A.C. No. 3283 - Millare vs. Montero

Case Summary (A.C. No. 3283)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

The Supreme Court decision reviewed the IBP’s disciplinary report and adopted its findings. Relevant litigation timeline in the record: MTC judgment became final and executory on November 19, 1986; respondent filed various motions and petitions between January 1987 and 1989 seeking to avoid execution; writ of execution issued October 18, 1988; respondent’s petitions and motions were repeatedly denied at the CA and Supreme Court, culminating in disciplinary proceedings before the IBP and the Supreme Court’s adoption of a one-year suspension.

Applicable Law and Ethical Standards

Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the exercise of judicial power and the Supreme Court’s disciplinary authority. The controlling professional norms are the Code of Professional Responsibility, in particular Canon 19 (advocacy within the bounds of the law; Rules 19.01 and 19.03) and Canon 12 (duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice; Rules 12.02 and 12.04). Procedural provisions relevant to the underlying civil litigation include Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 129 and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, and Rule 38 (as cited by appellate courts in determining available post-judgment remedies). The IBP investigated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court.

Factual Background of the Underlying Litigation

Pacifica Millare obtained a favorable ejectment judgment from the MTC ordering Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises (Civil Case No. 844). Co, through respondent as counsel, appealed to the RTC but failed to file a supersedeas bond and did not pay adjudged rentals. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision. The CA dismissed Co’s appeal from the RTC for procedural defects (holding that a petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, should have been filed). The MTC judgment became final and executory on November 19, 1986.

Post-Judgment Proceedings Initiated by Respondent

After finality, respondent filed repeated pleadings and actions to prevent or delay execution: a Manifestation and Motion (Jan. 2, 1987) in the CA, a Petition for Annulment of Decisions or Reformation/Novation (CA-G.R. SP No. 11690) on March 9, 1987, several motions for reconsideration and for oral arguments, a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 86084) which the Court denied as late-filed, a Motion for Issuance of Prohibitory/Restraining Order, and a special civil action for certiorari/prohibition/mandamus with preliminary injunction filed in the RTC (SP CV No. 624) seeking annulment of the writ of execution. The provincial sheriff deferred implementation at one point. The CA and RTC denied his petitions and motions, and the writ of execution ultimately issued and implementation efforts proceeded.

Multiplicity of Actions and Allegation of Forum Shopping

The Supreme Court enumerated six separate actions filed by respondent aimed at forestalling execution: the appeal to the RTC (Civil Case No. 344), the CA appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 11404), the annulment/novation petition to the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 11690), the petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 86084), a subsequent CA certiorari/review (CA-G.R. SP No. 17040), and the special civil action in the RTC (SP CV No. 624). The Court characterized this litany of filings as constituting forum shopping and repetitious litigation designed to delay enforcement of a final judgment.

Legal Standards on Professional Conduct and Abuse of Process

The Court reiterated that a lawyer’s advocacy must remain within the bounds of the law: an attorney may present any arguable construction favorable to the client but may not knowingly advance claims or defenses unwarranted by existing law. Canon 12 forbids filing multiple actions arising from the same cause (Rule 12.02) and prohibits unduly delaying a case, impeding execution of a judgment, or misusing court processes (Rule 12.04). The Court cited authorities recognizing that filing dilatory motions, repetitious litigation, and frivolous appeals to frustrate execution is unethical and may justify disciplinary measures.

Analysis of Respondent’s Conduct

The Court found that respondent initially pursued legitimate appellate remedies but thereafter engaged in a pattern of devious and underhanded tactics to delay execution. Key analytical points the Court relied upon were: (1) the failure of Co to post supersedeas bond and to pay rentals rendered the MTC judgment executable despite pending appeals; (2) the annulment petition filed in the CA was defective and dilatory because it did not allege jurisdictional defects, lack of due process, or fraud—grounds required to annul a final judgment; (3) when the CA remanded the records, the respondent knew execution was ripe, yet he continued to file actions intended primarily to delay enforcement; and (4) the totality of six filings demonstrated either incompetence or willful abuse of procedural remedies amounting to forum shopping and misuse of court processes. The Court

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 3283)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

316 Phil. 29, FIRST DIVISION; A.C. No. 3283; Decision dated July 13, 1995.
This is a complaint for disbarment referred by the Supreme Court, pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
On April 15, 1994, the IBP Board of Governors rendered a decision finding respondent guilty of malpractice and recommending suspension from the practice of law.
The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP findings and rendered the present Decision, imposing disciplinary sanction.

Parties and Principal Actors

Petitioner: Rodolfo Millare (acting on behalf of or associated with Pacifica Millare, the mother of the complainant).
Complainant (principal adverse party in the underlying ejectment litigation): Pacifica Millare (mother of the complainant referenced in the record).
Respondent: Atty. Eustaquio Z. Montero, counsel for Elsa Dy Co.
Other named actors: Elsa Dy Co (defendant in ejectment action), Romulo V. Paredes (provincial sheriff).

Underlying Civil Litigation (Facts in Civil Case No. 844, MTC, Bangued, Abra)

Pacifica Millare obtained a favorable judgment from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Bangued, Abra, in Civil Case No. 844, ordering Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises which were the subject of the ejectment case.
Elsa Dy Co, through respondent as counsel, appealed the MTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Bangued, Abra.
Elsa Dy Co did not file a supersedeas bond and did not pay the rentals adjudged by the MTC while the appeal was pending.
The RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the MTC.
The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Co’s appeal from the decision of the RTC for failure to comply with Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 129 and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, explaining that Co should have filed a petition for review and not an ordinary appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 11404).
The judgment of the MTC became final and executory on November 19, 1986.

Chronology of Respondent’s Post-Judgment Filings and Pleadings (Selected Dates and Filings)

January 2, 1987: Respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 11404, admitting error in filing an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for review, arguing the MTC and RTC decisions were null and void for being contrary to law, justice and equity (alleging an improper 300% increase in rentals), and praying to be allowed to file an action for annulment.
February 23, 1987: CA gave due course to respondent’s Manifestation and Motion and allowed the records to remain with it.
March 9, 1987: Respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Decisions and/or Reformation or Novation of Decisions of the MTC and RTC (CA-G.R. SP No. 11690), insisting the decisions were not in accordance with existing laws and policies.
November 10, 1987: CA ordered the records in CA-G.R. CV No. 11404 to be remanded to the court a quo.
December 17, 1987: CA dismissed the petition for annulment or novation (CA-G.R. SP No. 11690), explaining that a judgment can be set aside only if (a) void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process, or (b) obtained by fraud, and that no allegation of fraud or lack of jurisdiction appeared in the petition.
January 15, 1988: Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Motion for Reconsideration for Oral Arguments; CA denied the motion.
February 12, 1988: CA denied respondent’s Motion for Oral Argument.
April 14, 1988: Respondent requested CA to set his Motion for Oral Arguments on this date (request denied by CA resolutions).
October 18, 1988: CA denied motion for reconsideration of its February 12 resolution.
July 6, 1988: Respondent filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Prohibitory or Restraining Order in CA-G.R. SP No. 11690.
December 12, 1988 (filing) / November 12, 1988 (payment): Respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 86084), which the Court denied in a Resolution dated January 4, 1989 for having been filed and paid late (December 12, 1988 and November 12, 1988, respectively); a motion for reconsideration was likewise denied with finality.

Execution Proceedings and Attempts to Halt Execution

April 12, 1988: Pacifica Millare filed a Motion for Execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 844.
Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for Execution on the ground that the case was still pending review by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 11690 and that execution was therefore premature.
August 23, 1988: The MTC ordered the issuance of a writ of execution.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order to issue the writ of execution; the motion was denied.
The RTC affirmed the order for issuance of the writ of execution.
October 18, 1988: A writ of execution was issued pursuant to the foregoing orders.
October 26, 19