AC 5036; (January, 2003) (Digest)
Adm. Case No. 5036; January 13, 2003
Rizalino C. Fernandez, complainant, vs. Atty. Dionisio C. Isidto, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rizalino C. Fernandez is the son of Vicente K. Fernandez, the prevailing plaintiff in Civil Case No. 3726 for recovery of possession of three lots. A decision dated February 24, 1997, declared Vicente the owner and ordered defendant Cresencia Dahildahil to surrender the lots. Upon the advice of her counsel, respondent Atty. Dionisio C. Isidto, Dahildahil abandoned her appeal, making the judgment final on October 3, 1998.
Subsequently, on October 26, 1998, respondent filed a new complaint (Civil Case No. 98-10520) in behalf of Dahildahil’s children against the heirs of Vicente Fernandez, seeking the cancellation of the same certificate of title adjudged valid in the first case. When a writ of execution was issued in the first case, respondent moved to quash it, arguing the pending second case posed a prejudicial question. The trial court denied his motions, ruling the second case was barred by res judicata, and eventually dismissed it. Respondent appealed but failed to file the required brief, leading to the appeal’s dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Isidto is administratively liable for misconduct for filing a clearly barred subsequent action and employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a final judgment.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s finding of guilt for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The legal logic is clear: the doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of a finally adjudicated claim. The second case involved the same property and fundamentally the same cause of action—challenging Vicente Fernandez’s ownership—which was conclusively settled in the first case. The plaintiffs in the second case, as successors-in-interest to the original defendant, were bound by the prior final judgment.
Respondent, as a lawyer, has a duty not to misuse procedural rules to defeat the ends of justice. By filing a baseless second case clearly barred by res judicata and then using its mere pendency to obstruct execution, respondent engaged in a deliberate scheme to delay and impede the enforcement of a final and executory judgment. Such tactics constitute gross misconduct, abuse of court processes, and a violation of his oath. The Court found the one-year suspension from the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP, to be appropriate, citing a precedent where a lawyer was similarly penalized for frivolous appeals and dilatory tactics aimed at frustrating execution.