Spouses Aguilar Vs Manila Banking Corporation

Facts:
This is a case regarding how the execution of a final judgment was forestalled by the perpetual
dilatory tactics employed by the litigant, and makes a blatant mockery of justice. These series of
actions originated from extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property by the Manila
Banking Corporation because of the petitioners‘ failure to pay their loan of Php 600,000.00. The
following are the procedural antecedents:

On May 30 1983, the petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of the foreclosure sale of the
property before the RTC instead of redeeming the property. This resulted to the parties
entering into a compromise agreement. However, the petitioners failed to pay the balance and
the respondent filed for a motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution to enforce the earlier
decision.

The petitioner filed a Manifestation praying for the deferment of the enforcement of the
execution because according to them, they have a pending proposal for the settlement of their
debt. No settlement was reached by the parties however during the deferment period. A year
and 4 months later, the petitioners were still unable to pay.

The respondent filed again for a Motion to Recall the Court‘s Order claiming that their
obligation was novated by the Letter. The respondents contend however that the said letter did
not novate the obligation, rather it was just an accommodation for the more liberal terms of
payment for the petitioners.

The respondents prayed then for the resolution of pending incidents. The petitioners filed their
Opposition claiming that Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court bars the execution, by mere
motions, of judgment which is more than 5 years old. The respondent argued that the
circumstances of their cases should allow them to be exempted from the said rule, specifically
because it was the petitioners who caused the delay.

The petitioners filed on March 6, 2001 in the RTC an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Writ of
Execution. The RTC denied the said Motion.

Issue:
Did the counsel abuse the judicial process and should be held liable?

Ruling:
The court cannot countenance, and in fact, condemns, the outrageous abuse of judicial process
by the petitioners and their counsel. Without a doubt, the present case is an instance where the
due process routine vigorously pursued by the petitioners is but clear- cut devise meant to
perpetually forestall execution of an otherwise final and executory decision. Aside from
clogging the court dockets, the strategy is deplorable a common course resorted to by losing
litigants in the hope of evading manifest obligations.

The Court reminds the counsel of the duty of the lawyers who, as officers of the court, must see
to it that the orderly administration must not be unduly impeded. It is the duty of a counsel to
advise his client, ordinarily a layman on the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or
lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden
duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A
lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity to
litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its
primacy is indisputable.