GAMALINDA v.

LIM
NARVASA, C.J.:
In his verifed letter-complaint dated June 19, 1991,
1
complainant Domingo Gamalinda charges retired
Judge Fernando Alcantara and Atty. Joselito im !ith grave a"use o# their pro#ession $%la"is nilang pag-
a"uso sa &anilang propesyon%', deception, threats, dishonoring and in(uring the reputation o# said
complainant and "ringing a"out the loss o# his land.
)he *ourt fnds the charges to "e !ithout "asis and accordingly dismisses them.
)he administrative complaint against retired Judge Fernando Alcantara is a #utile attempt to resurrect
the charges fled against him in Adm. +atter ,o. +)J-9--.9., !hich !ere dismissed "y this *ourt in its
resolution o# /eptem"er 0, 1900 #or having "ecome moot and academic. Adm. +atter ,o. +)J-9--.9.
!as fled only on July 11, 1902, or fve $3' months a#ter the respondent (udge4s retirement #rom the
service on Fe"ruary 5, 1902. ,o motion #or reconsideration having "een seasona"ly fled "y
complainant, that resolution has "ecome fnal and e6ecutory. It serves as a "ar to a relitigation o# the
same charges against respondent (udge.
2
)hat those charges are no! "eing "rought against
respondent (udge in his capacity as an attorney does not help the cause o# complainant, #or the
change in the #orm o# action or remedy pursued does not "ar the application o# the rule o# res
judicata.
3
7n the other hand, the record esta"lishes that Atty. im !as merely per#orming his duty as counsel #or
the plainti8s in *ivil *ase ,o. 5012 !hen he did !hat is no! complained o#.
4
In *ivil *ase ,o. 5012 o# the 9egional )rial *ourt o# )arlac, :ranch ;III, /alud :alot and Felicidad :alot
had sued the heirs o# Apolinario Gamalinda
5
#or reconveyance, !ith damages, o# the eastern hal# o#
ot ,o. 5112 o# the cadastral survey o# <ictoria, )arlac, !hich !as allegedly inadvertently included in
the original certifcate o# title o# Apolinario Gamalinda. In the course o# the trial, plainti8s !ere a"le to
secure a !rit o# preliminary in(unction against the %de#endants, their agents, representatives or other
persons acting in their "ehal#, ordering them to desist #rom threshing and carting a!ay the palay
harvest on ot ,o. 5112 o# the *adastral /urvey o# <ictoria, . . . until #urther order o# this
*ourt. . . .%
6
)his in(unction !as made permanent in the decision o# the lo!er court rendered on July
1=, 1922 in #avor o# the plainti8s.
>ending appeal to the *ourt o# Appeals, complainant herein entered a portion o# the area in dispute, in
the "elie# that the !hole o# ot ,o. 5112 "elonged to him "y virtue o# a Deed o# ?6tra(udicial
/ettlement !ith @uitclaim
7
e6ecuted in his #avor "y the heirs o# Apolinario Gamalinda on +ay =, 1903.
It must "e noted that at that time title to ot ,o. 5112 !as still in the name o# Apolinario Gamalinda.
)hus, !hen +a6imiano )i"urcio, >rotacio *a"atino and +a6imo +ateo, tenants o# /alud :alot, entered
the portion "eing cultivated "y complainant, the latter reported the incident to the police.
From /alud :alot4s vie!point, it !as complainant !ho intruded into her land. 9elying there#ore on the
in(unction issued "y the lo!er court, she fled through counsel, Atty. im, a motion to declare
complainant Gamalinda in contempt o# court.
*omplainant interposed the de#ense that the area in dispute in *ivil *ase ,o. 5012 !as di8erent #rom
the area occupied "y him. )o resolve the issue, the lo!er court !ith his agreement, ordered a resurvey
o# ot ,o. 5112. )he result o# the resurvey sho!ed that contrary to complainant4s claim, the lot
occupied "y him !as the very same land involved in *ivil *ase ,o. 5012. Accordingly, the lo!er court
declared complainant in contempt in an order dated July 1., 190= !hich !as aArmed on appeal "y the
*ourt o# Appeals in a decision rendered on +arch 11, 1990. 8
*onsidering that )i"urcio, *a"atino and +ateo are tenants o# /alud :alot and complainant is the
successor-in-interest o# the heirs o# Apolinario Gamalinda, the de#endants in *ivil *ase ,o. 5012, it is
clearly erroneous #or complainant to claim that neither he nor )i"urcio, *a"atino and +ateo had
anything to do !ith said civil case. :eing privies to the parties, they are necessarily "ound "y the
orders rendered in said case.
7n 7cto"er 11, 1902, the *ourt o# Appeals rendered a decision, aArming in toto the (udgment o# the
lo!er court in *ivil *ase ,o. 5012.
9
A#ter the appellate court4s decision had "ecome fnal, Atty. im
moved #or the e6ecution o# the aArmed (udgment,
10
and !hen the !rit o# e6ecution !as returned
unsatisfed, fled an %Brgent +otion to 9eCuire Domingo Gamalinda to /urrender )*) 10=199 to the
*ler& o# *ourt and to AuthoriDe the atter to ?6ecute 9econveyance o# ot 5112-A in Favor o#
>lainti8s.%
11
)hat motion !as granted "y the lo!er court, "ut complainant re#used to surrender the
7!ner4s *opy o# )*) ,o. 10=199, prompting Atty. im to fle the Cuestioned %+otion to Declare 7!ner4s
*opy o# )*) 10=199 ,ull and <oid,%
12
!hich the lo!er court granted on July 51, 1909.
It is clear #rom the #oregoing that the Cuestioned acts o# Atty. im !ere all done in line !ith his duty to
prosecute his clients4 cause in *ivil *ase ,o. 5012. )he frst motion !as fled to protect his clients4
possessory rights over the property in dispute !hile the second motion !as made to procure e6ecution
o# the decision in *ivil *ase ,o. 5012.
A la!yer o!es fdelity to the cause o# his client and must "e mind#ul o# the trust and confdence
reposed in him.
13
Ee shall serve his client !ith competence and diligence,
14
and his duty o# entire
devotion to his client4s cause not only reCuires, "ut entitles him to employ every honora"le means to
secure #or the client !hat is (ustly due him or to present every de#ense provided "y la! to ena"le the
latter4s cause to succeed.
15
An attorney4s duty to sa#eguard the client4s interests commences #rom his
retainer until the e8ective release #rom the case
16
or the fnal disposition o# the !hole su"(ect matter
o# the litigation.
17
During that period, he is e6pected to ta&e such reasona"le steps and such ordinary
care as his client4s interests may reCuire.
)his is precisely !hat Atty. im !as doing !hen he fled the motions complained o#. Ee should "e
commended, not condemned, #or diligently and competently per#orming his duties as an attorneyF
Gith respect to the complainant4s contention that the Deed o# /ale o# Bnregistered and relied upon "y
the lo!er and appellate courts in *ivil *ase ,o. 5012 is a #orged or #a&e instrument, suAce it to say
that this is a matter that should have "een litigated in said case instead o# "eing raised #or the frst
time in these proceedings. In any case, there "eing no sho!ing that Atty. im !as a!are o# any de#ect
in that deed, the charge o# deception against him !ill not lie. A"sent, too, is any sho!ing that Atty. im
had anything to do !ith the preparation o# the criminal in#ormation, and #or the same reason he cannot
"e called to account #or it.
A**79DI,GH, the administrative charges against retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and Atty. Joselito
im are DI/+I//?D #or lac& o# merit.
/7 79D?9?D.