443 Phil. 1
MENDOZA, J.:
The records sufficiently establish that Vicente Fernandez (father of complainant) filed Civil Case No. 3726 (hereinafter referred to as the first case) in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City on October 10, 1985 against Cresencia Dahildahil (common law wife of Ko Chun) involving Lots 3, 4, and 5 all of Bacolod Cadastre covered by TCT No. 29264 of the Registry of Deeds of Bacolod City. The action was for recovery of possession and sum of money.The case has been transmitted to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B §12 (b) of the 1964 Rules of Court. After a review of this case, we find the IBP report and recommendation to be well taken.
The case suffered considerable delay due to one reason or another stated in the trial court’s decision of February 24, 1997. Finally, after eleven (11) long years of litigation, the trial court resolved the main issue that “plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to prove his ownership of Lot 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, evidenced by TCT No. 29264” (page 18 Decision; Annex A of Complainant’s Position Paper) and ordered the defendant Dahildahil to return possession of the property to plaintiff.
The decision was appealed by Dahildahil to the Court of Appeals. But, later, she abandoned her appeal (CA G.R. No. 56999) and did not pursue it on the advice of herein respondent (Comment of Respondent dated August 5, 1999). Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal which dismissal became final on October 3, 1998.
On October 26, 1998, or 23 days after the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Case No. 98-10520 (hereinafter referred to as the second case) was instituted by Dahildahil’s children against the heirs of Vicente Fernandez, including the complainant, for cancellation of title of the same property litigated in Civil Case No. 3726 (first case) and adjudged by the court as belonging to Vicente Fernandez, upon the advice of herein respondent (Respondent’s Position Paper on page 2).
At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that [the] plaintiffs in the second case (children of Dahildahil by the late Ko Chun) merely adopted as their cause of action the defense put up by their mother in the first case.
. . . .
When the final judgment in the first case (Civil Case No. 3726) was being executed by the prevailing party, the defendant Dahildahil, thru respondent, vigorously opposed the move on the ground that the pendency of the second case (Civil Case No. 98-10520) “poses a civil prejudicial question which must be resolved before any further proceedings,” or execution, can be taken in the first case.
With equal vigor, the trial court rejected this position. It ruled that precisely “there being identity of parties – plaintiffs and defendants in Civil Case No. 98-10520 (second case) are mere successors-in-interest of the parties at bar; [as the] cause[s] of action and subject matter [of the two cases are the same], the finding of this Court having become final and executory, res judicata sets in and Civil Case No. 98-10520 is barred by prior judgment” (Resolution dated August 19, 1999; Annex A of the Supplemental Reply).
. . . .
Notwithstanding all the foregoing, however, with evident obduracy, respondent continued to resist execution of the judgment in the first case [by filing a supplemental motion to quash the writ of execution] reasoning out this time around that the judgment in the first case will operate only as against Dahildahil but not [as] against her children (plaintiffs in the second case), who were not parties to the first case (Supplemental Motion to Quash Writ of Execution dated August 20, 1999).
Once more the trial court repudiated this feeble stand of the respondent and [denied Dahildahil’s Supplemental Motion to Quash Writ of Execution].
Under the Revised Rules of Court, a lawyer shall “counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.” (Rule 138, Sec. 20, C)
The persistent obstruction engineered by the respondent to the execution of the final judgment in the first case coupled with his filing of the second case which was primarily intended to relitigate the settled issue of ownership of subject property is clearly transgressive of this rule.
. . . .
The Resolution of August 19, 1999 (which resolve[d] respondent’s “motion to quash writ of execution” in the first case) and the Order of December 9, 1999 (which resolve[d] the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent of the August 19, 1999 resolution) as well as the Order dated August 3, 2000 (which resolve[d] the “motion to dismiss” and the “Opposition” thereto filed in the second case), discussed thoroughly the doctrine of res judicata. Unfortunately, however, the respondent did not benefit from the lessons therein.
Likewise clear in the judgment dated February 24, 1997 (first case) is the trial court’s resolution of the question of “who is the true owner of Lot No. 3, Block 1, Lot 4, Block 1 and Lot 5, Block 1 evidenced by TCT No. T-29264, the plaintiff (Vicente Fernandez, herein complainant’s father) or the late Ko Chun” (father of respondent’s client who are plaintiffs in the second case) (on page 3).
. . . .
The issue of “true ownership,” therefore, of the lots in question is no longer debatable.
. . . .
From all of the foregoing, it is not unreasonable to conclude and hold that respondent indeed availed of unfair means to unduly delay the termination of the first and second cases which achieve[d] his objective of prolonging the enjoyment of the property by his clients gratis et amore and to the detriment and prejudice of the complainant.
Stated in another way, the respondent misused the rules of procedure to impede the noble ends of justice.
Premises considered, therefore, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent Atty. Dionisio Isidto be temporarily suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year with the stern warning that a repetition of any similar act shall merit a more harsh sanction.[2]
Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.To be sure, respondent advised his client (Dahildahil) to desist from her appeal in Civil Case No. 3726, as a result of which the trial court’s decision in that case became final and executory. However, he subsequently filed Civil Case No. 98-10520 in behalf of his client’s children, based on the same ground invoked by Dahildahil in Civil Case No. 3726, and later invoked the pendency of the said Civil Case No. 98-10520 to block execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3726. Such subterfuge proved unsuccessful as the trial court dismissed Civil Case No. 98-10520 under the doctrine of res judicata. Respondent then filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, only to let the period for filing the appellant’s brief lapse without complying
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file . . . briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.
On the other hand, as the trial court stated in its decision in Civil Case No. 3726:
- That the plaintiffs are the son[s] and daughter of spouses Ko Chun and Cresencia Dahildahil, said spouses not [being] legally married[.] Plaintiffs are Filipino citizens, while the defendants are the children of spouses Vicente Fernandez and Venancia Chua Fernandez;
- That in the month of August 1965 Ko Chun purchased Lot 3 Block 1, Lot 4 Block 1 and Lot 5 Block 1 from the original owner Venancio Lim for the sum of P65,000.00[.] Ko Chun being a Chinese citizen put the title of the property in the name of Vicente Fernandez, . . a relative of Ko Chun.[6]
In her answer with counterclaim, defendant alleges inter alia: That subject properties Lot 3, Block 1, Lot 4 Blk. 1 and Lot 5 Blk. 1 all situated in the City of Bacolod, . . . are actually owned by her husband Ko Chun or his estate. The money paid for the acquisition of said lots came from the exclusive and personal funds of the Ko Chun. However, since the late Ko Chun at the time of the acquisition of said properties was a Chinese citizen, he placed the title of said properties in the name of the plaintiff, Vicente K. Fernandez, in order to circumvent or do away with the constitutional prohibition against aliens, who are disqualified from acquiring properties in the Philippines . . . [7]In its decision in Civil Case No. 3726, the trial court declared Vicente K. Fernandez to be the owner of the parcels of land in question. The trial court said:
After going over the version of the plaintiff [Vicente Fernandez] as supported by the testimonial evidence of his witnesses as well as his documentary evidence and the version of the defendant [Cresencia Dahildahil], supported by the testimonial evidence of her witnesses as well as her documentary evidence, this Court is inclined to give plaintiff’s version more credit and weight.As successors-in-interest of their mother Cresencia Dahildahil, the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 98-10520 are bound by the foregoing findings.
. . . .
All told, plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to prove his ownership of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, evidenced by TCT No. T-29264.
While on the other hand, the evidence presented by defendant falls short of establishing the ownership of her [late] husband [Ko Chun] of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, evidenced by TCT No. T-29264.[8]