SECOND DIVISION
RIZALINO
C.
FERNANDEZ,
Complainant,
Adm.
Case
No. 5036
January 13, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
DIONISIO C.
ISIDTO,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
MENDOZA,
J
.:
This is a complaint
against respondent Atty. Dionisio C. Isidto for misconduct and
violation
of the lawyer’s oath.
Complainant Rizalino
C. Fernandez is the son of Vicente K. Fernandez, plaintiff in Civil
Case
No. 3726, entitled "Vicente K. Fernandez v. Cresencia Dahildahil,"
filed
in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Bacolod City. He alleges that
on
February 24, 1997, judgment was rendered by the trial court declaring
his
father to be the owner of Lot Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of the Bacolod Cadastre
covered by TCT No. 29264 and ordering defendant Cresencia Dahildahil to
surrender possession of the lots to the plaintiff. According to
complainant,
the decision became final on October 3, 1998 as defendant Dahildahil,
who
had filed a notice of appeal, decided not to pursue her appeal upon the
advice of respondent Atty. Isidto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant claims that
on May 24, 1999, the trial court issued a writ of execution, but
respondent
moved to quash the same on the ground of the pendency of another case
filed
in Branch 11 of the same court. It appears that respondent had filed on
October 26, 1998 a complaint, entitled "William Ko, Sio Bee Ko, and
Chona
Ko v. Rizalino Fernandez, Virginia Fernandez, Elena Fernandez, Vicky
Fernandez,
Vivian Fernandez and Venancia Fernandez" and docketed as Civil Case No.
98-10520, in which he sought the cancellation of a certificate of title
issued in the name of Vicente K. Fernandez (TCT No. 29264), which had
been
declared valid in Civil Case No. 3726.cralaw:red
On August 18, 1999,
the trial court denied respondent’s motion to quash on the ground that
the action instituted by respondent in behalf of the children of
Cresencia
Dahildahil was barred by the judgment of February 24, 1997 in Civil
Case
No. 3726. Respondent filed a supplemental motion to quash the writ, but
it was similarly denied by the trial court on December 9, 1999.
Meanwhile,
on motion of the children of Vicente K. Fernandez, as defendants in
Civil
Case No. 98-10520, the trial court dismissed the complaint filed by
respondent
as it was barred by the judgment in Civil Case No. 3726. Respondent
filed
a notice of appeal and, on his motion, the Court of Appeals granted him
an extension to file the appellants’ brief. Nonetheless, for unknown
reasons,
respondent failed to file the appellants’ brief, as a result of which
the
appeal was dismissed.cralaw:red
Complainant claims that
respondent’s actions were calculated to delay the execution of the
decision
of Civil Case No. 3726.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent denies the
allegations made against him. He claims that although it was upon his
advice
that Dahildahil did not pursue her appeal in Civil Case No. 3726, he
nevertheless
filed Civil Case No. 98-10520 in behalf of Dahildahil’s children
because
he honestly believed that they had a valid ground for seeking the
cancellation
of the certificate of title in the name of Vicente K. Fernandez. He
contended
that the decision in Civil Case No. 3726 did not constitute a bar to
the
filing of Civil Case No. 98-10520 as the two cases involved different
parties
and causes of action.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant filed a
Reply and Supplemental Reply to respondent’s comment, after which the
case
was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation,
report and recommendation. In its Resolution No. XV-2002-404, dated
August
3, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation of its
Investigating Commissioner, Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr., that respondent be
suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one year for "misu[sing] the
[R]ules
[of] Procedure to impede the noble ends of justice."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The investigating commissioner’s
report reads in pertinent parts:
The records sufficiently
establish that Vicente Fernandez (father of complainant) filed Civil
Case
No. 3726 (hereinafter referred to as the first case) in the Regional
Trial
Court of Bacolod City on October 10, 1985 against Cresencia Dahildahil
(common law wife of Ko Chun) involving Lots 3, 4, and 5 all of Bacolod
Cadastre covered by TCT No. 29264 of the Registry of Deeds of Bacolod
City.
The action was for recovery of possession and sum of money.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case suffered considerable
delay due to one reason or another stated in the trial court’s decision
of February 24, 1997. Finally, after eleven (11) long years of
litigation,
the trial court resolved the main issue that "plaintiff presented
sufficient
evidence to prove his ownership of Lot 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, evidenced
by TCT No. 29264" (page 18 Decision; Annex A of Complainant’s Position
Paper) and ordered the defendant Dahildahil to return possession of the
property to plaintiff.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The decision was appealed
by Dahildahil to the Court of Appeals. But, later, she abandoned her
appeal
(CA G.R. No. 56999) and did not pursue it on the advice of herein
respondent
(Comment of Respondent dated August 5, 1999). Consequently, the Court
of
Appeals dismissed the appeal which dismissal became final on October 3,
1998.cralaw:red
On October 26, 1998,
or 23 days after the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Case No. 98-10520
(hereinafter
referred to as the second case) was instituted by Dahildahil’s children
against the heirs of Vicente Fernandez, including the complainant, for
cancellation of title of the same property litigated in Civil Case No.
3726 (first case) and adjudged by the court as belonging to Vicente
Fernandez,
upon the advice of herein respondent (Respondent’s Position Paper on
page
2).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At this juncture, it
is worth mentioning that [the] plaintiffs in the second case (children
of Dahildahil by the late Ko Chun) merely adopted as their cause of
action
the defense put up by their mother in the first case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the final judgment
in the first case (Civil Case No. 3726) was being executed by the
prevailing
party, the defendant Dahildahil, thru respondent, vigorously opposed
the
move on the ground that the pendency of the second case (Civil Case No.
98-10520) "poses a civil prejudicial question which must be resolved
before
any further proceedings," or execution, can be taken in the first case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With equal vigor, the
trial court rejected this position. It ruled that precisely "there
being
identity of parties - plaintiffs and defendants in Civil Case No.
98-10520
(second case) are mere successors-in-interest of the parties at bar;
[as
the] cause[s] of action and subject matter [of the two cases are the
same],
the finding of this Court having become final and executory, res
judicata
sets in and Civil Case No. 98-10520 is barred by prior judgment"
(Resolution
dated August 19, 1999; Annex A of the Supplemental Reply).cralaw:red
Notwithstanding all
the foregoing, however, with evident obduracy, respondent continued to
resist execution of the judgment in the first case [by filing a
supplemental
motion to quash the writ of execution] reasoning out this time around
that
the judgment in the first case will operate only as against Dahildahil
but not [as] against her children (plaintiffs in the second case), who
were not parties to the first case (Supplemental Motion to Quash Writ
of
Execution dated August 20, 1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Once more the trial
court repudiated this feeble stand of the respondent and [denied
Dahildahil’s
Supplemental Motion to Quash Writ of Execution].
Under the Revised Rules
of Court, a lawyer shall "counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings
as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to
be
honestly debatable under the law." (Rule 138, Sec. 20, C)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The persistent obstruction
engineered by the respondent to the execution of the final judgment in
the first case coupled with his filing of the second case which was
primarily
intended to relitigate the settled issue of ownership of subject
property
is clearly transgressive of this rule.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Resolution of August
19, 1999 (which resolve[d] respondent’s "motion to quash writ of
execution"
in the first case) and the Order of December 9, 1999 (which resolve[d]
the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent of the August 19,
1999
resolution) as well as the Order dated August 3, 2000 (which resolve[d]
the "motion to dismiss" and the "Opposition" thereto filed in the
second
case), discussed thoroughly the doctrine of res judicata.
Unfortunately,
however, the respondent did not benefit from the lessons therein.cralaw:red
Likewise clear in the
judgment dated February 24, 1997 (first case) is the trial court’s
resolution
of the question of "who is the true owner of Lot No. 3, Block 1, Lot 4,
Block 1 and Lot 5, Block 1 evidenced by TCT No. T-29264, the plaintiff
(Vicente Fernandez, herein complainant’s father) or the late Ko Chun"
(father
of respondent’s client who are plaintiffs in the second case) (on page
3).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issue of "true ownership,"
therefore, of the lots in question is no longer debatable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From all of the foregoing,
it is not unreasonable to conclude and hold that respondent indeed
availed
of unfair means to unduly delay the termination of the first and second
cases which achieve[d] his objective of prolonging the enjoyment of the
property by his clients gratis et amore and to the detriment and
prejudice
of the complainant.cralaw:red
Stated in another way,
the respondent misused the rules of procedure to impede the noble ends
of justice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Premises considered,
therefore, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent Atty.
Dionisio
Isidto be temporarily suspended from the practice of law for a period
of
one (1) year with the stern warning that a repetition of any similar
act
shall merit a more harsh sanction.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case has been transmitted
to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B §12 (b) of the 1964 Rules of
Court. After a review of this case, we find the IBP report and
recommendation
to be well taken.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First. The Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer
shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat
the ends of justice.cralaw:red
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer
shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file.briefs, let
the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so.cralaw:red
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer
shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse
court processes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To be sure, respondent
advised his client (Dahildahil) to desist from her appeal in Civil Case
No. 3726, as a result of which the trial court’s decision in that case
became final and executory. However, he subsequently filed Civil Case
No.
98-10520 in behalf of his client’s children, based on the same ground
invoked
by Dahildahil in Civil Case No. 3726, and later invoked the pendency of
the said Civil Case No. 98-10520 to block execution of the judgment in
Civil Case No. 3726. Such subterfuge proved unsuccessful as the trial
court
dismissed Civil Case No. 98-10520 under the doctrine of res judicata.
Respondent
then filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, only to let
the
period for filing the appellant’s brief lapse without complying with
the
requirement despite an extension granted to him to do so. All these
clearly
show respondent’s efforts to frustrate the final judgment in Civil Case
No. 3726, which remained pending in the trial court for nearly 18 years.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The conduct of respondent
constitutes a clear violation of Rules 10.03, 12.03 and 12.04. This
Court
has repeatedly impressed upon counsels that the need for the prompt
termination
of litigation "is essential to an effective and efficient
administration
of justice and [that] once a judgment has become final, the winning
party
be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the
verdict."[3]
As officers of the court, "lawyers have a responsibility to assist in
the
proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by
filing
pointless [cases] that only add to the workload of the judiciary.which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study of the facts and
the
law should advise them when a case should not be permitted to be filed
to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not
advance
the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for
sheer
lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second. Respondent’s
contention that Civil Case No. 98-10520 is not barred by the prior
judgment
in Civil Case No. 3726 because the two involved different parties and
causes
of action have no legal basis. The doctrine of res judicata applies not
only to the same parties but also to their successors-in-interest.[5]
In this case, the respective heirs of the parties in Civil Case No.
3726,
became the parties in Civil Case No. 98-10520, which concerned the same
parcels of land and the same title subject of litigation in Civil Case
No. 3726. Furthermore, as the IBP investigating commissioner noted, the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 98-10520 merely adopted the defense raised
by their mother Cresencia Dahildahil in Civil Case No. 3726, i.e.,
their
natural father, Ko Chun, had purchased the parcels of land in question
from a certain Venancio Lim but had them titled in the name of Vicente
Fernandez, his nephew, because of the prohibition of ownership of real
estate by aliens. Thus, the complaint in Civil Case No. 98-10520
alleged:
2. That the plaintiffs
are the son[s] and daughter of spouses Ko Chun and Cresencia
Dahildahil,
said spouses not [being] legally married[.] Plaintiffs are Filipino
citizens,
while the defendants are the children of spouses Vicente Fernandez and
Venancia Chua Fernandez;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. That in the month
of August 1965 Ko Chun purchased Lot 3 Block 1, Lot 4 Block 1 and Lot 5
Block 1 from the original owner Venancio Lim for the sum of
P65,000.00[.]
Ko Chun being a Chinese citizen put the title of the property in the
name
of Vicente Fernandez,. a relative of Ko Chun.[6]
On the other hand, as
the trial court stated in its decision in Civil Case No. 3726:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her answer with counterclaim,
defendant alleges inter alia: That subject properties Lot 3, Block 1,
Lot
4 Blk. 1 and Lot 5 Blk. 1 all situated in the City of Bacolod,.are
actually owned by her husband Ko Chun or his estate. The money paid for
the acquisition of said lots came from the exclusive and personal funds
of the Ko Chun. However, since the late Ko Chun at the time of the
acquisition
of said properties was a Chinese citizen, he placed the title of said
properties
in the name of the plaintiff, Vicente K. Fernandez, in order to
circumvent
or do away with the constitutional prohibition against aliens, who are
disqualified from acquiring properties in the Philippines.[7]
In its decision in Civil
Case No. 3726, the trial court declared Vicente K. Fernandez to be the
owner of the parcels of land in question. The trial court said:
After going over the
version of the plaintiff [Vicente Fernandez] as supported by the
testimonial
evidence of his witnesses as well as his documentary evidence and the
version
of the defendant [Cresencia Dahildahil], supported by the testimonial
evidence
of her witnesses as well as her documentary evidence, this Court is
inclined
to give plaintiff’s version more credit and weight.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All told, plaintiff
has presented sufficient evidence to prove his ownership of Lots 3, 4,
and 5, Block 1, evidenced by TCT No. T-29264.cralaw:red
While on the other hand,
the evidence presented by defendant falls short of establishing the
ownership
of her [late] husband [Ko Chun] of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, evidenced
by TCT No. T-29264.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As successors-in-interest
of their mother Cresencia Dahildahil, the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
98-10520 are bound by the foregoing findings.cralaw:red
In Millare v. Montero,[9]
this Court suspended the respondent attorney from the practice of law
for
a period of one year for trying to frustrate the execution of a
judgment
through the filing of frivolous appeals and resort to other dilatory
tactics.
We find it appropriate for the same penalty to be meted out to
respondent
in this case.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the IBP Investigating Commissioner as approved by the IBP Board of
Governors,
finding respondent Atty. Dionisio C. Isidto guilty of violation of
Rules
10.03, 12.03, and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is
AFFIRMED and respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for
one (1) year, with WARNING that commission of any or similar acts would
be dealt with more severely. Let copies of the Decision be entered in
his
record as an attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
(IBP) and all the courts in the country for their information and
guidance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman), Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Comment, pp. 1-3; Rollo, pp. 28-31.
[2]
Report and Recommendation, pp. 5-6, 8-10, 12, 16-19.
[3]
Chua Huat v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 1, 15 (1991) citing Li Kom Tho
v. Go Siu Kao, 82 Phil. 776, 778 (1949).
[4]
Baragon v. Zerna, 154 SCRA 593, 598 (1987).
[5]
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 39, §47 par. (b).
[6]
Rollo, p. 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
RTC Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p. 6.
[8]
Id., pp. 14, 18; id., pp. 18, 22.
[9]
246 SCRA 1 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|