Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 246 views

    Spouses Aguilar Vs Manila Banking Corporation Facts

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    This case involves a bank foreclosing on a property due to unpaid loans. The spouses filed multiple motions to delay the execution of the foreclosure, claiming new payment plans or issues with procedural rules. The court found this to be an abuse of judicial process, aimed only at perpetually delaying paying what was owed. The lawyer has a duty to advise clients properly and resist frivolous litigation, upholding justice over a client's desires. The court condemned these delay tactics and reminded lawyers that they must not unduly impede orderly administration as officers of the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Spouses Aguilar Vs Manila Banking Corporation Facts

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    246 views2 pages
    This case involves a bank foreclosing on a property due to unpaid loans. The spouses filed multiple motions to delay the execution of the foreclosure, claiming new payment plans or issues with procedural rules. The court found this to be an abuse of judicial process, aimed only at perpetually delaying paying what was owed. The lawyer has a duty to advise clients properly and resist frivolous litigation, upholding justice over a client's desires. The court condemned these delay tactics and reminded lawyers that they must not unduly impede orderly administration as officers of the court.

    Original Description:

    AguilarVs MBC

    Original Title

    Spouses Aguilar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a bank foreclosing on a property due to unpaid loans. The spouses filed multiple motions to delay the execution of the foreclosure, claiming new payment plans or issues with procedural rules. The court found this to be an abuse of judicial process, aimed only at perpetually delaying paying what was owed. The lawyer has a duty to advise clients properly and resist frivolous litigation, upholding justice over a client's desires. The court condemned these delay tactics and reminded lawyers that they must not unduly impede orderly administration as officers of the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    246 views2 pages

    Spouses Aguilar Vs Manila Banking Corporation Facts

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    This case involves a bank foreclosing on a property due to unpaid loans. The spouses filed multiple motions to delay the execution of the foreclosure, claiming new payment plans or issues with procedural rules. The court found this to be an abuse of judicial process, aimed only at perpetually delaying paying what was owed. The lawyer has a duty to advise clients properly and resist frivolous litigation, upholding justice over a client's desires. The court condemned these delay tactics and reminded lawyers that they must not unduly impede orderly administration as officers of the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Spouses Aguilar Vs Manila Banking Corporation

    Facts:
    This is a case regarding how the execution of a final judgment was forestalled by the perpetual
    dilatory tactics employed by the litigant, and makes a blatant mockery of justice. These series of
    actions originated from extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property by the Manila
    Banking Corporation because of the petitioners‘ failure to pay their loan of Php 600,000.00. The
    following are the procedural antecedents:

    On May 30 1983, the petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of the foreclosure sale of the
    property before the RTC instead of redeeming the property. This resulted to the parties
    entering into a compromise agreement. However, the petitioners failed to pay the balance and
    the respondent filed for a motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution to enforce the earlier
    decision.

    The petitioner filed a Manifestation praying for the deferment of the enforcement of the
    execution because according to them, they have a pending proposal for the settlement of their
    debt. No settlement was reached by the parties however during the deferment period. A year
    and 4 months later, the petitioners were still unable to pay.

    The respondent filed again for a Motion to Recall the Court‘s Order claiming that their
    obligation was novated by the Letter. The respondents contend however that the said letter did
    not novate the obligation, rather it was just an accommodation for the more liberal terms of
    payment for the petitioners.

    The respondents prayed then for the resolution of pending incidents. The petitioners filed their
    Opposition claiming that Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court bars the execution, by mere
    motions, of judgment which is more than 5 years old. The respondent argued that the
    circumstances of their cases should allow them to be exempted from the said rule, specifically
    because it was the petitioners who caused the delay.

    The petitioners filed on March 6, 2001 in the RTC an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Writ of
    Execution. The RTC denied the said Motion.

    Issue:
    Did the counsel abuse the judicial process and should be held liable?

    Ruling:
    The court cannot countenance, and in fact, condemns, the outrageous abuse of judicial process
    by the petitioners and their counsel. Without a doubt, the present case is an instance where the
    due process routine vigorously pursued by the petitioners is but clear- cut devise meant to
    perpetually forestall execution of an otherwise final and executory decision. Aside from
    clogging the court dockets, the strategy is deplorable a common course resorted to by losing
    litigants in the hope of evading manifest obligations.

    The Court reminds the counsel of the duty of the lawyers who, as officers of the court, must see
    to it that the orderly administration must not be unduly impeded. It is the duty of a counsel to
    advise his client, ordinarily a layman on 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.

    You might also like