The Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Eligio P. Mallari underscores the ethical responsibilities of lawyers to uphold justice and avoid abusing court processes. The Court suspended Atty. Eligio P. Mallari from the practice of law for two years, finding him guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) through dilatory tactics aimed at obstructing the execution of a final judgment. This ruling reinforces the principle that lawyers, as officers of the court, must act with candor, fairness, and good faith, and must not misuse legal procedures to defeat the ends of justice.

Mortgaged Properties and a Lawyer’s Delay: When Zealotry Becomes Misconduct

This case arose from a dispute between Atty. Eligio P. Mallari and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) concerning the foreclosure of properties mortgaged to secure loans. Despite a final and executory judgment in favor of GSIS, Mallari engaged in a series of legal maneuvers to delay the execution of the judgment, prompting the Supreme Court to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The central legal question was whether Mallari’s actions constituted a violation of his duties as a lawyer, warranting disciplinary sanctions.

The factual backdrop reveals that Mallari obtained loans from GSIS, secured by mortgages over his properties. Upon his failure to meet his obligations, GSIS initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Mallari responded by filing a complaint for injunction, which was ultimately decided against him with finality by the Supreme Court. Despite this, Mallari continued to file motions and initiate new cases aimed at preventing GSIS from taking possession of the foreclosed properties.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the issuance of a writ of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty. As a lawyer, Mallari should have known that, as a non-redeeming mortgagor, he had no right to challenge the issuance of the writ, especially after the consolidation of ownership in GSIS. His actions were deemed a deliberate attempt to delay the execution of a final and executory judgment, violating Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR, which enjoins lawyers to “observe the rules of procedure and x x x not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.”

Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

The Court found that Mallari’s conduct further breached his Lawyer’s Oath, particularly the promise not to “wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice…” The Court reiterated that a lawyer’s duty to defend his client should not exceed the bounds of the law, and that a lawyer must always conduct himself with fidelity to the courts.

Mallari’s defense, arguing that the foreclosure was unlawful and that he still possessed a right of redemption, was dismissed by the Court. The Court emphasized that final and executory decisions may no longer be disturbed. His reliance on Article 429 of the Civil Code, which pertains to an owner’s right to exclude others from enjoying their property, was also deemed untenable, given the settled issue of ownership in favor of GSIS.

The Court also addressed Mallari’s claim that his counsel, Atty. Ocampo, signed most of the pleadings. The Court noted that Mallari himself filed the petition for review in G.R. No. 157659, thereby ratifying the previous actions taken by his counsel. The Court concluded that Mallari had instructed or, at the very least, consented to the dilatory tactics employed by his counsel.

The Supreme Court cited Canon 12 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and Rules 12.02 and 12.04, which prohibit the filing of multiple actions arising from the same cause and the undue delay of cases or misuse of court processes. Mallari’s filing of Civil Case No. 12053, which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata, was seen as a further indication of his intent to delay the execution of judgment in Civil Case No. 7802.

Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.

The Court, in its decision, referred to its previous ruling in Mallari v. Government Service Insurance System:

Verily, the petitioner wittingly adopted his afore­-described worthless and vexatious legal maneuvers for no other purpose except to delay the full enforcement of the writ of possession, despite knowing, being himself a lawyer, that as a non-redeeming mortgagor he could no longer impugn both the extrajudicial foreclosure and the ex parte issuance of the writ of execution cum writ of possession; and that the enforcement of the duly-issued writ of possession could not be delayed.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a one-year suspension, but the Supreme Court increased the penalty to a two-year suspension, citing jurisprudence that supports stricter sanctions for similar misconduct. The Court reiterated that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes an abuse of the court’s processes and warrants disciplinary action.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Mallari violated his ethical duties as a lawyer by employing dilatory tactics to obstruct the execution of a final judgment in favor of GSIS. The Court examined his actions in light of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What specific violations was Atty. Mallari found guilty of?	Atty. Mallari was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath; Canons 10 and 12; and Rules 10.03, 12.02, and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These violations pertained to his abuse of court processes and attempts to delay the administration of justice.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Mallari?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Mallari from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective upon receipt of the decision. This was a stricter penalty than the one-year suspension initially recommended by the IBP.
What is the significance of a writ of possession in this case?	The writ of possession is significant because the Court reiterated that its issuance in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty. As a non-redeeming mortgagor, Mallari had no legal basis to challenge its issuance after the consolidation of ownership in GSIS.
How did the Court view Atty. Mallari’s repeated filings of cases and motions?	The Court viewed Atty. Mallari’s actions as deliberate attempts to delay the execution of a final and executory judgment. The Court emphasized that such actions constitute an abuse of court processes and a violation of a lawyer’s duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Can a lawyer escape liability by claiming their counsel was responsible for the actions?	No, the Court rejected this argument, noting that Atty. Mallari ratified the actions of his counsel by filing a petition for review before the Supreme Court. This indicated that the actions were undertaken with his consent or under his instructions.
What is the doctrine of res judicata and how does it apply in this case?	The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from relitigating issues that have already been decided by a competent court. Mallari’s filing of Civil Case No. 12053, which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata, was seen as a further attempt to delay the execution of judgment in Civil Case No. 7802, violating Canon 12 of the CPR.
What ethical obligations does a lawyer have to the court?	A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. They must observe the rules of procedure and must not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Additionally, a lawyer must exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

This case serves as a stark reminder to members of the bar that their role as officers of the court carries significant ethical responsibilities. The pursuit of a client’s interests, even when the client is oneself, must never come at the expense of justice and the integrity of the legal system. The Supreme Court’s firm stance against the abuse of court processes underscores the importance of upholding the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: IN RE: G.R. NO. 157659, January 10, 2018