You are on page 1of 1

Cordova v.



A judgment was rendered against the complainants Cordova ordering their ejectment and
payment of rentals until they have vacated the subject lots. Pursuant to such judgment, a writ of
execution was issued by the court. However, Atty. Sabio with complainants Cordova, filed an
administrative complaint against respondents seeking their disbarment, dismissal and
disqualification from office, claiming that having filed a supersedeas bond, the writ of execution
should not have been issued.

Issue: Whether or not the administrative complaint filed by Atty. Sabio is violative of Canon 1,
Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.


Yes. The court is convinced that the issuance of the writ of execution was done in the
valid and judicious exercise of the functions and duties of respondent judges. There is no
evidence to prove the charge filed by Atty. Sabio. Such filing of totatlly baseless and unfounded
charges against judges and court personnel in a vain attempt to escape the dire consequences of
their own negligence or in an effort to transgress the lawful orders of the court is reprehensible.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer has the sworn duty to assist in, not to impede or
pervert, the administration of justice. The present administrative charge seeks to cast doubt on
the integrity of respondent judges, the judicial personnel and the court which they represent, in
flagrant abdication of the bounden responsibility of a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect
due to courts of justice. Atty. Sabio thus deserves to be punished for instigating the filing of an
administrative complaint by his clients, in the guise of upholding their rights but actually to
frustrate the enforcement of lawful court orders and consequently obstruct the desirable norms
and course of justice.

Wherefore, Atty. Sabio is suspended from practice of law for six months.