AC 12197; (June, 2021) (Digest)

G.R. No. 12197, June 16, 2021
Corazon E. Recio, Complainant, vs. Attys. Ulpiano S. Madamba and Manolito M. Apostol, Jr., Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Corazon E. Recio filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against Amalgamated Motors Philippines, Inc. (AMPI), represented by respondents as counsel. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, finding AMPI liable for constructive dismissal and awarding Recio backwages and separation pay. The NLRC decision became final and executory, as evidenced by an Entry of Judgment. Recio moved for execution. Despite the finality, respondents, on behalf of AMPI, filed multiple motions and petitions to obstruct execution: a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), an appeal to the NLRC against the writ of execution, a complaint for damages and injunction before the Regional Trial Court, and a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 194035), which was denied with finality. After the Supreme Court’s final ruling, respondents again challenged the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution via another Petition for Certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 122848), which was dismissed. Recio then filed this disbarment complaint, alleging respondents abused court processes to unduly delay the execution of a final judgment.

ISSUE

Whether respondents should be held administratively liable for their actions in filing multiple motions and petitions that delayed the execution of a final and executory judgment.

RULING

Yes, respondents are administratively liable. The Court found that respondents’ series of actions—filing frivolous appeals, multiple certiorari petitions, and a civil complaint—constituted a deliberate strategy to delay the execution of the NLRC’s final and executory decision, despite the absence of any stay order. Their actions persisted even after the Supreme Court had ruled with finality on the merits. This conduct violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 10.03, Canon 10 (a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and not misuse them to delay the execution of a judgment) and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 (a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case). While lawyers must defend their clients zealously, their primary duty is to assist in the speedy administration of justice. The Court modified the recommended penalty from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, imposing a six-month suspension from the practice of law.