Cobb-Perez v.
Judge Lantin (1968) Reconsideration” which denied his wife's above-mentioned motion to recall
Doctrine:
1. Accordingly, should there be a conflict between his duty to his client and
that to the court, he should resolve the conflict against the former and in
favor of the latter, his primary responsibility being to uphold the cause of
justice.
2. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Facts:
Basically, the spouses Perez were involved in a civil case where a simple
money judgment was rendered against them. To execute the judgment, the court
levied upon shares of stock of the spouses. With the help of the spouses’ counsels
Attys. Baizas and Bolinas, they resorted to a series of actions and petitions for
the sole purpose of delaying the execution of the simple money judgment which
has long been final and executory.
What they did was attack the execution in a piecemeal fashion, causing the
postponement of the execution sale six times. More than eight years after the finality
of the judgment have passed, and the same has yet to be satisfied.
Example of the spouses’ modus operandi:
1. After the court issued a writ of execution against them, the spouses sought
the issuance of preliminary injunctions to restrain the execution of the final
judgment.
2. Damaso Perez (husband) temporarily bowed out from the scene. Then here
comes his wife Mercedez Cobb-Perez who files a writ of preliminary
injunction with the CFI of Rizal with full knowledge that the court in Rizal
had no jurisdiction over the matter because the case was originally filed in
Manila.
3. Mercedez Cobb-Perez simultaneously filed with the CFI of Manila an
urgent motion to lift the writ of execution alleging as justification the
conjugal nature of the levied shares of stock and the personal nature of
Damaso Perez' judgment debt.
4. Mercedez Cobb-Perez, now assisted by her husband who had staged a
comeback, prayed for the issuance of another injunction, this time from
Branch XXII of the CFI of Manila (not the same Branch which issued the
controverted writ of execution), in connection with the still pending case in
the CFI of Rizal. This was denied.
5. On the very day the injunction was denied, Damaso Perez was already
prepared with another "remedy," as in fact on that day, he filed in connection
with the original judgment (the money judgment) an "Urgent Motion for
the controverted writ of execution. The foregoing motion was far from
seriously seeking the reconsideration because in the first place Damaso
Perez could not legally do for he was not even a party to the denied "Urgent
Motion to Recall Writ of Execution" (filed by his wife alone.) This was also
denied by the court.
Here comes the relevant part:
In the court’s final (as in final) judgment, the writ of execution against the
spouses Perez was upheld, and in addition, the Supreme Court assessed treble
costs against petitioners, to be paid by their counsels. Attys. Crispin D. Baizas
and A. N. Bolinas, while submitting to the judgment on the merits, seek
reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their
"professional conduct" and condemns them to pay the treble costs adjudged
against their clients.
Issue:
1. W/N Attys. Baizas and Bolinas should be made to pay treble costs.
Held:
YES.
Attys. Baizas and Bolinao contends that if there was delay it was because they
happened to be more assertive, a quality of lawyers which is not to be condemned.
The court replied that a counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and
honesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what
the court does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the
patent futility of his client's position. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his clients
if he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise
the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer
must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity
to litigate. Accordingly, should there be a conflict between his duty to his client
and that to the court, he should resolve the conflict against the former and in
favor of the latter, his primary responsibility being to uphold the cause of
justice.
CHAN KENT vs. MICAREZ, G.R. No. 185758, March 9, 2011
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of real property and annulment of
title against her parents and brother. She alleged that the subject residential lot was
purchased by her but was named under her parents under an implied trust due to the
difficulty in registering a real property in her name being married to an American
citizen. However, she learned from her sister that their parents sold the subject lot
to her brother.
Rules of Court for failure to appear for pre-trial, in case any or both of the parties
absent himself/themselves, or for abusive conduct during mediation proceedings.
The Court held that a mere censure or reprimand would have been sufficient for
petitioner’s representative and her counsel so as to be informed of the court’s
intolerance of tardiness and laxity in the observation of its order. By failing to do so
and refusing to resuscitate the case, the RTC impetuously deprived petitioner of the
opportunity to recover the land which she allegedly paid for.

After the issues had been joined, the RTC ordered the referral of the case to the Unless the conduct of the party is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory
Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). Conferences were then scheduled. as for non-appearance to provide substantial grounds for dismissal, the courts should
consider lesser sanctions which would still achieve the desired end.
Based on the Report of Mediator Esmeraldo O. Padao, Sr. that respondents’
counsel and representative did not appear on the conferences, the RTC issued an
order allowing petitioner to present her evidence ex parte. It was later being
clarified by Padao that it was petitioner’s counsel and representative who did not
attend the mediation proceedings. With this, the RTC issued Order dismissing the
case. Motion for reconsideration to set aside the order, appealing the relaxation of
the rule on non-appearance in the mediation proceddings, was denied.

Petitioner invoked that the dismissal of the case was not in accordance with
applicable law and jurisprudence. She claims that it was unjust because her
representative and counsel did not deliberately snub the mediation proceedings for
they have attended twice the mediation conferences and only left when
respondent’s counsel had not yet arrived. Her reason for failing to attend the last
scheduled conference was due to some urgent matters caused by the sudden
increase in prices of commodities.

Issue: Whether or not dismissal is the proper sanction for failure to attend the
mediation process.

Ruling: Negative.

Although the RTC has legal basis to order the dismissal of the case, the Court finds
the sanction too severe to be imposed on the petitioner where the records of the
case are devoid of evidence of wilful or flagrant disregard of the rules on
mediation proceedings.

A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA provides sanction including but not limited to

censure, reprimand, contempt and such other sanctions as are provided under the