Cantelang v. Medina

Cantelang vs. Medina - 91 SCRA 403 FACTS: Petitioners are the defendants in separate complaints for forcible entry and illegal detainer filed by private respondent Hillcrest Realty Corporation (HILLCREST) ith the !TC of Taytay" Ri#al" presided by respondent $%dge& Petitioners" defendants belo" filed their respective ansers alleging" inter alia that the s%b$ect land forms part of the 'on !ariano San Pedro y Esteban Estate and has long been possessed by 'on Engracio Sail Pedro" Legal dministrator of the 'on !ariano San Pedro y Esteban Estate" thro%gh his previo%s a%thori#ed representatives" and then by defendants herein as a%thori#ed by !rs& Eva *& Cantelang sst& Regional !anager of the aforesaid Estate &&&their possession thereof being more than ten(+,) years already&  t the hearing" tty& *icente Revelo" co%nsel for defendants belo" manifested that he is inhibiting himself from f%rther participation in these cases in vie of the filing by defendant Eva *& Cantelang in her behalf of an e-.parte motion to consolidate the cases& /eca%se of this manifestation and it appearing that defendants ere d%ly notified of the hearing" and considering the vigoro%s ob$ection of plaintiff0s co%nsel to f%rther postponement" the !TC alloed the plaintiff to present f%rther evidence e-.parte" at the res%mption of the hearing on the same day&  fter plaintiff plaintiff had presented its evidence evidence and rested rested its case" case" the !TC !TC iss%ed an an order resetting resetting the the hearing& 1hen the case as called for hearing" defendants did not appear despite d%e notice to them&  tty&  tty& Revelo" Revelo" co%nsel co%nsel for defendants" defendants" appeared b%t manifested manifested that that he as not in a position position to proceed ith the trial for the same reason stated in his manifestation& In vie of this development the !%nicipal Co%rt iss%ed an order 2 (+) considering defendants to have aived their right to add%ce evidence and (3) declaring the case s%bmitted for decision& The !TC rendered to separate $%dgments finding that plaintiff0s ca%se of action has been f%lly established by the re4%isite preponderance of evidence hich stands %ncontradicted in the records and ordering all the defendants" and all persons %nder them (+) to vacate and restore to the plaintiff HILLCREST 2 private respondent herein the premises in 4%estion and (3) to pay plaintiff (a) attorney0s fees in the amo%nt of P+",,,&,, each5 (b) reasonable compensation for the %se of the s%b$ect property at the rate of P6,,&,, a month beginning September" +788 %p to the restit%tion of the premises in 4%estion5 (c) act%al and compensatory damages in the s%m of P+9",,,&,, and (d) costs of  s%it& These decisions became final and e-ec%tory for fail%re of defendants belo" no petitioners" to appeal therefrom& Then" the !TC iss%ed an order of demolition thro%gh" Senior 'ep%ty Sheriff belardo :& !agsa$o" directing them to vacate" remove" destroy and demolish the b%ildings and all app%rtenances in the premises in 4%estion and s%b$ect of the ;rder" ithin seven (8) days %pon receipt hereof& Instead of complying ith the aforesaid order of demolition" petitioners filed a complaint in the C:I of Ri#al hich they amended against private respondent HILLCREST&

ISSUE: 1;< ISSUE:  1;< the co%nsel sho%ld have advised his clients of the real merits of their ca%se or the lac= of it&

HEL: !ES& !ES& s an officer of the Co%rt it as co%nsel0s d%ty to advise this clients" petitioners herein of the real merits of their ca%se or the lac= of it& Had he done so" petitioners co%ld have reali#ed the f%tility of filing this petition" and spared them the need to spend their hard.earned money by ay of co%rt fees in the total amo%nt of P>"3?8&9," for a hopeless reco%rse& :or as adverted to above" the facts 2 (+) over the cases for forcible entry and detainer5 (3) that notice to co%nsel of record" tty& *icente Revelo" as notice to petitioners" no his clients" in the proceedings

belo5 (6) that the proper remedies of his clients as defendants against the adverse $%dgments belo ere either appeal and@or a motion for ne trial and@or petition for relief from $%dgment hichever as proper5 (>) that certiorari is a special remedy hich cannot be a s%bstit%te for any of the foregoing reco%rses5 (9) that the $%dgment of the m%nicipal co%rt of Taytay became final and e-ec%tory in +788" and" finally" (A) that the filing of the action ith the C:I" Ri#al" to ann%l the Certificates of Title of respondent HILLCREST did not $%stify the holding in abeyance of the proceedings on e-ec%tion in the m%nicipal co%rt 2 are legal propositions too plain to be missed by any practitioner concerned ith the prompt administration of $%stice and mindf%l of his client0s elfare and interest& /%t on par ith the d%ties of co%nsel to the co%rts and to his clients is his responsibility to society as a hole 2 the social dimension of the la profession& :or it is the d%ty of co%nsel to promote and enhance instead of defeat and fr%strate the ob$ectives and policies of the society in hich he lives& n aspect of the social responsibility is very clearly the layers0 d%ty to promote the p%blic policy ith respect to s4%atting" hich are" firstly" to prevent the same and p%nish those g%ilty thereof as legislation and Presidential 'irectives provide" "" and here act%ally done" to relocate" even at s%bstantial o%tlay of p%blic f%nds" s4%atter families to settlements" e&g&" /ahay Pare" 'asmariB5as" etc& This action" therefore" on the part of co%nsel" hich ill tend to enco%rage or give comfort to" instead of fr%strate or disco%rage s4%atting" is clearly against p%blic policy and is a great disservice to the legal profession& The petition is ISMISSE&