A.C. No. 7437 - Avida Land Corp. vs. Argosino

Complainant, Avida Land Corporation, is a Philippine corporation engaged in subdivision development and sale.
Respondent, Atty. Al C. Argosino, was counsel for Rodman Construction & Development Corporation (Rodman).
Complainant and Rodman entered into a Contract to Sell for a subdivision house and lot in Santa Rosa, Laguna, intending payment via bank financing.
Upon financing disapproval, Rodman was to pay the full contract price of ₱4,412,254.00 less downpayment of ₱1,323,676.20 within 15 days from loan disapproval.
Rodman took possession of the property after settling the downpayment.

Complainant demanded payment of the outstanding balance of ₱3,088,577.80 via three letters.
Parties agreed payments would be deferred within 18 months.
Rodman made a partial payment of ₱404,782.56 on 22 March 1999, yet other claimed payments (₱1,458,765.06) were disputed by complainant.
Complainant rescinded the Contract to Sell via notarial act and demanded Rodman vacate the property.

Rodman remained in possession, prompting complainant to file an unlawful detainer case at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Makati City.
Rodman countersued at the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking nullification of the rescission, accounting of payments, and payment scheduling.
MTC dismissed the unlawful detainer case citing lack of jurisdiction.
HLURB Regional Office dismissed Rodman’s complaint and ordered Rodman to pay damages and attorney’s fees.
Rodman appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which modified the ruling directing Rodman to immediately pay the outstanding balance or lose right to rescind the contract with refund conditions.
Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration against the Board’s decision; Rodman filed a comment seeking clarification but no motion for reconsideration.
HLURB Board issued a Resolution confirming the obligation of Rodman to pay ₱1,814,513.27 with interests and penalties and conditional rescission rights upon nonpayment.
Neither party appealed; decision became final and executory.
Settlement attempts failed.

After six months without satisfaction of the judgment, complainant filed a motion for writs of execution and possession before HLURB Board.
Respondent filed opposition, rejoinder, and other pleadings, raising issues on computation of interests.
HLURB Board granted complainant’s motion and remanded case to HLURB Regional Office for execution.
Respondent moved for reconsideration, was denied, and was enjoined from filing pleadings on issues already passed upon.
Respondent filed motion for computation of interest before the Regional Office; the Office computed the amount due as ₱2,685,479.64 and ordered issuance of writ of execution.
Respondent, instead of complying, filed motion to quash the writ, for clarification, and for conference, inciting new issues and demands including title turnover clause.
Respondent filed petition to cite complainant in contempt for issuing demand letter amid pendency of his motion to quash.
Conference failed to resolve disputes.
Respondent moved for inhibition of the arbiter for alleged bias, which was denied, but arbiter eventually inhibited herself; case re-raffled.
Respondent filed another motion for inhibition against new arbiter, alleging denial of due process due to lack of notice of re-raffle.
Various pleadings ensued regarding jurisdiction and motions.
New arbiter resolved that notice was not indispensable for jurisdiction and denied Rodman’s motion for summary dismissal.
After this ruling, respondent ceased filing pleaders in the case.

On 21 February 2007, complainant filed an administrative complaint for professional misconduct against respondent based on the delay tactics in the HLURB case.
The complaint cited violations of:

Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — opposing suits or suit delays for corrupt motive.
Canon 10 and Rule 10.03 — candor, fairness, good faith, and adherence to rules of procedure without misuse.
Canon 12 and Rule 12.04 — duty to assist in speedy justice and refraining from undue delay or misuse of court process.

Respondent denied allegations, attributing delays primarily to complainant’s counsel’s procedural errors: late motion filing, filing before a body without jurisdiction, and improper rescission and ejectment suit.
Respondent argued he merely defended client zealously and delays before motion for execution was filed cannot be attributed to him.
Complainant filed supplemental complaints as respondent’s dilatory tactics persisted.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report finding respondent guilty of violating Rule 12.04 by delaying execution and recommended reprimand or censure.
No motion for reconsideration or petition was filed by either party.

Whether respondent’s conduct of repeatedly filing pleadings and motions to delay enforcement of a final judgment constitutes professional misconduct violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
Whether the IBP’s recommended penalty of reprimand is adequate considering respondent’s conduct.