G.R. No.

L-42800
Lim Se and Benito Lim,
petitioners

Lim Se v. Argel

April 7, 1976

The Honorable Manuel A. Argel, in his capacity as

Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Caloocan City Branch XXXV; Juana San
Pedro-Ocampo, Francisco San Pedro, Genaro
Bulotano, and The Sheriff of the City of Baguio
and/or his Deputy/Deputies or Deputy Esteban S.
Par,
respondents
Aquino, J.

FACTS:
Lim Se and Benito Lim were leasing from Chiombon, through her attorney-in-fact San Pedro, the
ground floor, mezzanine, and basement of the Venancia Building in Baguio City from 1965 to 1970.
When the lease expired, Lim Se leased the same premises from the Estates of Reyes, Sr. from 1971 to
1973.
An interpleader action was filed by Lim Se and the other tenants against San Pedro and the Estate to
determine to whom rentals will be paid; the Court ruled in favour of the Estate.
From 1974 to 1977, Lim Se and his son Benito leased the premises from the Estate. The New Life
Caf and Restaurant was operated by Benito on the premises.
Meanwhile, Bulatano, who claimed to have purchased on December 9, 1970 the said building from
Ocampo, who allegedly bought it from Chiombon, filed an action for the recovery of rentals and
damages from the Estate, Lim, Ocampo and Remedios for their occupancy of the building. He also
filed a case in the Caloocan City Branch of CFI of Rizal to recover possession against Ocampo and
San Pedro. Ocampo and San Pedro thus instituted a third party complaint against Lim Se and Benito
to vacate the premises. Lim Se and Benito opposed due to improper venue (there was a stipulation in
the contract that in case of a suit, it should be filed in the City of Baguio, which was denied.
A summary judgment was granted in favour of Ocampo and San Pedro, in which Lim Se and Benito
were ordered to vacate the premises. Lim Se and Benito appealed while Ocampo and San Pedro asked
for a writ of execution. Lim Se and Benito also filed an MR and to hold the case in abeyance, which
was denied. The summary judgement was declared final and executory, the appeal not having been
perfected.
A writ of possession instead of the usual writ of execution was issued by the Branch Clerk of Court,
in which the City Sheriff was ordered to take possession of the premises occupied by Lim, to eject
them and anybody claiming under them and to deliver the possession to Ocampo and San Pedro.
Sheriff Par then delivered the writ to Lim and issued an ultimatum that they should remove all their
properties from the premises within two hours.
Petitioners are claiming that the writ was enforced in a most cruel and oppressive manner and that the
Court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of jurisdiction in rendering a summary judgment
in the ejectment case (the third party complaint). After a bond was given by petitioners, a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction was issued, directing the Sheriff to place petitioners in possession of
the premises from which they had been ousted.
Atty. Adaza, a lawyer who never appeared in the lower court and acted independently of both San
Pedros and Ocampos lawyers, filed a motion to lift the injunction.

G.R. No. L-42800

Lim Se v. Argel

April 7, 1976

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Adaza should be cited for contempt.
HELD:
YES.
Atty. Adazas characterization of the mandatory injunction as unjust and a miscarriage of justice and as
devoid of factual and legal basis is unfounded and unwarranted. He treated a resolution of the Court as if
it were a pleading of the adversary which he could assail in unrestrained or abrasive language. His unjustified
and disrespectful characterization carries with it obvious derogatory implications or innuendos which
clearly constitute direct contempt or contempt in facie curiae.
We hold Atty. Adaza guilty of direct contempt. However, considering his manifest inexperience in appellate
court practice, instead of punishing him with imprisonment or fine, he is hereby severely reprimanded and
warned that a repetition of the said act would be more drastically dealt with.