A.C. No. 11111 EN BANC January 10, 2018
In Re: G.R. No. 157659 “ELIGIO P. MALLARI v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA.”

FACTS

This administrative case originated from the Supreme Court’s directive in G.R. No. 157659 to investigate Atty. Eligio P. Mallari. The underlying facts involve his two loans from the GSIS, secured by mortgages on his properties, which he defaulted on. After final and executory rulings affirming the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure and the GSIS’s ownership, the GSIS obtained a writ of possession. Atty. Mallari, however, filed multiple motions and a new case to quash the writ and resist possession, including motions for contempt against GSIS for actions like painting the fence and disconnecting electricity on the foreclosed properties.
Despite clear jurisprudence that the issuance of a writ of possession after a foreclosure sale and consolidation of title is a ministerial duty, and that a non-redeeming mortgagor loses the right to possess the property, Atty. Mallari persisted in his legal maneuvers. The Supreme Court, in the antecedent case, found his actions constituted dilatory tactics to stall the execution of a final judgment, tainted with bad faith, and referred him for disciplinary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Eligio P. Mallari violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility through his conduct in the foreclosure proceedings.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Mallari is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP-CBD’s findings and suspended him from the practice of law for two years. The legal logic is anchored on his duty as a lawyer to uphold the rule of law and assist in the speedy administration of justice. His actions demonstrated a deliberate disregard of settled doctrine. The Court has consistently ruled that a writ of possession is a ministerial issuance upon application by the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale after consolidation of title. By filing repetitive motions and a new case (Civil Case No. 12053) which was correctly dismissed for res judicata, he engaged in vexatious litigation intended solely to delay the execution of a final judgment.
This conduct violated Canons 10 and 12, and Rules 10.03, 12.02, and 12.04 of the CPR. He failed to act with candor and fairness to the court (Canon 10) by pursuing frivolous remedies despite knowing the finality of the judgment. More critically, he impeded the speedy administration of justice (Canon 12) through manifestly dilatory tactics. His defense of merely protecting his property interest was untenable, as his right to possession was extinguished upon the finality of the foreclosure. His actions, therefore, constituted an abuse of the judicial process and warranted a severe penalty to underscore the lawyer’s role as an officer of the court obligated to respect final judgments.