Mercedes Cobb-Perez and Damaso Perez vs Judge Gregorio Lantin

G.R. No. L-22320 – 24 SCRA 219 – 132 Phil. 120 – Legal Ethics – Counsel’s Assertiveness; When improper 

A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso Perez for the latter’s failure to pay a debt of P17k. Hermoso won and a writ of execution was issued in his favor. The sheriff was to conduct a public sale of a property owned by Damaso worth P300k. This was opposed by Damaso as he claimed the amount of said property was more than the amount of the debt. Judge Lantin, issuing judge, found merit on this hence he amended his earlier decision and so he issued a second writ this time directing the sheriff to conduct  a public sale on Damaso’s 210 shares of stock approximately worth P17k.

Subsequently, Damaso and his wife filed five more petitions for injunction trying to stop the public sale. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court where the SC ruled that the petition of the Perez spouses are without merit; that their numerous petitions for injunction are contemplated for delay. In said decision, the Supreme Court ordered petitioners to pay the cost of the suit but said cost should be paid by their counsels. The counsels now appeal said decision by the Supreme Court as they claimed that such decision reflected adversely against their professionalism; that “If there was delay, it was because petitioners’ counsel happened to be more assertive . . . a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be condemned.”

ISSUE: Whether or not the counsels for the Spouses Perez are excused.

HELD: No. A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what is not tolerated is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to 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.

Read full text