SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 1344. February 28, 1985.]
PATRICIO GUNDRAN, Complainant, v. FLORENTINO LIBATIQUE, Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; MALPRACTICE; LEGAL ADVICE OF ATTORNEY NOT TO VACATE THE LITIGATED PROPERTY SINCE PURPOSE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION WAS TO ENFORCE MONEY JUDGMENT ONLY, NOT A CASE OF MALPRACTICE. — We find that respondent Lebatique did not commit any malpractice when he advised Alfonso Caluza, his client not to vacate the land where the first writ did not order Caluza to vacate the land. Lebatique told Caluza that as soon as the court issued an order for him to vacate the land, he should surrender possession to Petrocinia Flores. The second writ of execution was duly implemented. Hence, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
The municipal court of Bauang, La Union rendered on September 29, 1971 a judgment declaring Patrocinia Flores, the owner and prior possessor of a portion of a parcel of land (which portion has an area of 3,000 square meters), with the right to take possession thereof and to receive her share of its produce from defendants Alfonso Caluza and Alejandro Caluza and ordering the latter to pay Flores P350 and not to disturb her possession (Exh. C).
Lawyer Florentino G. Libatique advised Alfonso Caluza not to vacate the land because the writ of execution dated May 2, 1972 directed the sheriff to enforce the monetary part of the judgment but did not specifically order him to place Flores in possession of the lot (Exh. 2).chanrobles law library
Another writ of execution was issued on June 9, 1972 wherein it was specified that Patrocinia Flores should be placed in possession of the land (Exh. D or 3 and Y). This second writ was duly executed. Patrocinia Flores was placed in possession of the land.
On January 3, 1973 Patricio Gundran, the son of Patrocinia Flores, complained that Libatique was guilty of malpractice and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court because he had advised Caluza not to obey the writ of execution.
We find that Libatique did not commit any malpractice. The first writ of execution (Exh. 2) did not order Caluza to vacate the land. Libatique told Caluza that as soon as the court issued an order for him to vacate the land, he should surrender possession to Patrocinia Flores (17 tsn October 29, 1975). The second writ of execution was duly implemented (3-4 tsn, Exh. F).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
Lawyer Florentino G. Libatique advised Alfonso Caluza not to vacate the land because the writ of execution dated May 2, 1972 directed the sheriff to enforce the monetary part of the judgment but did not specifically order him to place Flores in possession of the lot (Exh. 2).chanrobles law library
Another writ of execution was issued on June 9, 1972 wherein it was specified that Patrocinia Flores should be placed in possession of the land (Exh. D or 3 and Y). This second writ was duly executed. Patrocinia Flores was placed in possession of the land.
On January 3, 1973 Patricio Gundran, the son of Patrocinia Flores, complained that Libatique was guilty of malpractice and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court because he had advised Caluza not to obey the writ of execution.
We find that Libatique did not commit any malpractice. The first writ of execution (Exh. 2) did not order Caluza to vacate the land. Libatique told Caluza that as soon as the court issued an order for him to vacate the land, he should surrender possession to Patrocinia Flores (17 tsn October 29, 1975). The second writ of execution was duly implemented (3-4 tsn, Exh. F).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
