[G.R. No.

86421 May 31, 1994]

SPS. THELMA R. MASINSIN and MIGUEL MASINSIN, SPS. GILBERTO and ADELINA, ROLDAN, petitioners,

vs.

THE HON. ED VINCENT ALBANO, Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch X,
DEPUTY SHERIFF JESS ARREOLA, VICENTE CAÑEDA and THE HON. LEONARDO CRUZ, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge Regional Trial of Manila, Branch XXV, respondents

TL;DR: The petitioners made use of delaying tactics through the filing of groundless suits and petitions to
prevent the MTC from acting on its eviction decision against the petitioners. The Counsel for petitioners
is strictly warned and censured for violating the Lawyer’s Oath regarding the promotion or suit of
groundless, false, or unlawful suits.

FACTS:

This is an ejectment suit that the petitioners are seeking to avoid the decision thereof. The petitioners
were originally ordered by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila to disperse from the premises in
question and to pay the private respondent Vicente Cañeda the sum of P 100.00 per month beginning
from January of 1987. The petitioners did not take appeal from this decision.

Instead, the petitioner spouses filed a complaint for Annulment of Judgment, Lease Contract, and
Damages against the respondent. Such complaint was outright dismissed on the ground of Res Judicata.

The petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the MTC.
However, despite the writ of execution already issued, the petitioners still refused to vacate the
premises and to remove their house from the land in question. Thus, an order of Demolition was issued.

The petitioners again filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court to assail the judgment. The
petition was again dismissed.

Now, petitioners come before the Supreme Court, claiming that the MTC of Manila has lost jurisdiction
over the property since the property in question is allegedly being claimed by the National Housing
Authority.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the counsel for petitioners is blatantly delaying the judgment of the MTC and; such
should be disciplined

RULING:

YES. The NHA filed a report to the Supreme Court saying that the land in question (The Carlos Estate) is
not among the lands being claimed by the NHA. Counsel for petitioners is obviously using dilatory
tactics.
The petition is dismissed and Counsel Gregorio T. Fabros is censured and warned that a similar infraction
of the Lawyer’s Oath in the future will be dealt with more severely.

RATIO:

The Lawyer’s Oath provides:

I, . . ., do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will
support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to its commission; I will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor
consent to the same; I will not delay any man's cause for money or malice and will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to my clients and I impose upon myself this obligation voluntary, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

A perusal of the above-cited oath readily shows that Counsel Fabros violated such oath by promoting or
suing a groundless, false, or unlawful suit. He knows full well that the preceding suits and petitions were
groundless and totally without merit.