CASTANEDA V AGO CASTRO; July 30, 1975 (glaisa po) NATURE - Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals

FACTS - 1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries. -1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson - 1961 – SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution; Ago’s motion denied, levy was made on Ago’s house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale, Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC ffirmed dismissal - Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied - 1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to redeem - 1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to the properties - 1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued - 1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition - Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction. ISSUE WON the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy HELD - No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sheriff’s sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. - Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice.

- A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position. It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his case. If he finds his client’s cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate. ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro, complainant vs. Attys. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro and Maricris A. Villarin, respondent February 13, 2004 Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her andrespondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage against thelatter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of therespondent and also stated that they were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with notation ³moved´, same as when served personally.Complainant was required anew to submit the correct, present address of respondents underpain of dismissal of her administrative complaint. She disclosed respondent¶s address at 12403Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be disbarred.The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his corespondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that acopy of the resolution requiring comment was never ³deemed served´ upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro. Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship withanother woman are grounds for disbarment.Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married tocomplainant, carried on an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although theevidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, thatfact remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife andmaintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. We can do noless in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the consequencesof his misconduct.Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while

the complaint against Atty. . Villarin was referred back to the IBP.