Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22320)
Facts:
Mercedes Ruth Cobb‑Perez and Damaso P. Perez v. Hon. Gregorio Lantin, etc., G.R. No. L‑22320, July 29, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Mercedes Ruth Cobb‑Perez and Damaso P. Perez were parties to an earlier money judgment in Civil Case No. 39407 out of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila (Branch VII), which resulted in a final and executory money judgment. The CFI issued a writ of execution and the respondent sheriff levied certain shares of stock as part of satisfaction proceedings. The Court of Appeals, on November 15, 1962, rendered a decision sustaining the sheriff’s levy as to its extent.Following the Court of Appeals decision, the Perez spouses, represented at various times by several counsels including Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A.N. Bolinao, Jr. (the movants), filed multiple proceedings aimed at restraining the execution or challenging the levy. Mrs. Perez obtained an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction from the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 7532, which Judge Eulogio Mencias later lifted on October 4, 1963 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Perezes also filed Civil Case No. 55292 in Branch XXII of the CFI of Manila seeking another injunction; Branch XXII (Judge Alikpala) denied the preliminary injunction on November 8, 1963 for lack of power to interfere with a coordinate court’s judgment.
In the basic execution proceedings (Civil Case No. 39407) Mrs. Perez filed on September 3, 1963 an “Urgent Motion to Lift the Writ of Execution” asserting the conjugal nature of the levied stocks; no evidence was presented at the hearing and the motion was deemed submitted and later denied. The Perezes repeatedly filed successive and overlapping motions (including an “Urgent Motion for Reconsideration” and promises to substitute cash dividends for the levied stocks), many of which were abandoned or withdrawn, and one instance involved a promise to produce cash dividends that was not fulfilled. These filings caused postponement of the projected execution sale on multiple occasions and left the judgment unsatisfied more than eight years after it became final.
This Court rendered a decision on May 22, 1968 criticizing the petitioners and their counsel for using the courts to thwart execution, and assessed treble costs against the petitioners “to be paid by their counsel.” Attys. Baizas and Bolinao moved for partial reconsideration of that decision insofar as it reflected adversely on their professional conduct and ordered them to pay the treble costs. The present decision resolves that motion for partial reconsideration: after reexamination of the record th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the motion for partial reconsideration of this Court’s May 22, 1968 decision — seeking removal of adverse observations and the order that counsel pay the treble costs — be granted?
- Did the professional conduct of petitioners’ counsels justify the assessment of treble costs against them ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)