Case Digest (A.C. No. 2734)
Facts:
On February 15, 1985, Rosa Santiago Arcadio, along with her relatives Jose C. Santiago, Iris C. Santiago, and Guillerma C. Santiago, filed a sworn letter-complaint against Atty. Cesar Z. Ylagan, seeking his disbarment. The complaint stemmed from an incident that occurred on June 7, 1984, when Atty. Ylagan, acting as counsel for his brother Ernesto Ylagan, executed a writ of possession following an ejectment suit against Arcadio. The apartment in question, located at No. 26 Judge Juan Luna and Pitimini Streets, Barangay Paltok, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, was owned by Ernesto Ylagan. The ejectment suit was based on three grounds: unauthorized subleasing, the need for the owner to repossess the unit, and the lessee's ownership of another residential unit. After Arcadio was declared in default for failing to answer the suit, the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Ernesto Ylagan, ordering Arcadio to vacate the premises and pay damages. Arcadio appealed, but ...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 2734)
Facts:
1. Parties Involved:
- Complainants: Rosa Santiago Arcadio, Jose C. Santiago, Iris C. Santiago, and Guillerma C. Santiago.
- Respondent: Atty. Cesar Z. Ylagan, brother of Ernesto Ylagan, the owner of the apartment in question.
2. Background of the Case:
- Rosa Arcadio was the lessee of an apartment owned by Ernesto Ylagan.
- In 1983, Atty. Ylagan, representing his brother, filed an ejectment suit against Arcadio on three grounds:
- Sublease of the premises without the owner's consent.
- The owner's need to repossess the unit for personal or family use.
- Arcadio's ownership of another residential unit in Alabang, Muntinlupa.
3. Legal Proceedings:
- Arcadio was declared in default for failing to answer the complaint.
- The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Ernesto Ylagan, ordering Arcadio to vacate the premises and pay damages.
- Arcadio appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), but the MTC granted execution pending appeal.
- The writ of execution was issued on May 10, 1984.
4. Execution of the Writ:
- On June 7, 1984, sheriffs, barangay officials, and Atty. Ylagan enforced the writ.
- Complainants alleged that the group used violence to break into the apartment, which was padlocked and unoccupied at the time.
- They claimed the enforcement was irregular and illegal, as no court order authorized the forcible entry.
5. Respondent’s Defense:
- Atty. Ylagan argued that the writ of execution authorized the enforcement, and the apartment was abandoned and padlocked, indicating an intent to frustrate the writ.
- He denied any violence and claimed the execution was carried out civilly and orderly.
Issue:
- Whether the enforcement of the writ of execution was irregular and illegal due to the alleged use of violence and lack of a court order for forcible entry.
- Whether Atty. Ylagan’s actions as counsel for his brother constituted misconduct warranting disbarment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)