AC 3695; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 3695 February 24, 1992
Domingo C. Gamalinda, complainant, vs. Atty. Fernando Alcantara and Atty. Joselito Lim, respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Domingo Gamalinda filed an administrative case against retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and Atty. Joselito Lim for alleged grave abuse of profession, deception, threats, and causing injury to his reputation and loss of his land. The charges stem from events related to Civil Case No. 3827, a reconveyance case over a portion of Lot No. 3217 in Victoria, Tarlac. The plaintiffs, represented by Atty. Lim, secured a preliminary and later a permanent injunction against the defendants, the heirs of Apolinario Gamalinda. Complainant, claiming ownership through a deed from these heirs, entered the disputed area pending appeal. Atty. Lim, acting for his client, filed a motion to declare complainant in contempt for violating the injunction, which the trial court granted after a resurvey confirmed the occupied land was the subject of the litigation. After the Court of Appeals affirmed the reconveyance judgment, Atty. Lim moved for execution and later to declare complainant’s owner’s copy of the title null and void for non-compliance.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Atty. Fernando Alcantara and Atty. Joselito Lim are administratively liable for the acts complained of by Domingo Gamalinda.
RULING
The Court dismissed the charges for lack of merit. Regarding retired Judge Alcantara, the complaint is barred by res judicata. The charges are a rehash of those in a prior administrative matter (Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-494) which was dismissed by the Court for being moot and academic, a resolution that had become final. The change in the form of action, now against him as an attorney, does not preclude the application of res judicata.
As for Atty. Lim, his actions were performed within the bounds of his professional duty. He filed the contempt motion to enforce a court injunction protecting his client’s possessory rights and later moved for execution and cancellation of title to implement a final judgment. A lawyer has a duty of fidelity, competence, and diligence to his client, entitling him to employ every honorable means to secure what is justly due. Atty. Lim was merely diligently prosecuting his client’s cause in Civil Case No. 3827. Complainant, as a successor-in-interest to the original defendants, was a privy and bound by the orders in that case. The allegation of a forged deed is a matter that should have been raised in the civil case, not in this administrative proceeding, and there is no evidence Atty. Lim was aware of any defect. Thus, no deception or abuse of profession was committed.