NUMERO TRESE:

ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK

CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. LILIA SEVILLA and JOSE
SEELIN, respondents.
FACTS: Judgment was rendered against the petitioner ordering it to reconvey the cemetery
to the rightful owners, private respondent sps. Sevilla. Despite the final decision of the SC,
petitioner was able to prevent the execution for filing petitions for certiorari arguing that the
judgment cannot be executed against it because it was not a party to Civil Case No. C-9297;
that the decision of the trial court in said case never mandated Central Dyeing to deliver
possession of the property to the private respondents; that certain facts and circumstances
which occurred after the finality of the judgment will render the execution highly unjust,
illegal and inequitable; that the issuance of the assailed writ of execution violates the lot
buyers' freedom of religion and worship; and that private respondents' title is being
questioned in another case to the cause that the case to be pending for 17 years, and thus
render the judgment ineffectual.
They filed several petitions and motions for reconsideration with the trial court and
the CA despite the fact that it would never prosper as the trial courts decision had long
become final before the said petitions were filed.
HELD: Petition denied. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the client
and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they are also officers of the court, bound to
exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice
or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court
processes. The facts and the law should advise them that a case such as this should not
be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do
not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of
merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.
The mere continuation of petitioners dilatory tactics to that the respondents will not
benefit from the final judgment. The fear of the petitioner regarding the disturbance of the
grave lots was more imagined than true because in the writ of execution, the presiding
judge imposed that the enforcement of the writ of possession and break open order should
be applied only to the gate of Eternal Gardens Memorial Park at the eastern side nearest to
the parcel of land in question where the factory of the defendant(Central Dyeing) is located,
in order to avoid disturbing the peace of the resting souls over the graves the parcels of
land within the said memorial park.
It has been known that the petition of the private respondents has been moot and
academic and that they had took possession of the lot. To the end that:
This case delayed the execution of a final judgment for seventeen (17)
years to the prejudice of the private respondents. In the meantime that
petitioner has thwarted execution, interment on the disputed lot has
long been going on, so that by the time this case is finally terminated,
the whole lot shall have already been filled with tombstones, leaving
nothing for private respondents, the real owners of the property. This is
a mockery of justice.