You are on page 1of 2

Private respondent filed an ejectment case against Sps.

Masinsin in the MTC

of Manila (Branch X). On July 1, 1985, the trial court ruled in their favor and
ordered the petitioners to vacate the premises, remove their
house/apartment, surrender possession of the subject land and pay monthly
compensation to respondent. Since there was no appeal, the judgment
became final and executory. Note: Petitioner tried to nullify the order in a
series of appeal and in different branches.
Aug 1985- P filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila (Branch
XXXII) seeking the annulment of the ejectment order. Held: Dismissed. No
appeal was made by P.
Oct 1985- P filed another in RTC of Manila (Branch XLI). Held: Dismissed,
Res Juridicata
P appealed the dismissal to the CA
MTC issued a writ of execution but execution was suspended because P
deposited a sum of money in CA.
March 1987- CA affirmed dismissal. SC also denied the petition and remanded
it to MTC.
Demolition order was issued but before the completion of the demolition, P
obtained a restraining order (RO) from RTC of Manila (Branch XIX).
Feb 1988- RTC dismissed the petition
P filed a petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, and for declaratory
relief before RTC of Manila (Branch XXV). Another RO was granted
Private respondent then filed a motion for an alias writ of execution with the MTC.
P filed an ex-parte motion for another RO denied by RTC of Manila (Branch XXV), case was
And now they are back to SC, Petitioners contend that MTC (Branch X) has
lost jurisdiction to enforce its decision when the property in question was
proclaimed an area for priority development by the National Housing
Authority on 01 December 1987 by authority of Presidential Decree 2016.
Issue: W/N preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the
ejectment order should be issued? NO. The Court referred to their previous
resolution (Masinsin v CA), where the NHA submitted a comment and denied Ps
claim that the said land was being acquired by NHA pursuant to Presidential
Proclamation No. 1967.
Issue: W/N Ps counsel violated his/her oath? Yes

Four times did the petitioners, with the assistance of counsel, try to nullify the same MTC decision before
different branches of the court, trifling with judicial processes. The utter lack of merit of the complaints
and petitions simply evinces the deliberate intent of petitioners to prolong and delay the inevitable
execution of a decision that has long become final and executory.

We have since emphasized in no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer, an officer of the
court, which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the administration of justice is
contumacious calling for both an exercise of disciplinary action and warranting application of the
contempt power.

Ruling: Petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners' counsel of record is hereby strongly CENSURED and