Title
IN RE: Eligio Mallari
Case
A.C. No. 11111
Decision Date
Jan 10, 2018
Atty. Mallari delayed GSIS foreclosure via multiple suits, violating legal ethics. Supreme Court suspended him for 2 years for obstructing justice.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11111)

Facts of the Case

In 1968, Mallari secured two loans from the GSIS, amounting to P34,000, which were secured by mortgages on two properties held in his and his wife's names. After failing to repay the loans, GSIS initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure on March 21, 1984. Despite delays caused by Mallari's requests for account statements and subsequent actions, the GSIS eventually completed the foreclosure on July 21, 1986. Mallari pursued an injunction against the foreclosure, but his case was ultimately dismissed with the Court of Appeals upholding the GSIS's position.

Procedural History

Following an ex parte motion for execution filed by the GSIS, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a writ of possession on October 21, 1999, which Mallari attempted to thwart by filing motions to quash the writ and for contempt against GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff. Mallari's motions, however, were repeatedly denied. The IBP-CBD later investigated him for perceived violations of his professional responsibilities.

Issues of Legal Disciplinary Actions

The primary issues leading to this administrative case include Mallari's alleged deliberate disregard of the Rules of Court regarding the writ of possession under Act No. 3135, his violations of the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The complaint highlighted his actions as being indicative of bad faith and a strategy to stall legal processes to his benefit.

Findings of the IBP-CBD

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Committee on Bar Discipline found that Mallari engaged in dilatory tactics intended to impede the execution of a final judgment in favor of GSIS. The committee noted a clear violation of his responsibility to uphold the law and observed that Mallari's repeated legal maneuvers contravened the principles of candor and good faith owed to the court.

Final Ruling and Penalty

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the IBP. While the initial recommendation suggested a one-year suspension, the Court opted to impose a two-year suspension from the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.