ORONCE v CA
GR No. 125766 | October 19, 1998
GAYARES
PETITIONER:
Felicidad Oronce and Rosita Flaminiano
RESPONDENT:
Court of Appeals and Priciliano Gonzales
Development Corporation (PGDC)
DOCTRINE:
Through his acts, Atty. Flaminiano has flouted
his duties as a member of the legal profession.
Under the CPR, he is prohibited from counseling
or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
FACTS:
 Respondent PGDC is the registered
owner of a parcel of land situated at 52
Gilmore St., New Manila, Quezon City.
 PGDC obtained a 4 million-peso loan
from the China Banking Corporation
(CBC). To guarantee payment, PGDC
mortgaged the said property and all its
improvements to the bank. But due to
irregular payment of amortization,
interests and penalties on the loan
accumulated.
 PGDC, through its president, Antonio
Gonzales, signed and execute a Deed of
Sale with Assumption of Mortgage
covering the property and its
improvements, in favor of the
petitioners. The deed states that the sale
was in consideration of the sum of P5.4
million pesos and that respondent will
deliver the property after the expiration
of 1 year from the date of sale.
 Petitioners also bound themselves to
pay respondent’s indebtedness with
CBC, which they eventually received.
However, respondent reneged on its
obligation to deliver the premises to
petitioners upon the expiration of the
one-year period from April 13, 1992.
 6 months later, petitioners caused the
registration of the Deed of Sale with the
Assumption of Mortgage with the
Register of Deeds. They also obtained a
new title as the new owners of the
property. They also paid the real estate
taxes on July 1993.
 Petitioners then sent respondents a
demand letter so that it may vacate the
premises. The letter, which was sent
through the post office, went unclaimed.
This prompted the petitioners to file
before the MTC a complaint for
unlawful detainer against respondent.
 Respondent, in reply, raised the issue of
ownership over the property. It
impugned that petitioner’s right to eject
since it claimed that they have no cause
for action due to the fact that it was
merely a mortgagee. It also argued that
when the parties executed the said deed,
its real intention was to forge an
equitable mortgage and not a sale.
 PGDC pointed out 3 circumstances to
evidence the mortgage relationship:
1. Inadequacy of purchase price;
2. Continued possession of
respondent; and
3. Petitioner’s retention of a
portion of the purchase price.
 MTC: Ruled in favor of petitioners.
 CA: Affirmed MTC; approved the TRO
and preliminary injunction of
respondent, which enjoined the
implementation of the writ of execution
and the decision of the RTC.
 Respondent filed an urgent motion
against petitioner and her husband,
Atty. Flaminiano, in contempt of court.
It was founded on an affidavit by Dr.
Gonzales who resided in the property,
which is derived from his right to do so
since his family owns PGDC.
 Gonzales alleged that petitioners
entered the property through craftiness
and intimidation. He claimed that when
the houseboy opened the gate, two men
said they would like to visit the ailing
mother of Gonzales.
 Once inside, the men identified
themselves as policemen and opened
the gate for 20 other men, two trucks,
and an L-300 van. When Gonzales went
outside, he saw 30 to 40 men and two
trucks entering. He asked a person who
turned out to be the brother of the
petitioner. The brother said that they are
the owners of the property. Gonzales
said that the proceeding is still in court
but the man he was talking to dismissed
his claim.
  Despite Gonzales’ plea, the group of
men continued to enter the property and
even installed a power generator inside.
Atty. Flaminiano even butted in and
told him to remove his mother from the
premises due to her old age and
suggested to burn the house down by
reason of short-circuiting so they may
claim for the 5 million insurance.
 The group entered even the terrace and
brought food.
 Gonzales, concerned about his 81-year-
old mother who had just been
discharged from the hospital. The group
stayed until the next day and used
everything in the house.
 Atty. Flaminiano confronted Gonzales,
saying that he is not scared even with
the SC and he will do whatever he
wants.
 The group also blocked members of the
family from entering the property. They
used everything except for the
bedrooms.
 Respondent filed an urgent motion for
the issuance of a TRO and writ of
preliminary injunction with this Court
to enjoin petitioners so they may cease
and desist. Instead of complying,
petitioners continued its occupation.
After receiving a copy of the TRO,
petitioners put up a billboard in front of
the property stating that it is the national
headquarters of People’s Alliance for
National Reconciliation and Unity for
Peace and Progress (PANRUPP).
RATIO:
What is disturbing to the Court is the conduct of
Atty. Flaminiano, a lawyer whose actuations as
an officer of the court should be beyond
reproach. His contumacious acts of entering the
property without the consent of its occupants and
in contravention of the existing writ issued by
the CA, as well as the utterance of disrespect for
the law and the Court, is unbecoming of a
member of the Philippine Bar.
He asserted in his comment on the motion for
contempt that petitioners peacefully took over
the property. Regardless of his contention,
however, peaceful take-over cannot be justified
as defiance to the writ given by the CA. He did
not comment nor deny that he committed such
acts.
Through his acts, Atty. Flaminiano has flouted
his duties as a member of the legal profession.
Under the CPR, he is prohibited from counseling
or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Petitioner is guilty for contempt. Atty.
Flaminiano is ordered to pay a fine of P25k for
committing acts unbecoming of a member of the
Philippine Bar with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same will be dealt more
severely.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Flaminiano’s actions throughout the
occupancy of the disputed property are violated
the Rules of Court?

HELD:
YES – The conduct of the petitioner in taking
possession over the property is deplorably high-
handed. On an erroneous assumption that she
had been legally vested with ownership of the
property, she took steps prior to the proceedings
by illegally taking control and possession of the
property.

The act of entering in defiance of the writ of

preliminary injunction issued by the CA
constituted indirect contempt under Sec. 3, Rule
71 of the Rules of Court.