Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Oronco vs CA

Facts:
-Sec. 16: Resolving defense of ownership. When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
-Priciliano Gonzales Development Corp was the registered owner of a parcel of land in QC
-Priciliano Gonzales Development Corp obtained Php4m loan from the China Banking
Corporation and mortgaged the Gilmore property to the bank due to irregular payment of
amortization, interests, and penalties accumulated
-Priciliano Gonzales Development Corp through its president Antonio B. Gonzales, signed a Deed
of Sale with Mortgage covering the Gilmore property in favor of Flaminiano and Oronce:
-Vendor PBGDC guarantees the right of vendees to the possession of the property
-Flaminiano and Oronce paid PBGDC’s indebtedness with CBC
-PBGDC pulled out from its obligation to deliver to Flaminiano and Oronce upon the 1-year period
-Petitioners sent a demand letter to PBGDC to leave but was unclaimed
-Petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against PBGDC
-Petitioners argue that they have acquired the Gilmore property since they were issued TCT
-PBGDC raised issue of ownership and that the petitioners had no cause of action because it was
a mortgagee of the property
-After the parties filed their memoranda, PBGDC filed a motion to cite petitioner Falminiano and
husband Atty. Flaminiano, in contempt of court and that illegally entered the property with
intimidation
-PBGDC filed a TRO but could not be granted because Atty. Flaminiano changed the address
without informing the Court
-Petitioners took over the property aggressively and had mortgaged it to Far East Bank and Trust
Company

Issue: W/N Atty. Flaminiano should be prohibited from counselling or abetting activities in the
legal system

Ruling: YES
-His contumacious acts of entering the Gilmore property without consent of the occupants and
showing disrespect for the law and the Court are unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar
-He flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession
-Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited from abetting activities in the
legal system

Вам также может понравиться