In re: G.R. No. 157659 “Eligio P. Mallari vs.

GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga”

Facts:
In 1968, Mallari obtained loans from the Government Service Insurance System GSIS amounting to
P34,000 and were secured by mortgages over two parcels of land registered under his and his wife's
names. Eventually, Mallari was unable to meet his obligations which prompted GSIS to apply for
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. However, Mallari was able to stall this by requesting for a final
computation of his outstanding account and persuading the Sheriff to hold the publication of the
foreclosure notice in abeyance. The GSIS, on two separate dates, comply with Mallari’s request, but the
latter still failed to settle prompting the GSIS to commence the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.

On August 22, 1986, respondent filed a complaint for injunction with application for preliminary
injunction against the GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga and was docketed as Civil Case No.
7802 which was decided on his favor. Upon appeal, the CA reversed the RTC on March 27, 1996. This
Court, in G.R. No. 124468, denied respondent's petition for review on certiorari and the motion for
reconsideration. As a result, the CA Decision dated March 27, 1996 became final and executory,
rendering unassailable the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction 6, and the issuance of titles in the name
of the GSIS.

To stall the execution of the extrajudicial foreclosure, Mallari, in several dates, requested for an
extension of time to vacate the properties, a case for consignation with a prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order, but was dismissed on the ground of res judicata, and motions
to hold GSIS, et al. in contempt of court, but such were denied Respondent brought the matter before
the SC in G.R. No. 157659, where It affirmed the CA's Decision. The Court held that the issuance of writ
of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure is purely ministerial. Also, Mallari, as a lawyer, should have
known that, as a non- redeeming mortgagor, he had no more right to challenge the issuance of the writ
of execution.

Thus, his actions can only be tainted by bad faith. It also agreed with the CA that the petition before it is
"part of the dilatory tactics x xx to stall the execution of a final and executory decision in Civil Case No.
7802 which has already been resolved with finality by no less than the highest tribunal of the land."
Thus, the Court deemed it proper to direct the IBP-CBD to conduct an investigation on respondent.

The IBP-CBD found that the means employed by respondent are dilatory moves to delay the execution
of the judgment in favor of the GSIS. In the process, he violated his Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.3, Canon
10 of the CPR, and thus recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for at least
one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendation.

Issue:
Whether Mallari employed dilatory tactics to stall the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 7802 in
violation of the CPR. (YES)

Held:
A lawyer must never be blinded by the cause of his client at the expense of justice, even if the latter
turned out to be himself. He must never overlook that as officer of the court, he is primarily called upon
to assist in the administration of justice. They are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
In this case, the judgment in favor of the GSIS concerning the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings had long become final and executory in G.R. No. 124468. Despite this, Mallari, with the
single purpose of delaying the execution of the judgment by the winning party, took the following series
of actions which effectively obstructed the execution of a final and executory judgment: (1) by
requesting for extension of time to vacate the premises; yet he did not do so; (2) commencing a case for
consignation with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order; and (3) he
went on to file a motion for contempt against the GSIS, et al., despite knowledge that the GSIS'
ownership over the properties has been upheld.

As the Court previously observed, Mallari’s conduct contravened Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which he enjoins a lawyer to "observe the rules of procedure and not to
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice." By his dilatory moves, he further breached and dishonored
his Lawyer's Oath. Notably, when asked to answer the administrative charges against him, respondent
does not lament the actions he has taken. Rather, he justifies them by insisting that this Court has erred
in its decisions in G.R. No. 124468 and G.R. No. 157659 — decisions which have long attained finality. He
again argued against the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings despite it being final and
executory, and his further reliance on Article 429 of the Civil Code. Such action on his part only affirms
his misplaced zealousness and malicious intent to reopen the case in the hopes of gaining a favorable
judgment. He demonstrates his propensity to abuse and misuse court processes to the detriment of the
winning party and ultimately, the administration of justice. As such, he violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.03
of the CPR:

Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.

Mallari owes good faith, fairness and candor to the court. By arguing a case that has already been
rejected repeatedly, he abused his right of recourse to the courts. His acts of not conducting himself "to
the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts" constitute serious
transgression of his professional oath.
Moreover, the filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of
res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the CPR, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

With this, Mallari violated not only the lawyer's mandate "to delay no man for money or malice," but
also Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of the CPR:

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.

Respondent must be reminded that he is not merely the litigant in his case. He is also his own counsel
and an officer of the court with a duty to the truth and the administration of justice: 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 abuse of the court's processes and improper conduct that tends to
impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court.
Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the
execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence
(for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good
fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent
with truth and honor.

Respondent cannot escape liability by claiming that it was his counsel who signed most of the pleadings.
Mallari admits that he filed the petition for review in G.R. No. 157659 before us. By doing so, he ratified
the previous actions taken by his counsel.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:

(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event
he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.

here is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or
claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument
will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which
he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is
whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.

Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds, ultra vires acts, or
negligence, and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a
stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation,
to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and indirectly to the
stockholders. This is what is known as a derivative suit, and settled is the doctrine that in a derivative
suit, the corporation is the real party in interest while the stockholder filing suit for the corporation’s
behalf is only nominal party. The corporation should be included as a party in the suit.

In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, entitled Philippine Public School
Teachers Assn., Inc., et al. v. 1992-1995 Board of Directors of the Philippine Public School Teachers Assn.
(PPSTA), et al., was filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors. Respondent admits that the
ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA. Yet, he
appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in the said case. Clearly,
respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the parties against whom his other
client, the PPSTA, filed suit.