Mallari v. Government Service Insurance System
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Atty. Eligio P. Mallari obtained two loans from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) secured by mortgages over his and his wife's properties. Due to non-payment, GSIS initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Respondent attempted to stall the foreclosure, but after a series of legal actions and appeals, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) decision in favor of respondent, and this Court denied his petition for review, making the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale final and executory. Procedural History: GSIS filed an ex parte motion for a writ of possession, which the RTC granted. The Sheriff failed to serve the writ, partly due to respondent's request for an extension to vacate, but respondent instead filed a motion to quash the writ. Respondent also filed a separate case for consignation, which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. He further filed motions for contempt against GSIS for painting a fence and cutting off electric services, which were denied by the RTC. The CA denied his petition for certiorari assailing these orders. This Court, in G.R. No. 157659, affirmed the CA's decision, holding that the issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial and that respondent's actions were dilatory tactics. The Petition: This administrative case stemmed from the directive of this Court in G.R. No. 157659 for the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD) to investigate respondent for his deliberate disregard of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence on writs of possession and his violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Eligio P. Mallari deliberately disregarded the Rules of Court and jurisprudence pertinent to the issuance and implementation of the writ of possession under Act No. 3135, as amended. Whether respondent Atty. Eligio P. Mallari wittingly violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent's actions constituted dilatory tactics to stall the execution of a final and executory judgment. Whether respondent's filing of multiple actions concerning the same subject matter violated the doctrine of res judicata and the CPR.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Eligio P. Mallari 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. He was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of deliberate disregard of rules and jurisprudence on writs of possession: The Court reiterated that the issuance of a writ of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is purely ministerial. Respondent, as a lawyer, should have known that as a non-redeeming mortgagor, he had no right to challenge the issuance of the writ of execution cum writ of possession after ownership had been consolidated in the GSIS. His continued challenges were deemed tainted with bad faith and part of dilatory tactics to stall the execution of a final and executory decision. On the issue of witting violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that respondent's actions contravened Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR, enjoining lawyers to "observe the rules of procedure and xxx not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice." By his dilatory moves, he further breached and dishonored his Lawyer's Oath, particularly the commitment not to "promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit" and to "delay no man for money or malice." The Court emphasized that being a party litigant does not give a lawyer license to resort to dilatory moves. On the issue of dilatory tactics to stall execution: The Court found that respondent engaged in a series of actions that effectively obstructed the execution of a final and executory judgment. These included misrepresenting the reason for the Sheriff's failure to serve the writ, filing a second case for consignation after his right to redeem had expired, and filing contempt motions despite GSIS's upheld ownership. The Court observed that these maneuvers were "worthless and vexatious legal maneuvers for no other purpose except to delay the full enforcement of the writ of possession." On the issue of filing multiple actions and res judicata: The Court noted that respondent filed Civil Case No. 12053 for consignation, which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. This act, along with his continued arguments against the validity of foreclosure proceedings despite final and executory decisions, demonstrated a propensity to muddle issues and delay execution. This conduct violated Canon 12 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, specifically Rules 12.02 (no multiple actions from the same cause) and 12.04 (no undue delay or misuse of court processes).
Main Doctrine
A lawyer, even when acting as a litigant, must not use court processes to delay the execution of a final and executory judgment, as such conduct violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.