Case Summary (A.C. No. 3283)
Underlying Ejectment Case and Appeal Sequence
Respondent represented Elsa Dy Co in an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 844) in the MTC, which ruled in favor of petitioner’s mother and ordered Co to vacate the premises. Co appealed to the RTC without posting a supersedeas bond or paying monthly rentals; the RTC affirmed. Co then attempted an ordinary appeal to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 11404) instead of a petition for review, leading to dismissal for noncompliance with B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 22 and Interim Rules, Sec. 22(b). The MTC judgment became final and executory on November 19, 1986.
Multiple Post-Judgment Actions and Dilatory Tactics
Between 1987 and 1989, respondent filed six separate actions—motions and petitions before the CA, the SC, and the RTC—seeking annulment, reconsideration, injunctive relief, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to delay or set aside execution of the MTC judgment. Key filings included:
- Manifestation and Motion for Annulment (CA-G.R. SP No. 11690), admitted but later remanded and ultimately dismissed for lack of grounds (voidness or fraud).
- Petition for Review on Certiorari to the SC (G.R. No. 86084), denied as filed and paid late.
- Special Civil Action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in the RTC to annul the writ of execution, denied at both trial and appellate levels.
Ethical Standards Under the 1987 Constitution and the Code of Professional Responsibility
Under the 1987 Constitution’s guarantee of due process and the efficient administration of justice, the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to represent clients within the bounds of law (Canon 19; Rules 19.01, 19.03) and to promote the speedy and efficient administration of justice (Canon 12; Rules 12.02, 12.04). A lawyer must not prosecute frivolous claims or appeals, abuse court processes, or impede execution of judgments.
Abuse of Judicial Process and Forum Shopping
The Court found respondent’s persistent filings constituted dilatory motions, re
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 3283)
Facts of the Case
- Pacifica Millare, mother of the complainant, obtained a favorable ejectment judgment from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Bangued, Abra (Civil Case No. 844), ordering Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises.
- Elsa Dy Co, represented by respondent Atty. Montero, appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Bangued, Abra, without filing a supersedeas bond or paying the rentals adjudged by the MTC.
- The RTC affirmed the MTC decision in toto.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Co’s appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 11404) for failure to comply with the proper procedure, holding that Co should have filed a petition for review, not an ordinary appeal.
- The MTC judgment became final and executory on November 19, 1986.
Respondent’s Post-Judgment Maneuvers
- January 2, 1987: Respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 11404, characterizing the MTC and RTC decisions as “null and void” for allegedly allowing a 300% rental increase.
- February 23, 1987: The CA gave due course to his motion and retained the records; November 10, 1987: Records were remanded to the RTC.
- March 9, 1987: Respondent filed CA-G.R. SP No. 11690, a Petition for Annulment of Decisions and/or Reformation or Novation, asserting that the earlier decisions were not in accordance with law.
- December 17, 1987: CA dismissed the petition, noting no allegation of want of jurisdiction, denial of due process, or fraud in obtaining the judgments.
- January and February 1988: Respondent’s Urgent Motions for Reconsideration and for Oral Argument were denied by the CA.
Additional Litigious Actions
- G.R. No. 86084: Respondent filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging the MTC and RTC decisions; it was denied for late filing, and a motion for reconsideration