Case No.

10
A.C No. 6323
Pablo Olivares and/or OLIVARES REALTY CORPORATION
vs.
Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr.

Facts:
This is a complaint for disbarment and suspension against Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon,
Jr., for violation of Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and the rule on forum shopping.

Olivares alleged that the client of Villalon, who is Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed,
repeatedly sued him for violations of the lease contract which they executed over a
commercial apartment in Olivares Building in Paraaque.

In 1993, Al-Rasheed filed an action for damages and prohibition with prayer for
preliminary mandatory injunction in the RTC of Manila. The case was dismissed for
improper venue. Six years later, in 1999, Al-Rasheed filed an action for breach of
contract with damages in the RTC of Paraaque, Branch 274. The case was
dismissed for failure to prosecute. The CA did not give due course to her appeal;
and the SC denied her petition for review on certiorari.

In 2004, Al-Rasheed, through Villalon, re-filed the 1999 suit in the RTC of Para aque,
Branch 274. However, it was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and
prescription.

Issue: WON Villalon violated Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of the CPR and the rule on forum
shopping?

Ruling: All lawyers must bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor
an empty formality. When they take their oath as lawyers, they dedicate their lives
to the pursuit of justice. They accept the sacred trust to uphold the laws of the land.
As the first Canon of the CPR states, a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Moreover,
according to the lawyers oath they took, lawyers should not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to
the same.

With all this in mind, respondent should have refrained from filing the second
complaint against Olivares. He ought to have known that the previous dismissal was
with prejudice since it had the effect of an adjudication on the merits.

The facts of the case reveal that Atty. Villalon purposely filed the second complaint.
Respondent appealed the 1999 case to the CA and subsequently to this Court. Both
actions were dismissed for lack of merit, not on mere technicality. The certificate of
non-forum shopping attached to the 2004 complaint disclosed that Al-Rasheed
previously sued Olivares for violating their lease contract. As if such disclosure was
a sufficient justification, Villalon unapologetically reproduced his 1999 arguments
and assertions in the 2004 complaint. Villalon obviously knew the law and tried to
go around it. Villalon willfully violated Rule 12.02, Canon 12 which provides that: A
layer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Furthermore, he violated Rule 10.03 of the CPR stating, A lawyer shall observe the
rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

A lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and
justice. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Courts processes. It
constitutes improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade justice.
Those who file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary
action for incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with all
good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions that appear to be just
and consistent with truth and honor.

Therefore, Villalon is ordered a SIX-MONTH suspension from the practice of law.

Case No. 11
G.R. No. 158971
Mariano Siy, in his personal capacity, as well as in the capacity as owner of
Philippine Agri Trading Center
Vs.
NLRC and Elena Embang

Facts:
This case originated from a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
holiday pay and holiday premium pay filed by Embong against Siu and Philippine
Agri Trading Center. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Embang.

The counsel of Siy, Atty. Federico Quevado, continuously appealed and sought
reconsideration of the case to the NLRC and the CA (by way of petition for review) to
no avail. In accordance with the rules of procedure of the NLRC, Embangs counsel
filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution before the labor arbiter.
Quevado entered his appearance for Siy and filed a comment to the motion. He
alleged that Embang rejected the various offers of reinstatement extended to her by
Siy. This was followed by a protracted exchange of pleadings and motions between
the parties still to be ruled against his favor. Refusing to be deterred, he filed an
appeal with the NLRC.

Quevada maintains that he did not delay the execution of the decision but only
sought the consideration of the Embangs refusal to be reinstated. He claims that
such refusal on constituted a supervening event that justified the filing of an appeal
notwithstanding the finality of the decision. Thereafter, the NLRC ordered the
execution of writ.

Issue: WON Atty. Federico Quevado should be cited in contempt of court for
delaying this case and impeding the execution of judgment rendered herein, in
violation of Canon 12 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR.

Ruling: Yes.
Contempt of court is disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its
authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience
of the courts orders but also conduct tending to bring the authority of the court and
the administration of law into disrespute or, in some manner, to impede the due
administration of justice. Under the Rules of Court, contempt is classified into either
direct or indirect contempt direct contempt is committed in the presence or so near
a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same.
Indirect contempt is one not committed in the presence of a court. It is an act done
at a distance which tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and
justice.

Atty. Quevado should be sanctioned for indirect contempt. Indirect contempt is

committed by a person who commits the following acts, among others:
disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a court,
not constituting direct contempt, and any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.

We denied with finality the petitioners petition for review on certiorari almost two
years ago. But the decision of the labor arbiter remains unsatisfied up to now
because of Atty. Quevados sly maneuvers on behalf of his client.

Once a case is decided with finality, the controversy is settled and the matter is laid
to rest. The prevailing party is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his victory while the
other party is obliged to respect the courts verdict and to comply with it. Well
settled is the principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable
and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it
will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.

The reason for this is that litigation must end and terminate sometime and
somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice
that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the
fruits of the verdict. Courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring
about that result and must frown upon any attempt to prolog the controversies.

The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-
called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments,
and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its
execution unjust and inequitable.

This case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions. Contrary to Atty
Quevados contention, there existed no supervening event that would have brought
the case outside the ambit of the general rule on the immutability of final and
executor decisions.

Quevados act of filing a baseless appeal was obviously intended to defeat the
implementation of a final and exectory decision. Elementary is the rule that an order
granting a motion for a writ of execution is not appealable. Thus, Quevados
committed a willful disregard or gross ignorance of basic rules of procedure
resulting in obstruction of justice.

By his acts, Atty. Quevado has tried to prevent Embang from enjoying the fruits of
her hard earned legal victory. In effect, he has been tying the hands of justice and
preventing it from taking its due course. His conduct has thwarted the due
execution of a final and executory decision. By appealing an order which he knew to
be unappealable, he abused court processes and hindered the dispensation of
justice. His dilatory tactics were an affront to the dignity of the Court, clearly
constituting indirect contempt.

Moreover, while a lawyers violation of his duties as an officer of the court may also
constitute contempt, the grounds for holding a person in contempt and for hiding
him administratively liable for the violation of his lawyers oath are distinct and
separate from each other. A finding of contempt on the part of a lawyer does not
preclude the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against him for his contravention of
the ethics of the legal profession. Quevado violated Canon 12 and Rule 12.04 of the
CPR.

Case No. 12
G.R No. 132826
Rolando Saa
Vs
IBP and Atty. Freddie Venida

Facts:
Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Freddie Venida. In his
complaint, Saa stated that Atty. Venidas act of filing two cases against him was
oppressive and constituted unethical practice.

Atty. Venida was required to comment on the complaint against him. In his belated
and partial compliance, he averred that Saa did not specifically allege his supposed
infractions. When he filed his full comment afterwards, the content was a mere
reiteration of his partial comment. Venida also added that he was merely performing
his duty as counsel of Saas adversaries.

The matter was thereafter referred to the IBP. However, it recommended the
dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. It found no evidence that the two cases
filed by Venida against Saa were acts of oppression or unethical practice.

Saa now question the resolution of the IBP in this petition for certiorari alleging
grave abuse of discretion to the IBP. The dismissal of his complaint for disbarment
was therefore grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures.

Issue: WON Atty. Venida should be disbarred for filing two cases against Saa which
were oppressive and constituted unethical practice.

Ruling: No.
Grave abuse of discretion refers to a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic
exercise of judgment by reason of passion or personal hostility as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. A
decision is not deemed tainted with grave abuse of discretion simply because a
party affected disagrees with it.

There was no grave abuse of discretion in this case. There was in fact a dearth of
evidence showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part of Venida.
Nonetheless, we strongly disapprove of Atty. Venidas blatant refusal to comply with
various court directives. As a lawyer, he had the responsibility to follow legal orders
and processes. Yet, he disregarded this very important canon of legal ethics when
he filed only a partial comment 11 months after being directed to do so. Worse, he
filed his complete comment a little over three years after due date. In both
instances, he managed to delay the resolution of the case, a clear violation of
Canon 12 and Rule 1.03 and 12.04 of the CPR.

Yet again, Venida failed to file a memorandum within the period required of him.
Despite the 30-dau deadline to file his memorandum, he still did not comply. As if
taunting authority, he continually ignored our directives for him to show cause and
comply with the resolution.

Venida apologized for the late filing of both his partial and full comments. But tried
to exculpate himself by saying he inadvertently misplaced the complaint and had a
heavy workload. His excuses tax the imagination. Nevertheless, his apologies
notwithstanding, we find his conduct utterly unacceptable for a member of the legal
profession. He must not be allowed to evade accountability for his omissions.

A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney
for violation of the lawyers oath and/or for breach of ethics of the legal profession
as embodied in the CPR. Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so
doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.
Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and
improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and comport
himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession.

WHEREFORE, GRANTED IN PART. Suspended for one (1) year.