MASINSIN VS ALBANO

FACTS:
Sps Masinsin instituted petition for certiorari, prohibition and relief from
judgment as well as declaratory relief asking to order MTC of Manila Branch X
to cease and desist from further proceeding the demolition of the disputed
property.
Case emerged from an ejectment suit filed by private respondent against
petitioners on July 1, 1985 where the MTC ruled in favor of private
respondents.
The judgment became final and executory since no appeal has been filed.
On August 22, 1985, an appeal was filed by the petitioners for a petition for
certiorari before the RTC of Manila Branch 22 which was then dismissed.
Another complaint for annulment of judgment lease contract and damages
was filed by the petitioner before the RTC of Manila Branch 41 asking
nullification of the ejectment case.
Complaint was dismissed for res judicata.
Execution was filed the MTC for the enforcement of its decision.
Petitioners deposited with the CA the sum of Php 3000 but on March 11,
1987, the CA affirmed the order of the lower court.
Demolition order was issued and the demolition was begun. Before the
completion of the demolition a restraining order was issued by the RTC of
Manila branch 19 following a petition by certiorari filed by the petitioners.
However, such petition was then dismissed as well.
Petitioner assailed again the MTC decision in a petition for certiorari before
the RTC of Manila Branch 25. Trial court dismissed the petition.
Thus, petitioners filed this case in the SC. They contend that the MTC of
Manila has lost its jurisdiction when the property in question was proclaimed
an area for priority development by the NHA on December 1, 1987.
RULING
Petition is without merit.
The resolution issued by the NHA on December 1, 1987 specifically excludes
the disputed property from the area of priority development for the project of
NHA.
Moreover, there is an evident deliberate intent from the petitioners to delay
the execution of a decision that has long been final and executory by filing
different pleadings on different courts.
They have filed four times with the assistance of counsel to try and nullify the
decision before different branches of court.
ANY ACT WHICH VISIBLY TENDS TO OBSTRUCT, PERVERT, IMPEDE, AND
DEGRADE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY A LAWYER IS A CALL FOR AN
EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND WARRANTING CONTEMPT.
(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)
 Petition is dismissed and counsel is censured and warned that a similar act in
the future will be dealt with most severely.