394 Phil. 284
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED."The Resolution denied reconsideration of the challenged Decision.
"Atty. Gerardo Lituanas, a lawyer of the LAPIL (IBP) Negros Oriental, who was also an [e]lection [r]egistrar of the COMELEC, filed the complaint in 1975;
Atty. Lituanas was able to present evidence on the following dates:July 10, 1981First plaintiffs' witness Atilano Ramirez, 73 years old, was presented;
July 16, 1981Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez;
August 24, 1982Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez;
November 20, 1984Continuation of the testimony of Atilano Ramirez;
February 28, 1984Direct Examination of 2nd Plaintiffs' witness Ignacio Tomias. Cross-examination was waived.
August 21, 1985Plaintiff Pedro Quilat-Quilat was presented on direct examination.
"On December 16, 1986, the Citizen Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) entered its appearance as new [private respondents'] counsel after Atty. Gerardo Lituanas has filed his withdrawal. The subsequent events are as follows:February 23, 1987The case was set for hearing on April 21, 1987.
April 21, 1987The hearing was reset due to the projected amendment of the complainant to implead Primitiva Torrecampo.
June 19, 1987The third amended complaint was admitted.
September 9, 1987Hearing was postponed at the instance of the defendants [herein petitioners].
October 22, 1987The hearing was suspended for the reason that the Court would require the [private respondents] to submit a certification from the Bureau of Forest Development that the land involved in this case [was] not a part of the public forest.
December 17, 1987The hearing was postponed at the request of [private respondents'] counsel for the reason that she [would] be attending [a] conference in Cebu City.
March 18, 1988The hearing was aborted due to the fact that the Bureau of Forest Development report ha[d] not yet been finished.
July 5, 1988The hearing [was] reset upon agreement of both counsel.
September 15, 1988The hearing [was] reset upon the Court's instance.
December 8, 1988No hearing was held as the certification from the Bureau of Forest Development [was] being awaited.
March 16, 1989The said certification [was] still being awaited.
May 25, 1989The testimony of [Private Respondent] Pedro Quilat-Quilat [was] suspended after a question was [propounded] that would require him to use reading eyeglasses which he did not have at the moment.
December 14, 1989Hearing [was] reset due to the illness of [private respondents'] counsel.
September 20, 1990Atty. Eleccion, [petitioners'] counsel did not appear despite due notice. At this time, the [private respondents] rested their case.
October 15, 1990Atty. Eleccion [private respondents'] counsel did not appear. Hearing [was] reset to October 16, 1990.
October 16, 1990Atty. Eleccion did not appear. Hearing [was] reset to December 10, 11 and 12.
December 10, 1990Atty. Eleccion asked for postponement. Hearing [was] reset to December 11, 1990.
December 11, 1990Atty. Eleccion did not appear. The case [was] submitted for decision as of th[at] day.
August 21, 1992The transcript of stenographic notes which was taken down by stenographer Alexander Yberley, was missing. He was ordered to produce the transcript.
October 30, 1992Witness Atilano Ramirez was recalled for cross-examination since stenographer Yberley manifested that the record was burned. Despite due notice, nobody appeared for the [petitioners]. So as of this day, the cross-examination of Atilano Ramirez was considered waived and the case was finally submitted for decision.
December 11, 1992Court granted the prayer of Atty. Sedillo and the case [was] set for hearing on March 22, 29 and April 5 1993.
March 22, 1993Atty. Sedillo did not present evidence but instead moved for a resetting of the hearing to April 12, 1993. He [was] advised by the Court to be prepared on the next scheduled hearing.
June 4, 1993Judge [was] on leave. Hearing [was] reset to July 2, 1993.
July 2, 1993Flaviano Umbac was presented as first [petitioners'] witness. Hearing [was] scheduled [for] August 27, 1993.
August 27, 1993[Petitioners] moved for a resetting to October 7, 1993.
October 7, 1993Atty. Bongaciso was presented as second witness for the [petitioners]. His testimony [was] terminated and hearing [was] reset to December 13, 1993.
December 13, 1993Judge [was] on leave. Hearing [was] reset to February 14, 1994.
February 14, 1994Hearing [was] reset at the instance of Atty. Sedillo who want[ed] to recall his witness Atty. Bonganciso. Hearing [was] reset to March 23, 1994.
March 24, 1994Hearing [was] postponed to May 6, 1994 to find avenue for settlement.
May 6, 1994Due to the conflict of schedule by Atty. Sedillo and due to the absence of recalled 2nd [petitioners'] witness Bongaciso, hearing [was] reset to June 17, 1994.
June 17, 1994Atty. Sedillo asked for postponement. He [would] attend a Kiwanis Training Conference. Hearing [was] reset to July 4, 1994.
July 4, 1994Atty. Sedillo was present but Atty. Rosalinda Ybanez [was] available at 10:00 a.m. so the case [was] reset to August 15, 1994.
August 15, 1994Judge [was] on leave. Hearing [was] reset to October 3, 1994.
October 3, 1994The hearing [was] reset to November 17, 1994 due to non-availability of [petitioners'] witness Atty. Roque Bonganciso who [was] on recall.
November 17, 1994There [was] talk about [a] proposed settlement, hearing [was] held in abeyance.
January 6, 1995Since no settlement [was] realized a [private respondents'] motion to set [the] case for hearing was filed and the case was reset to [February] 27, 1995.
February 27, 1995Earlier, [petitioners'] counsel, Atty. Sedillo filed a motion for postponement as he [would be] appearing in a case in Manila. Atty. Ybanez manifested that on February 26, 1995 Atty. Sedillo was in Dumaguete and further that this case ha[d] been delayed by the failure of the [petitioners] to complete the presentation of their evidence. The Court then ordered the case submitted for decision for the THIRD TIME.
March 16, 1995The Court issued an order reconsidering the February 27, 1995 order upon motion of Atty. Sedillo and set the case for the [petitioners] for June 16, 1995 with a STERN WARNING TO THE [PETITIONERS].
June 16, 1995The hearing set for [this day] was cancelled as the Judge [was] on leave and reset to September 8, 1995.
September 8, 1995The [petitioners'] counsel did not appear. Hearing [was] reset to November 16, 1995.
November 16, 1995The [petitioners'] counsel did not appear. Neither did his client. The hearing [was] reset to February 13, 1996.
February 9, 1996The [petitioners'] counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.
February 12, 1996The Court issued an order granting the withdrawal of the [petitioners'] counsel. The [petitioners were] directed to immediately engage the services of a new counsel. This notice was received personally by the wife of [Petitioner] Mauro Edrial, Jr.
February 13, 1996The Court issued an order setting the case [for] April 26, 1996. This order was received by the wife of the [Petitioner] Mauro Edrial, Jr.
April 26, 1996There was no appearance from the [petitioners]. Hence, the case was submitted for decision for the FOURTH TIME.
July 8, 1996Atty. Sedillo filed a motion to reopen the case and in effect reentered his appearance.
August 20, 1996Private respondents thru counsel filed opposition to the motion of the [petitioners].
September 6, 1996The Hon. Judge issued an order denying the motion to reopen hereby affirming the April 26, 1996 order submitting the case for decision.
September 11, 1996[Petitioners] filed a motion for reconsideration.
October 2, 1996Court denied the motion for reconsideration.
October 23, 1996Private respondents received a copy of the Petition for Certiorari."[6]
"Being an officer of the court a lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is an instrument to advance its ends-the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization, charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice."[14]WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.