You are on page 1of 2

Cobb-Perez v.

Judge Lantin (1968) Reconsideration” which denied his wife's above-mentioned motion to recall
the controverted writ of execution. The foregoing motion was far from
Doctrine: seriously seeking the reconsideration because in the first place Damaso
1. Accordingly, should there be a conflict between his duty to his client and Perez could not legally do for he was not even a party to the denied "Urgent
that to the court, he should resolve the conflict against the former and in Motion to Recall Writ of Execution" (filed by his wife alone.) This was also
favor of the latter, his primary responsibility being to uphold the cause of denied by the court.
2. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Here comes the relevant part:
In the court’s final (as in final) judgment, the writ of execution against the
Facts: spouses Perez was upheld, and in addition, the Supreme Court assessed treble
Basically, the spouses Perez were involved in a civil case where a simple costs against petitioners, to be paid by their counsels. Attys. Crispin D. Baizas
money judgment was rendered against them. To execute the judgment, the court and A. N. Bolinas, while submitting to the judgment on the merits, seek
levied upon shares of stock of the spouses. With the help of the spouses’ counsels reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their
Attys. Baizas and Bolinas, they resorted to a series of actions and petitions for "professional conduct" and condemns them to pay the treble costs adjudged
the sole purpose of delaying the execution of the simple money judgment which against their clients.
has long been final and executory.
What they did was attack the execution in a piecemeal fashion, causing the Issue:
postponement of the execution sale six times. More than eight years after the finality 1. W/N Attys. Baizas and Bolinas should be made to pay treble costs.
of the judgment have passed, and the same has yet to be satisfied.
Example of the spouses’ modus operandi: Held:
1. After the court issued a writ of execution against them, the spouses sought Attys. Baizas and Bolinao contends that if there was delay it was because they
the issuance of preliminary injunctions to restrain the execution of the final happened to be more assertive, a quality of lawyers which is not to be condemned.
judgment. The court replied that a counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and
2. Damaso Perez (husband) temporarily bowed out from the scene. Then here honesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what
comes his wife Mercedez Cobb-Perez who files a writ of preliminary the court does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the
injunction with the CFI of Rizal with full knowledge that the court in Rizal patent futility of his client's position. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his clients
had no jurisdiction over the matter because the case was originally filed in if he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise
Manila. the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer
3. Mercedez Cobb-Perez simultaneously filed with the CFI of Manila an must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity
urgent motion to lift the writ of execution alleging as justification the to litigate. Accordingly, should there be a conflict between his duty to his client
conjugal nature of the levied shares of stock and the personal nature of and that to the court, he should resolve the conflict against the former and in
Damaso Perez' judgment debt. favor of the latter, his primary responsibility being to uphold the cause of
4. Mercedez Cobb-Perez, now assisted by her husband who had staged a justice.
comeback, prayed for the issuance of another injunction, this time from
Branch XXII of the CFI of Manila (not the same Branch which issued the
controverted writ of execution), in connection with the still pending case in
the CFI of Rizal. This was denied.
5. On the very day the injunction was denied, Damaso Perez was already
prepared with another "remedy," as in fact on that day, he filed in connection
with the original judgment (the money judgment) an "Urgent Motion for

was denied. that respondents’ counsel and representative did not appear on the conferences. contumacious. Padao. she learned from her sister that their parents sold the subject lot and refusing to resuscitate the case. appealing the relaxation of the rule on non-appearance in the mediation proceddings. the RTC ordered the referral of the case to the Unless the conduct of the party is so negligent. Ruling: Negative. March 9. She claims that it was unjust because her representative and counsel did not deliberately snub the mediation proceedings for they have attended twice the mediation conferences and only left when respondent’s counsel had not yet arrived. 2011 Rules of Court for failure to appear for pre-trial. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA provides sanction including but not limited to censure. By failing to do so citizen. After the issues had been joined. the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still achieve the desired end. Based on the Report of Mediator Esmeraldo O. G. A. as for non-appearance to provide substantial grounds for dismissal. Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of real property and annulment of title against her parents and brother. contempt and such other sanctions as are provided under the . or for abusive conduct during mediation proceedings. or dilatory Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). irresponsible. in case any or both of the parties absent himself/themselves. However. opportunity to recover the land which she allegedly paid for. the RTC impetuously deprived petitioner of the to her brother. Petitioner invoked that the dismissal of the case was not in accordance with applicable law and jurisprudence. 185758.M. the Court finds the sanction too severe to be imposed on the petitioner where the records of the case are devoid of evidence of wilful or flagrant disregard of the rules on mediation proceedings. Her reason for failing to attend the last scheduled conference was due to some urgent matters caused by the sudden increase in prices of commodities. Motion for reconsideration to set aside the order. reprimand. No. Although the RTC has legal basis to order the dismissal of the case. the RTC issued Order dismissing the case.R. No. Sr. the RTC issued an order allowing petitioner to present her evidence ex parte. Issue: Whether or not dismissal is the proper sanction for failure to attend the mediation process. Conferences were then scheduled. With this.CHAN KENT vs. MICAREZ. She alleged that the subject residential lot was The Court held that a mere censure or reprimand would have been sufficient for purchased by her but was named under her parents under an implied trust due to the petitioner’s representative and her counsel so as to be informed of the court’s difficulty in registering a real property in her name being married to an American intolerance of tardiness and laxity in the observation of its order. It was later being clarified by Padao that it was petitioner’s counsel and representative who did not attend the mediation proceedings.