issued a temporary
restraining order which it later lifted but then re-restored.
In 1966, while the battle on
the matter of the lifting and restoring of the restraining order was being
fought in the Quezon City court, the Agos filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition in the Supreme Court. SC finding no merit in the petition and
dismissed the case. The respondents then again filed a similar petition for
certiorari and prohibition with the CA which also dismissed the petition. The
respondents then again appealed to the Supreme Court which was dismissed it in
1967.
The Ago spouses repaired once
more to the CA where they filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction. The said court gave due course to the petition and
granted preliminary injunction. In 1967, the court finally, and for the third
time, lifted the restraining order.
ISSUE
Whether or not Agos’ lawyer
encouraged the Agos to avoid controversy.
RULING
No, Ago’s lawyer did not
encourage the Agos to avoid controversy.
Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Canon 1, Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
In this case, SC held that
despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of
the sheriff's sale (civil case Q-7986), elementary justice demands that the
petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must
now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos, abetted by their lawyer Jose M.
Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to
thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the
petitioners. The respondents, with the assistance of counsel, maneuvered for
fourteen (14) years to doggedly resist execution of the judgment thru manifold
tactics in and from one court to another (5 times in the Supreme Court). Forgetting
his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an
officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator
of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and
a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of
litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral
justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment