Castaneda v.

Ago
G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975
J. Castro

Rule 1.04 - Encourage Client to Avoid Controversy

FACTS:
● In 1955, petitioners filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover
certain machines. CFI ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered Ago to return the
machineries or pay money.
● Ago appealed (up to the SC) and a levy was made on his house and lot in QC. He tried
to obtain a WPI thrice to restrain the sheriff from enforcing writ of execution but failed.
● Then on 1964, upon Ago’s failure to comply with the order to return, the sheriff executed
the final deed of sale in favor of Castaneda and Henson.
● Ago and his wife, filed a complaint at the CFI of QC to annul the sheriff’s sale on the
ground that his wife, Lourdes Ago, was not a party to the replevin suit and thus her share
in the conjugal property cannot be levied upon and sold by the sheriff. CFI QC issued
and ex parte WPI. It has become a situation where a co-equal court countermanded
what another court has ordered (CFI QC v. CFI Manila).
● QC imposed and lifted the restraining order three more times and while that was going
on, Ago filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the SC.
● He filed a similar petition to the CA and was dismissed. He then appealed this decision
to the SC which dismissed his appeal.
● Ago spouses then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.
CA gave due course and ruled in favor of the Agos. Petitioners filed the present petition
for review of this decision.

ISSUE AND RULING: W/N The lawyer of respondents Agos violated Rule 1.04?
➔ YES. The respondents, abetted by their lawyer Jose Luison, have misused legal
remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment to
the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
➔ Assisted by Luison, respondents protracted the execution of judgment for 14 years
through manifold tactics in and from several courts (CFI Manila, CFI QC, CA and even 5
times at the SC)
➔ Respondents and lawyer have tried to use the courts to “subvert the very ends of
justice”.
➔ Atty. Luison was an instigator of controversy and conflict instead of a mediator for
concord and a conciliator for compromise.
➔ It is a lawyer’s duty to advise his client on the merits or lack thereof of his case. If he
finds that the client’s cause is defenseless then he musty advise his client to acquiesce
and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible.
➔ “A lawyer’s oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its
primacy is undisputable.”
NOTES:
● Ruling on the substantive issues of the complaint (not legprof related but just in case)
○ W/N the share of the wife in the conjugal property can be levied upon - Yes
■ Half-share is merely an inchoate interest and injunction may not issue to
protect a right which may never arise.
■ Ruling otherwise would create an absurdity in execution (expel husband
from property but not the wife).
■ Agos are barred by laches (they took too long in raising this issue).
○ W/N Agos are entitled to damages when the sheriff took possession of certain
machineries, depriving them of its use - No
■ Illegal search and seizure was not alleged.
○ W/N sale of the conjugal property was irregular, illegal, and unlawful because he
did not require the petitioners to pay - No
■ When the purchaser is the judgment creditor, and no 3rd party claim was
filed, he doesn’t need to pay if the price does not exceed the amount of
his judgment.
○ W/N Agos are entitled to moral damages - No
■ Moral damages derives its life from the preceding causes of actions which
are found to be baseless then they cannot be granted moral damages.