digest 4

7/18/2019 digest 4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digest-4-569696d99a791 1/3

Samar Mining Company vs Francisco Arnado

24 SCRA 402 – Legal Ethics – Duty to Assist in the

Administration of Justice

In 1958, Rufino Abuyen won a labor case against

Samar Mining Company. Abuyen was aware

compensation plus !ospitali"ation e#penses for a

isease !e incurre w!ile wor$ing for Samar Mining. %!e

ecision was renere by &ompeyo %an, a labor lawyer uly appointe by 'rancisco Arnao, a regional

aministrator of t!e (epartment of )abor. In 19*1,

Samar Mining+s lawyer, Atty. eneicto Arcinas, file an

action for certiorari before C'I Cebu contening t!at

%an !as no aut!ority or -urisiction oer sai case

because !e was a /mere labor lawyer0 w!o !a no

aut!ority to rener t!e awar being complaine of. C'I

Cebu ismisse t!e petition of Arcinas.

Meanw!ile, in t!e same year, t!e Supreme Court mae

a ruling in t!e case of Caltex v. Villanueva )215*58,

August 31, 19*14 t!at uly appointe !earing officers byregional aministrators of t!e labor epartment may

issue awars. otwit!staning t!is ruling, Arcinas still

file an appeal before t!e Supreme Court.

ISSUE: 6!et!er or not t!e appeal !as merit.

HELD: o. It is obious t!at t!e purpose of t!e filing is

-ust to elay an prolong t!e litigation in t!e !ope of

/raining t!e resources of t!e poorer party0 /an of

compelling it to submit out of s!eer e#!austion.0 %!e

conuct of Atty. Arcinas is !arly compatible wit! t!e

uty of t!e ar to assist in t!e Aministration of 7ustice,not to obstruct or efeat t!e same. %!e Supreme Court

orere Samar Mining an Atty. Arcinas to s!ouler t!e

litigation costs of t!is case -ointly an seerally.

CASTANEDA V AGO

CAS%R 7uly :;, 19<5

NATUE

2 &etition for reiew of t!e ecision of t!e Court of

Appeals

FACTS

2 1955 = Castanea an >enson file a replein suitagainst Ago in t!e C'I of Manila to recoer certainmac!ineries.2195< = -ugment in faor of Castanea an>enson2 19*1 = SC affirme t!e -ugment trial courtissue writ of e#ecution Ago+s motion enie, ley wasmae on Ago+s !ouse an lots s!eriff aertise t!esale, Ago moe to stop t!e auction CA ismisse t!epetition SC affirmeismissal2 Ago t!rice attempte to obtain writ of prelimin

ary in-unction to restrain s!eriff from enforcing t!e writ ofe#ecution !is motions were enie2 19*: = s!eriff solt!e !ouse an lots to Castanea an >enson Ago faileto reeem2 19*? = s!eriff e#ecute final ee of saleC'I issue writ of possession to t!e properties2 19*? =

Ago file a complaint upon t!e -ugment renereagainst !im in t!e replein suit saying it was !is personaobligation an t!at !is wife @ s!are in t!eir con-uga!ouse coul not legally be reac!e by t!e ley maeC'I of C issue writ of preliminary in-unctionrestraining Castanea t!e Registe of (ees ant!e s!eriff from registering t!e final ee of sale t!ebattle on t!e matter of lifting an restoring t!e restrainingorer continue2 19** = Agos file a petition for certioraran pro!ibition to en-oin s!eriff from enforcing writ ofpossession SC ismisse it Agos file a similar petitionwit! t!e CA w!ic! also ismisse t!e petition Agosappeale to SC w!ic! ismisse t!e petition2 Agos fileanot!er petition for certiorari an pro!ibition wit! t!e CAw!ic! gae ue course to t!e petition an grantepreliminary in-unction.

ISSUE

6 t!e Agos+ lawyer, encourage !is clients to aoicontroersy

HELD

2 o. (espite t!e penency in t!e trial court of t!ecomplaint for t!e annulment of t!e s!eriff+s sale, -usticeemans t!at t!e petitioners, long enie t!e fruits ot!eir ictory in t!e replein suit, must now en-oy t!emfor, t!e responents Agos abette by t!eir lawyer Atty)uison, !ae misuse legal remeies an prostitute t!e

-uicia lprocess to t!wart t!e satisfaction of t!e -ugment, to t!e e#tene pre-uice of t!e petitioners.

'orgetting !is sacre mission as a sworn public serantan !is e#alte position as an officer of t!e court Atty.)uison !as allowe !imself to become an instigatorofcontroersy an a preator of conflict instea of ameiator for concor an a conciliator for compromise, airtuoso of tec!nicality in t!e conuct of litigation insteaof a true e#ponent of t!e primacy of trut! anmoral -ustice.2 A counsel+s assertieness in espousingwit! canor an !onesty !is client+s cause must beencourage an is to be commene w!at t!e SC oesnot an cannot countenance is a lawyer+s insistenceespite t!e patent futility of !is client+s position. It is t!euty of t!e counsel to aice !is client on t!e merit orlac$ of !is case. If !e fins !is client+s cause as

efenseless, t!en !e is !is uty to aice t!e lattetoacBuiesce an submit rat!er t!an traerse t!eincontroertible. A lawyer must resist t!e w!ims ancaprices o!is client, an temper !is client+s propensity to litigate.

Vda! d" #aca$ing vs! Lag%na&' SCA (')Fac*s:

&riate responent >ector )agua is t!e registereowner of a resiential lan w!ere petitioner an !er late

7/18/2019 digest 4


!usban, (r. Ramon acaling, constructe a resiential!ouse nable to pay t!e lease rental an action for e-ectment. %!e filing of sai case spawne arious courtsuits suc! as petition for certiorari, w!ic! furt!er prolongt!e litigation process.

Iss%":

S!oul t!e petitioner+s counsel esere conemnationbefore SC.

H"$d:

Des. %!e present petition smac$s of a ilatory tactic ana friolous attempt resorte to by petitioner to frustratet!e prompt termination of t!e e-ectment case an toprolong litigation unnecessarily. Suc! conuct on t!epart of petitioner an !er counsel eseres t!e igorousconemnation of t!is Court, because it einces a flagrantmisuse of t!e remey of certiorari w!ic! s!oul only beresorte to in case of lac$ of -urisiction or grae abuseof iscretion by a inferior court. A recourse of t!is $inunuly ta#es t!e energy an patience of courts ansimply wastes t!e precious time t!at t!ey coul well

eote to really meritorious cases.

O+AS VS! CA

G!! No! ,,-').

Marc/ (,0 ,112

FACTS: %!is is a petition for reiew of t!e CA ecisionate D"c"m3"r -0 ,11' alleging reersible error committe by responent appellate court w!en it

affirme t!e ecision of t!e R%C of Caite.

n 7uly 199;, !erein priate responent MaguesunManagement an (eelopment Corporation MaguesunCorporation4 file an Application for Registration of twoparcels of unregistere lan locate in %agaytay City. Insupport of its application for registration, MaguesunCorporation presente a (ee of Absolute Sale ate7une 1;, 199;, e#ecute by Eenaia Melli"a as enor an inicating t!e purc!ase price to be &1<;,;;;.;;.Eenaia Melli"a in turn, boug!t t!e property from t!eoriginal petitioner !erein because s!e was substituteby !er !eirs in t!e proceeings upon !er eat!4, %riniae )eon a. e Ro#as for &3;;,;;;.;; two an a !alf

mont!s earlier, as eience by a (ee of Sale an an Affiait of Self2A-uication.

otices of t!e initial !earing were sent by t!e )anRegistration Aut!ority )RA4 on t!e basis of MaguesunCorporation+s application for registration enumeratinga-oining owners, occupants or aerse claimants Since%rinia e )eon a. e Ro#as was not name t!erein,s!e was not sent a notice of t!e proceeings. After anrer of general efault was issue, t!e trial courtproceee to !ear t!e lan registrationcase. Ev"n*%a$$y0 on F"3r%ary ,11, */" TC gran*"dMag%"s%n Corpora*ion4s app$ica*ion 5or r"gis*ra*ion.

It was only w!en t!e careta$er of t!e property was beingas$e to acate t!e lan t!at petitioner %rinia e )eonFa. e Ro#as learne of its sale an t!e registration oft!e lots in Maguesun Corporation+s name.

>ence, on April 1991, petitioner file a petition for reiewbefore t!e R%C to set asie t!e ecree of registration ont!e groun t!at Maguesun Corporation committe actuafrau. S!e allege t!at t!e lots were among t!eproperties s!e in!erite from !er !usban, forme

&resient Manuel A. Ro#as an t!at !er family !a beenin open, continuous, aerse an uninterruptepossession of t!e sub-ect property in t!e concept oowner for more t!an t!irty years before t!ey applie forits registration uner t!e %orrens System of lan titlingin w!ic! no ecision !as been renere t!ereon4&etitioner furt!er enie t!at s!e sol t!e lots to EenaiaMelli"a w!om s!e !a neer met before an t!at !ersignature was forge in bot! t!e (ee of Sale an t!e

Affiait of Self2A-uication. S!e also claime t!aMaguesun Corporation intentionally omitte !er name asan aerse claimant, occupant or a-oining owner in t!eapplication for registration submitte to t!e )RA suc!

t!at t!e latter coul not sen !er a otice of Initia>earing.

A ocument e#aminer from t!e && conclue t!at!ere was no forgery.pon petitioner+s motion, t!esignatures were re2e#amine by anot!er e#pert fromI. %!e latter testifie t!at t!e signatures on t!eBuestione an sample ocuments were!oweer, no* written by t!e same person.

(espite t!e foregoing testimonies an pronouncementst!e trial courtdismiss"d t!e petition for reiew of ecreeof registration. &lacing greater weig!t on t!e finingsan testimony of t!e && ocument e#aminer, i

conclue t!at t!e Buestione ocuments were noforge an if t!ey were, it was Eenaia Melli"a, an notMaguesun Corporation, w!o was responsible

Accoringly, Maguesun Corporation i not commiactual frau.

In a ecision ate D"c"m3"r -0 ,11', responencourt d"ni"d */" p"*i*ion 5or r"vi"6 and a55irm"d */"5indings o5 */" *ria$ co%r*. %!e CA /"$d */a* p"*i*ion"r5ai$"d *o and d"mons*ra*" */a* */"r" 6as ac*%a$ or"7*rinsic 5ra%d0 no* m"r"$y cons*r%c*iv" or in*rinsic5ra%d0 a pr"r"8%isi*" 5or p%rpos"s o5 ann%$ing a

9%dgm"n* or r"vi"6ing a d"cr"" o5 r"gis*ra*ion!

>ence, t!e instant petition for reiew w!ere it is alleget!at t!e CA erre in ruling t!at Maguesun Corporationi not commit actual frau warranting t!e setting asieof t!e registration ecree an in resoling t!e appeal ont!e basis of Maguesun Corporation+s goo fait!&etitioners pray t!at t!e registration of t!e sub-ect lots int!e name of Maguesun Corporation be cancelle, t!asai property be a-uicate in faor of petitioners ant!at responent corporation pay for amages.

ISSUE: 6 priate responent Maguesun Corporationcommitte actual frau signature forgery4 in obtaining aecree of registration oer t!e two parcels o

7/18/2019 digest 4


lan, ac*%a$ 5ra%d 3"ing */" on$y gro%nd *o r"op"n or r"vi"6 a d"cr"" o5 r"gis*ra*ion!

HELD: 6>GRG'RG, t!e instant petition is !erebyHRA%G(. %!e (ecision of t!e CA is !erebyRGFGRSG( A( SG% AS

1. %!e Court !ere fins t!at responent MaguesunCorporation committe actual frau in obtaining t!eecree of registration soug!t to be reiewe by

petitioner. A close scrutiny of t!e eience on recorleas t!e Court to t!e irresistible conclusion t!at forgerywas inee attenant in t!e case at bar. Alt!oug! t!ereis no proof of responent Maguesun Corporation+s irectparticipation in t!e e#ecution an preparation of t!eforge instruments, t!ere are sufficient inicia w!ic!proes t!at Maguesun Corporation is not t!e /innocentpurc!aser for alue0 w!o merits t!e protection of t!e law.Gen to a layman+s eye, t!e ocuments, as well as t!eenlarge p!otograp!ic e#!ibit of t!e signatures, reealforgery. Aitionally, Eenaia Melli"a+s non2appearanceraises oubt as to !er e#istence

&etitioner an !er family also own seeral ot!er pieces

of property, some of w!ic! are lease out as restaurants.%!is is an inication t!at petitioner is not unaware of t!ealue of !er properties. >ence, it is unli$ely t!atinication t!at s!e woul sell oer 1:,;;; sBm of primeproperty in %agaytay City to a stranger for a measly&3;;,;;;.;;. 6oul an orinary person sell more t!an1:,;;; sBm of prime property for &1<;,;;;.;; w!en itwas earlier purc!ase for &3;;,;;;.;;

:. &etitioner Fa. e Ro#as contene t!at MaguesunCorporation intentionally omitte t!eir name, or t!at of t!e Ro#as family, as !aing a claim to or as an occupantof t!e sub-ect property.

%!e names in full an aresses, as far as $nown to t!eunersigne, of t!e owners of all a-oining properties of t!e persons mentione in paragrap!s : an 5mortgagors, encumbrancers, an occupants4 an of t!eperson s/o6n on */" p$an original applicationsubmitte in )RC o as claimants are as followsJ

>ilario )una, 7ose Hil, )eon )una, ;rovincial Roa

all at %agaytay City no !ouse o.4 :;

%!e !ig!lig!te wors are type in wit! a ifferenttypewriter, wit! t!e first fie letters of t!e wor/proincial0 type oer correction flui. Maguesun

Corporation, !oweer, anne#e a ifferently2woreapplication for t!ep"*i*ion *o r"vi"6 cas". In t!e copysubmitte to t!e trial court, t!e answer to t!e samenumber is as followsJ

>ilario )una, 7ose Hil, )eon )una, o7as!

%!e iscrepancy w!ic! is une#plaine appearsintentional. If t!e wor /Ro#as0 were inee erase anreplace wit! /&roincial Roa all at %agaytay City no!ouse o.40 in t!e original application s%3mi**"d in LCNo! TG2:<: #UT t!e copy wit! t!e wor /Ro#as0 wassubmitte to t!e trial court, it is reasonable to assumet!at t!e reason is to mislea t!e court into t!in$ing t!a/Ro#as0 was place in t!e original application as ana-oining owner, encumbrancer, occupant or claimantt!e same application w!ic! forme t!e basis for t!e )RA

Aut!ority in sening out notices of initial !earingSection 15 of &( o. 1539 actually reBuires t!eapplicant for registration to state t!e full names anaresses of all occupants of t!e lan an t!ose ofa-oining owners, if $nown an if not $nown, t!e e#tentof t!e searc! mae to fin t!em. Responencorporation li$ewise faile to comply wit! t!isreBuirement of law.4

Responent corporation+s intentional concealment anrepresentation of petitioner+s interest in t!e sub-ect lotsas possessor, occupant an claimantcons*i*%*"s ac*%a5ra%d 9%s*i5ying */" r"op"ning and r"vi"6 o5 */"

d"cr"" o5 r"gis*ra*ion. %!roug! suc! misfeasance, t!eRo#as family was $ept ignorant of t!e registrationproceeings inoling t!eir property, t!us effectielyepriing t!em of t!eir ay in court.

%!e trut! is t!at t!e Ro#as family !a been inpossession of t!e property uninterruptely t!roug! t!eircareta$er, 7ose Ramire". Responent MaguesunCorporation also eclare in number 5 of t!e sameapplication t!at t!e sub-ect lan was unoccupie w!en intrut! an in fact, t!e Ro#as family careta$er resie int!e sub-ect property.

%o conclue, it is Buite clear t!at responent corporation

cannot tac$ its possession to t!at of petitioner aspreecessor2in2interest. Eenaia Melli"a coneye notitle oer t!e sub-ect parcels of lan to MaguesunCorporation as s!e was not t!e ownet!ereof. Mag%"s%n Corpora*ion is */%s no* "n*i*$"d*o */" r"gis*ra*ion d"cr"" 6/ic/ */" *ria$ co%r*gran*"d in i*s d"cision!

&etitioner !as not been interrupte in !er more t!ant!irty years of open, uninterrupte, e#clusie annotorious possession in t!e concept of an owner oert!e sub-ect lots by t!e irregular transaction to EenaiaMelli"a.S/" */"r"5or" r"*ains *i*$" proper an sufficienfor original registration oer t!e two parcels of lan in

Buestion pursuant to Section 1? of &( o. 1539.

Documents

digest 4