IN RE: G.R. NO. 157659 "ELIGIO P. MALLARI V.

GOVERNMENT writ of possession, as well as the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR. He
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF maintains that he is still the owner of the unlawfully foreclosed
PAMPANGA. properties because: (1) the GSIS' action for mortgage has
prescribed since more than 10 years had lapsed since the
FACTS: contracting of the obligations; (2) he still has in his favor the one
year right of redemption, to be counted from February 22, 1997, the
1. In 1968, respondent obtained two loans from the Government finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 7802; (3) he preserved his
Service Insurance System (GSIS) in the total amount of P34, 000. right of redemption by effecting a valid tender of payment and
These loans were secured by mortgages over two parcels of land consignation to the GSIS on May 28, 1997; and (4) due to GSIS'
registered under his and his wife's names. Eventually, respondent refusal to receive his payment, he filed the case for consignation
was unable to meet his obligations to the GSIS, which prompted (Civil Case No. 12053). Hence, respondent concludes that, as
the latter to remind him to settle his account owner of the properties, he has the right to exclude any person
2. The GSIS applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage from its enjoyment and disposal and may use such reasonably
due to respondent's failure to settle his account. respondent filed a necessary force as allowed under Article 429 of the Civil Code.
complaint for injunction with application for preliminary injunction
against the GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga in Branch 8. The IBP-CBD, in their Report and Recommendation,[30] found that
44 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in San Fernando, Pampanga. the means employed by respondent are dilatory moves to delay the
3. The RTC ultimately decided in his favor. Upon appeal by the GSIS, execution of the judgment in favor of the GSIS. In the process, he
the CA reversed the RTC. The Supreme Court denied respondent's violated his Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.3, Canon 10 of the CPR.
petition for review on certiorari, as well as, his motion for The IBP-CBD thus recommended that respondent be meted a
reconsideration. penalty of suspension from the practice of law for at least one year.
4. The RTC issued a writ of execution cum writ of
possession, ordering the Sheriff to place the GSIS in possession of
the properties. ISSUE/s: W/N respondent should be suspended from practice?
5. Respondent filed a case for consignation with a prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against the RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Eligio P.
GSIS and the provincial Sheriff but was dismissed on the grounds Mallari is hereby found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath; Canons 10
of res judicata. and 12; and Rules 10.03, 12.02, and 12.04 of the Code of Professional
6. The case reached the Supreme Court and agreed with the CA's Responsibility. He is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period
observation that the petition before it is "part of the dilatory tactics x of two (2) years effective upon receipt of a copy of this Decision.
x x to stall the execution of a final and executory decision in Civil
Case No. 7802 which has already been resolved with finality by no RATIO:
less than the highest tribunal of the land" and recommended the
Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 1. We adopt the findings of the IBP Board of Governors on
to investigate the petitioner respondent's unethical conduct, but modify the penalty in accord
with recent jurisprudence.
7. In his answer to the disbarment complaint, respondent claims that 2. A lawyer must never be blinded by the cause of his client at the
he did not deliberately disregard the Rules of Court and expense of justice, even if the latter turned out to be himself. He
jurisprudence relative to the issuance and implementation of the must never overlook that as officer of the court, he is primarily
called upon to assist in the administration of justice. Often
 designated as vanguards of our legal system, lawyers are called
upon to protect and uphold truth and the rule of law. They are
obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
3. 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. He thus deliberately abused
court procedures and processes, in order to enable himself to
obstruct and stifle the fair and quick administration of justice in
favor of mortgagee and purchaser GSIS.