G.R. No. L-27632 February 28, 1972
MIGUEL OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. LIBERATO S. DOMINGO, VICENTE E. GALANOG, CITY JUDGE OF DAVAO CITY AND ATTY. ALFREDO ABEJA, CHIEF, DEPUTY SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court had previously dismissed a petition filed by Miguel Ocampo, which sought to annul a writ of execution issued against him in an ejectment case. In its March 27, 1971 decision, the Court found the petition to be a sham. The record showed that Ocampo had verified allegations claiming he was never served summons or a copy of the complaint and decision. However, evidence revealed that on May 20, 1967, Ocampo had personally received the writ of execution from the sheriff and even wrote on its back a promise to vacate the premises and pay rentals by June 10, 1967. He filed his petition with the Supreme Court on June 7, 1967, while his promise to the sheriff was still pending, thereby misleading the Court into issuing a restraining order.
In that prior decision, the Court required Ocampo and his counsel, Atty. Tomas S. Macasaet, to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. Ocampo, through new counsel, filed an explanation and a motion for a 60-day extension to vacate, which the Court denied. Atty. Macasaet explained he filed the petition based on his client’s representations and cited personal misfortunes, including a stolen car and hypertension, which caused him to neglect the case. He asserted he acted in good faith without intent to mislead the Court.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Miguel Ocampo and his counsel, Atty. Tomas S. Macasaet, are guilty of contempt of court for filing a sham petition containing false allegations.

RULING

Yes, both are found guilty of contempt. The Court’s ruling is based on the fundamental duty of litigants and their counsel to uphold candor and truthfulness before the courts. Ocampo’s own written undertaking to the sheriff on May 20, 1967, conclusively disproved his sworn allegation in the petition filed on June 7, 1967, that he was unaware of the judgment against him. His subsequent explanation offered no credible mitigation and his motion for an extension to vacate further demonstrated his intent to perpetuate his unlawful detention of the property, which had already lasted nearly four years due to the restraining order obtained via the sham petition. His conduct constituted a willful attempt to deceive the Court and obstruct the execution of a lawful judgment, degrading the administration of justice.
For Atty. Macasaet, the Court found mitigating circumstances in his claim of being misled by his client and his previously untainted record. However, he failed in his duty as an officer of the court by not verifying the documented answer filed by respondents and not rectifying the false allegations promptly, which would have allowed the Court to dismiss the petition immediately. His neglect, even if due to personal circumstances, breached his duty of candor and diligence.
Consequently, the Court fined Ocampo P500.00 and sentenced him to thirty days imprisonment. Atty. Macasaet was fined P100.00 and admonished, with a warning for future conduct. The resolution was ordered entered into his personal record.