Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22320)
Factual Background
MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ AND DAMASO P. PEREZ were defendants in a money judgment which became final and executory and against which an execution issued, including a levy on certain shares of stock. After the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on November 15, 1962 that sustained Damaso Perez's position regarding the extent of the levy, a series of petitions and actions followed which sought to prevent or delay the sheriff's execution sale.
Procedural Chronology in the Lower Courts
Following the appellate determination, Mrs. Perez filed civil case 7532 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal and obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent sheriff, which Judge Eulogio Mencias later lifted on October 4, 1963 for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Acosta vs. Alvendia (L-14598, October 31, 1960). Meanwhile an urgent motion to lift the writ of execution was filed in the basic civil case 39407 on September 3, 1963 alleging the conjugal nature of the levied shares; the movant failed to present evidence and the motion was deemed submitted when counsel did not appear at the scheduled hearing. Thereafter the Perez spouses filed civil case 55292 in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XXII) seeking an injunction, which Judge Alikpala denied on November 8, 1963 for lack of authority to interfere with the judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
Specific Litigational Acts Challenged
The record shows alternating and overlapping remedial devices employed by the Perez spouses and their counsel: obtaining an improvident ex parte injunction from a court lacking territorial jurisdiction; filing an urgent motion in the basic execution case that presented the same ground as the Rizal action and was submitted without evidence; instituting a second injunction action in another branch of the Court of First Instance; and pressing an urgent motion for reconsideration in the basic case that proposed substituting levied shares with alleged cash dividends and entailed unfulfilled promises to produce funds at hearing.
Petitioners' and Movants' Contentions
The movants, Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A.N. Bolinao, while submitting to the judgment on the merits, sought partial reconsideration of this Court's May 22, 1968 decision insofar as it contained adverse observations on their professional conduct and insofar as it adjudged treble costs to be paid by their counsel. They maintained that no particular counsel acted with deliberate aforethought to delay enforcement and that assertiveness by counsel should not be condemned.
The Court's Observations on Conduct
The Court found that the protracted litigation was designed to cause delay and that the active participation of the petitioners' counsels in that design was manifest. The Court observed that after the Court of Appeals decision, the petitioners and their counsels interposed successive remedies that were predictably futile, thereby postponing the projected execution sale on six occasions and leaving the final judgment unsatisfied for more than eight years.
Analysis of Jurisdictional Errors and Remedial Misuse
The Court explained that the actions in civil cases 7532 and 55292 were not proper insofar as they sought preliminary injunctions from courts without territorial power to restrain the enforcement of a writ of execution issued by another branch. The Court relied on the settled doctrines that courts lacked power to restrain acts outside their territorial jurisdiction and could not enjoin the judgment or decree of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction, as exemplified by Acosta vs. Alvendia and related authority cited in the record.
Findings on Abandonment and Piecemeal Litigation
The Court further found that the Perez spouses repeatedly abandoned or left inoperative the independent actions they had filed to enjoin the sheriff once other devices were deployed. civil case 7532 was practically abandoned and dismissed on November 9, 1963 upon Mrs. Perez's own motion, and civil case 55292 was dismissed on March 20, 1964 with the parties' consent because of the pendency of the certiorari petition. The Court construed these circumstances as confirmatory of a strategy to delay execution rather than a bona fide prosecution of remedies.
Professional Duty of Counsel
The Court reiterated its view that a counsel's assertiveness is commendable only when exercised with candour and honesty; a lawyer must advise a client when a cause lacks merit and must resist client demands to pursue frivolous or hopeless remedies. The Court held that a law
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-22320)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Mercedes Ruth Cobb-Perez and Damaso P. Perez were the petitioners in a collateral proceeding attacking execution of a final money judgment in Civil Case No. 39407.
- Hon. Gregorio Lantin, etc., et al. were respondents connected with the execution proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VII).
- The movants in the motion for partial reconsideration were the petitioners' counsels, Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A.N. Bolinao (later referred to as A.N. Bolinao, Jr.).
- The Court of Appeals decision of November 15, 1962 sustained Damaso P. Perez with respect to the extent of the levy prior to the later series of filings described in this case.
- The Supreme Court rendered a decision on May 22, 1968 that criticized counsels' conduct and assessed treble costs against the petitioners to be paid by their counsel, prompting the present motion for partial reconsideration.
Key Factual Allegations
- A final money judgment in Civil Case No. 39407 remained unsatisfied for more than eight years after finality because of repeatedly interposed proceedings by the petitioners.
- The petitioners filed civil case 7532 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal and secured an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction that was later lifted by Judge Eulogio Mencias for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
- The petitioners filed an urgent motion to recall or lift the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 39407 on September 3, 1963, alleging the conjugal nature of the levied shares of stock without presenting evidence and without counsel appearing at the hearing.
- The petitioners filed civil case 55292 in Branch XXII of the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking an injunction that Judge Alikpala denied on November 8, 1963 for lack of power to interfere with a coordinate court's judgment.
- On November 8, 1963, Damaso P. Perez filed an "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration" in Civil Case No. 39407 offering to replace levied stocks with alleged cash dividends and promised production of cash dividends which was not fulfilled at the December 21, 1963 hearing.
- The petitioners repeatedly abandoned or dismissed the ancillary actions after they had interrupted the execution process, resulting in multiple postponements of an execution sale.
Procedural History
- The Court of Appeals rendered judgment on November 15, 1962 concerning the extent of the levy.
- Multiple ancillary actions and motions ensued in various tribunals between 1961 and 1964, including civil case 7532 and civil case 55292, as well as repeated motions in Civil Case No. 39407.
- The Supreme Court adjudicated the principal controversy and issued a decision on May 22, 1968 criticizing counsel conduct and imposing treble costs against petitioners to be paid by counsel.
- The petitioners' counsels filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the May 22, 1968 decision which the Court resolved by opinion of July 29, 1968.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Court's adverse observations concerning petitioners' counsels were justified.
- Whether the filing of civil case 7532 and civil case 55292 and other motions amounted to deliberate acts to delay execution.
- Whether treble costs could