MALLARI, vs.

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

AC No. 11111 January 10, 2018

This is an administrative case involving a member of the bar, directed the

Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD) to
investigate respondent Atty. Eligio P. Mallari (respondent) for what appear to be: (1)
his deliberate disregard of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence pertinent to the
issuance and implementation of the writ of possession under Act No. 3135, as
amended; and (2) his witting violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).

FACTS:
In 1968, the respondent obtained two loans totalling P34, 000.00 from
respondent GSIS. To secure the performance, he mortgaged two parcels of land
registered under his and his wife Marcelina Mallari’s names. Eventually, respondent
was unable to meet his obligations to the GSIS, which prompted the latter to remind
him to settle his account.

Nearly three years later (1984), GSIS applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure
of the mortgage by reason of his failure to settle his account. He requested an
updated computation of his outstanding account. He persuaded the sheriff to hold
the publication of the foreclosure to await action on his pending request for final
GSIS responded to his request. It finally commenced extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings against him because he had meanwhile made no further payments.

The respondent sued GSIS for preliminary injunction. The RTC decided in his
favor, nullifying the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale. GSIS appealed to the
CA, which reversed the RTC. Respondent elevated the CA decision to this Court via
petition for review on certiorari. This Court denied his petition for review and motion
for reconsideration. As a result, the CA decision became final and executory,
rendering unassailable both the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale.
 The court further stressed that respondent, as a lawyer, should have known
that, as a non-redeeming mortgagor, he had no more right to challenge the issuance
of the writ of execution cum writ of possession upon the ex parte application of the
GSIS, especially after the consolidation of ownership of the properties in the GSIS.
Thus, his actions can only be tainted by bad faith. The Court further agreed with the
CA's observation that the petition before it is "part of the dilatory tactics to stall the
execution of a final and executory which has already been resolved with finality by
no less than the highest tribunal of the land.

This administrative complaint is directed to the Committee on Bar Discipline of

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate the respondent for what appear to
be (a) his deliberate disregard of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence
pertinent to the issuance and implementation of the writ of possession under
Act No. 3135, as amended; and (b) his witting violations of the Lawyer's Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In his answer to the disbarment complaint, respondent claims that he did not
deliberately disregard the Rules of Court and jurisprudence relative to the issuance
and implementation of the writ of possession, as well as the Lawyer's Oath and the
CPR. He maintains that he is still the owner of the unlawfully foreclosed properties.
Hence, respondent concludes that, as owner of the properties, he has the right to
exclude any person from its enjoyment and disposal and may use such reasonably
necessary force as allowed under Article 429 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE:
Does the respondent Attorney employed dilatory moves to delay the
execution of the judgment in favor of the GSIS in violation of Rule 10.3, Canon 10 of
the CPR?

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mallari violated Rule 10.3 which provides “A lawyer shall observe
the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.”
 A lawyer must never be blinded by the cause of his client at the expense of
justice, even if the latter turned out to be himself. Often designated as vanguards of
our legal system, lawyers are called upon to protect and uphold truth and the rule of
law. They are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.

In this case, the judgment in favor of the GSIS concerning the validity of the
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings had long became final and executory. Despite
this, respondent, with the single purpose of delaying the execution of the judgment
by the winning party, took the following series of actions which effectively obstructed
the execution of a final and executory judgment.

This Court, unable to turn a blind eye to the manoeuvrings employed by

respondent.  He wittingly adopted vexatious legal manoeuvres for no other purpose
except to delay the full enforcement of the writ of possession, despite knowing, being
himself a lawyer, that as a non-redeeming mortgagor he could no longer impugn
both the extrajudicial foreclosure and the ex parte issuance of the writ of execution
cum writ of possession; and that the enforcement of the duly-issued writ of
possession could not be delayed. He thus deliberately abused court procedures and
processes, in order to enable himself to obstruct and stifle the fair and quick
administration of justice in favor of mortgagee and purchaser GSIS.

Notably, when asked to answer the administrative charges against him,

respondent does not lament the actions he has taken. Rather, he justifies them by
insisting that this Court has erred in its decisions which have long attained finality.
He again bombards the Court with arguments against the validity of the extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings in this disciplinary case knowing fully well, he being a
member of the bar, that final and executory decisions may no longer be disturbed. 

He demonstrates his propensity to abuse and misuse court processes to the

detriment of the winning party and ultimately, the administration of justice. As such,
he violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.03 of the CPR: Canon 10 - A lawyer owes
candour, fairness and good faith to the court.
 In sum, the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP-CBD
holding respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath; Canons 10 and Rules 10.03
the CPR. The court deemed it proper to increase the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law from one (1) year to two (2) years.
 DE LOS SANTOS II V. BARBOSA,
A.C. NO. 6681. JUNE 17, 2015

FACTS:
A complaint for Falsification of Public Document was filed by Melba D. De Los
Santos Rodis (Rodis) against her father, Ricardo D. De Los Santos, Sr. (De Los
Santos, Sr.) and Rosie P. Canaco (Canaco). Rodis alleged that Canaco made
untruthful statements in the certificate of live birth of her son, Victor Canaco De Los
Santos. Canaco indicated in her son's certificate of live birth that she was married to
De Los Santos, Sr. on September 1, 1974 in San Fernando, Camarines Sur when no
such marriage took place.

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 111152 and assigned to the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 43 of Quezon City.

Complainant Victor D. De Los Santos II herein complainant, filed a complaint

with the prosecutor charging the respondent Atty. Nestor C. Barbosa for obstruction
of justice. In defense, the respondent-prosecutor argued, among others, that the
name of his client Canaco's son is VICTOR C. DE LOS SANTOS and not VICTOR
P. DE LOS SANTOS as stated in the Information charging Canaco with violation of
Presidential Decree No. 651. Thus, the respondent vehemently denied that he
intentionally intended to delay and obstruct the proceedings in the MeTC.

The prosecutor dismissed the obstruction of justice complaint for insufficiency

of evidence

In February 2005, De Los Santos II filed a petition for disbarment with the
Court charging the respondent with multiple gross violations of his oath as a lawyer
and Canons of Professional Ethics for unlawfully obstructing and delaying the
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 111152 against Canaco.
 The complainant alleged that the respondent's act of sending out the letters
dated May 24, 2004 was criminally and maliciously done to delay, impeded, obstruct,
or otherwise frustrate the prosecution of Canaco, who is the respondent's client.

The complainant further contended that the respondent's letters were not
justified by any tenable and lawful defense and were made to suppress and conceal
the subject birth record to impair its availability, authenticity, verity, or admissibility as
evidence in Criminal Case No. 111152 before the MeTC.

Lastly, the complainant submitted that the acts of respondent constituted

multiple gross violations of his oath as a lawyer, of the Canons of Professional
Ethics, and of his duties as an attorney under the Rules of Court. The complaint was
referred to the IBP for investigation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Nestor C. Barbosa committed a multiple gross violations

of his oath as a lawyer and Canons of Professional Ethics for unlawfully obstructing
and delaying the proceedings?

HELD:

Yes. After a careful study of the records, the SC approves the findings of the
IBP Commission and the IBP Board of Governors.

Under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that the lawyers

owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Particularly, Rule 10.01 provides
that "a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead. A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. A lawyer's
first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. Rule 12.02 forbids the
lawyer to unduly delay a case, impede the execution of Judgment or misuse Court
processes.

In this case, the respondent deliberately misled The MeTC, The Commission
and this Court into believing that Victor Canaco De Los Santos (Canaco's son whose
birth certificate is at issue in the criminal case) and Victor P. De Los Santos (named
in the information) are different persons. The Court agrees with the findings of the
IBP Commissioner that the difference in the middle initial is a mere typographical
error on the part of the City Prosecutor. The criminal case involved one and the
same Victor Canaco de los Santos whose birth certificate has been at issue. The act
of misleading the MeTC, the Commission, and this Court as to the identity of his
client constitute gross violation of his oath as a lawyer and of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Respondent's acts were unethical, improper and committed with no other

prompt and efficient disposition of the case. Members of the Bar are expected at all
times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any
act or omission, that might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in
the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.

The Court finds respondent Atty. Nestor C. Barbosa GUILTY of violating

Rules 1.01 and 1.03 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Rule 12.04 of Canon
12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1)
year from the practice of law.
 SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS vs ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ
A.C No. 8319, September 16, 2015

FACTS:

Spouses Williams filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment, dated June 26,

2009, against Atty. Enriquez for violation of the rule on forum shopping and
purposely filing a groundless, false and unlawful suit.

The spouses contended that on December 2002, a complaint of forcible entry

was filed against them in MCTC in Negros Oriental by Desiderio Briones Ventolero,
Francisco Ventolero, Ramon Verar, Martin Umbac and Lucia Briones (plaintiffs) were
Atty. Enriquez acted as their counsel whereby a parcel of land, lot 2920 docketed as
Civil Case No. 390. Spouses Williams alleged that during the pendency of civil case
Atty. Enriquez instructed Paciano Ventolero Umbac (Paciano) to use death threats to
chase off their caretaker and then to illegally invade Lot 2920 and destroy an old
house owned by Orlando Viran and Marissa Williams who then filed a case of
forcible entry against Paciano. However, Atty. Enriquez subsequently drafted a new
complaint for forcible entry, falsely alleging that Marisa and Orlando together with
two hired goons forcibly entered Lot 2920 and ejected Paciano by throwing rocks at
him and hitting various parts of his body; that the two goons wrecked the old house.
Atty. Enriquez made it appear that it was Orlando and Marissa who forcibly eject
Paciano on his supposed inheritance from his grandparents and drafted and new
complaint for forcible entry against Orlando and Marissa docketed as Civil Case No.
521-B.

IBP-CBD found that Atty. Enriquez failed to squarely refute the charge of
forum shopping on the complaints in Civil Case No. 390 and Civil Case No. 521-B
were identical. In response, the attorney countered that he was merely representing
the heirs of Aurea Briones Ventolero who were defending their title over Lot 2920.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Enriquez violated the rule on Forum Shopping and
Canon 12 of Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:

Yes. In a long line of cases, this Court has held that forum shopping exists
when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favourable
opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or
more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one
or the other court would make a favourable disposition. An important factor in
determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants
by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.

This Court has consistently warned counsels not to abuse the court
processes, specifically, by forum shopping which resultantly clogs the court dockets
and can result in conflicting rulings. In our jurisprudence, willful and deliberate forum
shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court.

As a retired judge, Atty. Enriquez should know that a lawyer's primary duty is
to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct that tends to delay,
impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes this obligation. In
engaging in such malpractice, Atty. Enriquez violated Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and to
promote respect for the law and the legal processes. He also disregarded his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and the prohibition against
unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes.

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as
honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this
end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might
lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession.

Hence, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is guilty of violating Canon 12 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of Six (6) Months. This penalty serves to emphasize the seriousness of the Court in
dealing with such contemptible abuse of the judicial process.

Digested By:
MARY DOROTHY TALIDRO