ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 3745 October 2, 1995 - CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA v. BENJAMIN B. BULALACAO

  • G.R. No. 94702 October 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ACUÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97143 October 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO FIGUEROA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1325 October 4, 1995 - PABLO ESPAÑOLA v. VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY

  • G.R. No. 102672 October 4, 1995 - PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118533 October 4, 1995 - PABLO R OLIVAREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Adm. Case No. 4405 October 6, 1995 - BIENVENIDO SANCHEZ v. GALILEO P. BRION

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-972 October 6, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MA. GORGONIA L. FLORES

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1006 October 6, 1995 - LERMA CHUA MARTINEZ v. ALDO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. 76490 October 6, 1995 - ISAGANI SABINIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104604 & 111223 October 6, 1995 - NARCISO O. JAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110634 October 6, 1995 - RUFINO O. ESLAO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. Nos. 111206-08 October 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 116183 October 6, 1995 - RICARDO T. GLORIA v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 117092 October 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO C. LAO

  • G.R. Nos. 118712 & 118745 October 6, 1995 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995 - LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ASS’N. OF LUZON DEV’T. BANK EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1033 October 10, 1995 - MARIBETH CORDOVA, ET AL. v. EMMA C. LABAYEN

  • G.R. No. 117732 October 10, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS C. SALILING

  • G.R. No. 93915 October 11, 1995 - AUGUSTO EVANGELISTA v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 99049 October 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO A. BARQUILLA

  • G.R. No. 117009 October 11, 1995 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118013-14 October 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99263 October 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PACIFICO R. LAZARO

  • G.R. Nos. 119987-88 October 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO B. VENERACION

  • Adm. Case No. 4380 October 13, 1995 - NICANOR GONZALES, ET AL., v. MIGUEL SABACAJAN

  • G.R. No. 103911 October 13, 1995 - EDGARDO E. LOPEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 109373 & 112991 October 13, 1995 - PACIFIC BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES ORG., ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 October 13, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 107101 October 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLO S. RODICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108515 October 16, 1995 - LUIS BALANTAKBO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110053 October 16, 1995 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110544 October 17, 1995 - REYNALDO V. TUANDA, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 105649 October 18, 1995 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111634 October 18, 1995 - KOMATSU INDUSTRIES (PHIL.), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116062 October 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO BANTISIL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 116462 October 18, 1995 - RENO FOODS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116910 October 18, 1995 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., ET. AL. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114841-42 October 20, 1995 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103915 October 23, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTOR PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106477 October 23, 1995 - GLOBE GENERAL SERVICES AND SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 111837 October 24, 1995 - NEW YORK MARINE MANAGERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112969-70 October 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO PADRE-E

  • G.R. No. 118584 October 24, 1995 - AURELIA S. GOMEZ v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120823 October 24, 1995 - HADJI HAMID PATORAY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-716 October 25, 1995 - MA. BLYTH B. ABADILLA v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-892 October 25, 1995 - SAN MANUEL WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. RAMON B. TUPAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-907 October 25, 1995 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. JOSELITO SD. GENEROSO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-979 October 25, 1995 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. ADOLFO B. MOLINA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1081 October 25, 1995 - VIRGINIA E. BURGOS v. JOSEFINA R. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 95573 October 25, 1995 - GSIS v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99058 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIXBERTO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102976 October 25, 1995 - IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110815-16 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY SINATAO

  • G.R. No. 111688 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO @ "FELITOY" BRIOL, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 112713 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TAMPARONG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 108115 October 27, 1995 - PHILIPPINE SOAP BOX DERBY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117083 October 27, 1995 - LAZARO V. KAVINTA v. PRUDENCIO ALTRE CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112448 October 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115455, 115525, 115543, 115544, 115754, 115781, 115852, 115873 & 115931 October 30, 1995 - ARTURO M. TOLENTINO v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Case No. 4405   October 6, 1995 - BIENVENIDO SANCHEZ v. GALILEO P. BRION

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [Adm. Case No. 4405. October 6, 1995.]

    BIENVENIDO SANCHEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. GALILEO P. BRION, Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; WILFULL AND DELIBERATE PRACTICE OF FORUM-SHOPPING CONSTITUTES ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES; DISCIPLINARY ACTION WARRANTED. — Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyer’s duty. The Court has time and again warned counsel of litigants not to abuse court processes. Lawyers have been repeatedly warned by the Court not to resort to forum-shopping for this practice clogs the court dockets. Wilfull and deliberate forum-shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court in SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94 dated 01 April 1994. In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly observed that respondent Brion resorted to forum-shopping and should therefore be sanctioned. However, the supreme penalty of disbarment is, in the light of all the circumstances of this case, too harsh.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    Complainant filed the present administrative complaint seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Galileo P. Brion for alleged forum-shopping grounded on the following facts and circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Complainant and his spouse were plaintiffs in an ejectment case entitled "Florentina Sanchez, Et. Al. v. Rolando de Guzman, Et. Al." decided on 26 September 1985 by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 33, Quezon City in complainant’s favor.

    2. The decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, having become final and executory, a writ of execution was issued on 13 December 1985.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    3. Enforcement of the writ of execution was, however, stayed when the parties to the case started negotiations for a compromise agreement.

    4. The compromise agreement, eventually executed by the parties, provided that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    a. Plaintiffs Sanchez would execute a deed of absolute sale of the lot, subject of the ejectment suit, in favor of defendants de Guzman.

    b. Defendants de Guzman would pay the plaintiffs the amount of P150,000.00.

    5. When the defendants failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, plaintiffs sought to enforce the decision of the metropolitan trial court in the ejectment case.

    6. Herein respondent Atty. Brion, as counsel for the defendants, opposed the motion to execute the judgment in the ejectment case.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    7. On 9 March 1992, an alias writ of execution was issued by the metropolitan trial court.

    8. Herein respondent then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City assailing the issuance of the alias writ of execution in the ejectment case.

    9. While the petition for certiorari and prohibition was pending, Brion also filed against the Sanchez spouses a complaint for breach based on the terms of the compromise agreement previously adverted to.

    10. On 4 May 1992, the RTC of Quezon City decided the petition for certiorari and prohibition, quashing the alias writ of execution issued by the metropolitan trial court but ordering that a hearing be conducted by the trial court on the motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution, determine the truth of the respective allegations raised by the contending parties.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    11. This order of the RTC in the certiorari and prohibition case was challenged by Atty. Brion through another petition for certiorari and prohibition, this time before the Court of Appeals which, however, dismissed the same.

    12. Atty. Brion appealed to this Court the aforesaid dismissal by the Court of Appeals and on 3 I March 1993, the Court, in G.R. No. 106894, denied the petition for review for lack of merit.

    13. Notwithstanding the ruling of this Court, respondent Brion again filed with the RTC of Quezon City, where the breach of contract case was pending, a motion for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of the alias writ of execution issued in the ejectment case.

    14. Pending resolution of the last mentioned motion, respondent Brion again filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court, of Quezon City seeking to annul the order granting an alias writ of execution in the ejectment case.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    15. Finally, on 2 March 1995, respondent Brion filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals seeking once again to enjoin execution of the judgment in the ejectment case.

    16. The Court of Appeals initially issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) but in a resolution dated 13 March 1995, the appellate court lifted the TRO earlier issued and denied the relief prayed for. Said court further stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "We cannot however write finis to the incident at bench without calling to task counsel for petitioners for his resort to what we perceive is forum-shopping, by renewing before us his plea for injunctive relief when the Supreme Court had already ruled in G.R. No. 106894 that the pendency of a complaint for specific performance, breach of contract and damages before a regional trial court does not abate the enforcement of a decision for ejectment of a metropolitan trial court He should take heed in the admonition in Ferinion v. Sta. Romana, 16 SCRA 370, that while access to the courts is guaranteed, there must be a limit to it, and that a litigant does not have the unbridled license to revive an issue which had already been passed upon with finality."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In his comment on the present complaint for forum-shopping against him, respondent Brion contends that his honesty and good faith in pursuing what he believed to be a justifiable cause of his clients should not merit administrative sanction from this Court. He vigorously contends that the judgment in the ejectment case against his clients can no longer be executed in view of supervening events.

    We are not fully convinced by respondent’s arguments.

    Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyer’s duty.

    The Court has time and again warned counsel of litigants not to abuse court processes. Lawyers have been repeatedly warned by the Court not to resort to forum-shopping for this practice clogs the court dockets. Wilfull and deliberate forum-shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court in SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94 dated 01 April 1994.

    In this case, the court of Appeals correctly observed that respondent Brion resorted to forum shopping and should therefore be sanctioned.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    However, the supreme penalty of disbarment is, in the light of all the circumstances of this case, too harsh.

    ACCORDINGLY, the complaint for disbarment is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent Atty. Galileo P. Brion is however CENSURED for resorting to unbridled forum-shopping and is WARNED that any future violation of his duties as a lawyer will be dealt with more severely.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Hermosisima, JJ., concur.

    Adm. Case No. 4405   October 6, 1995 - BIENVENIDO SANCHEZ v. GALILEO P. BRION


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED