IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the
Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid
Office, Art.1, Sec. 1
IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the
Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid
Office, Art.1, Sec. 1
IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the
Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid
Office, Art.1, Sec. 1
CASTRO; July 30, 1975
(glaisa po)
NATURE
- Petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals
FACTS
- 1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against
Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries.
-1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
- 1961 – SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ
of execution; Ago’s motion denied, levy was made on Ago’s
house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale, Ago moved to
stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC ffirmed
dismissal
- Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary
injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of
execution; his motions were denied
- 1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and
Henson; Ago failed to redeem
- 1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued
writ of possession to the properties
- 1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered
against him in the replevin suit saying it was his personal
obligation and that his wife ½ share in their conjugal house
could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of QC
issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda
the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the
final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and
restoring the restraining order continued
- 1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession; SC
dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which
also dismissed the
petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition
- Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the CA which gave due course to the petition and
granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
WON the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid
controversy
HELD
- No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the
complaint for the annulment of the sheriff’s sale, justice
demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of
their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for,
the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison,
have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial
process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the
extended prejudice of the petitioners.
- Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant
and his exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty.
Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of
controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a
mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a
virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead
of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral
justice.
- A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and
honesty his client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be
commended; what the SC does not and cannot countenance
is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his
client’s position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the
merit or lack of his case. If he finds his client’s cause as
defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter to
acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and
caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to
litigate.
ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING I
IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the
Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid
Office, Art.1, Sec. 1
IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the
Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid
Office, Art.1, Sec. 1
IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the
Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid
Office, Art.1, Sec. 1
LLICIT RELATIONSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT
Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro, complainant vs. Attys.
Warfredo Tomas Alejandro and Maricris A. Villarin,
respondent
February 13, 2004
Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract
between her andrespondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge
of bigamy and concubinage against thelatter and Villarin. She also
submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of
therespondent and also stated that they were married in
May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.The Supreme Court
directed respondents to file their comment on
the complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of
the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both
respondents unserved with notation ³moved´, same as when served
personally.Complainant was required anew to submit the correct,
present address of respondents underpain of dismissal of her
administrative complaint. She disclosed respondent¶s address at
12403Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both
respondents be disbarred.The Supreme Court ordered Atty.
Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his co-
respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further
proceedings or it appears that acopy of the resolution requiring
comment was never ³deemed served´ upon her as it was
upon Atty. Alejandro.
Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an
illicit relationship withanother woman are grounds for
disbarment.Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty.
Alejandro, lawfully married tocomplainant, carried on an
illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin.
Although theevidence was not sufficient to prove that he
co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, thatfact remains of
his deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of
him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted
against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife andmaintains an illicit
relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. We can do
noless in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled to another country
to escape the consequencesof his misconduct.Therefore,
Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while
the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back to
the IBP.