TITLE: ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS v. REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, G.R. Nos.

208205 & 208212, June 1, 2016

Principle:
 The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) final and executory decision cannot be amended. It cannot
be done by the trial court, much less by its sheriff. A judgment, once final, is immutable
and unalterable.
 The sheriff cannot act as a party's agent. He or she can only act as an officer of the court
which he or she represents. Sheriffs, as agents of the law, are duty-bound to fulfill their
mandates with utmost diligence and due care. In executing the court's order, they cannot
afford to go beyond its letter, lest they prejudice "the integrity of their office and the efficient
administration of justice.

Facts:
On 1959, Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) entered into an agreement with Pasay City
for the reclamation of the foreshore lands along Manila Bay. The agreement was made by virtue
of Ordinance No.121 as amended by Ordinance No. 158, which authorized RREC to reclaim 300
hectares of foreshore lands. On 1961, The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) sued for the
recovery of the possession and damages with writ of preliminary injunction alleging that the
contract is outside the commerce of man as the reclaimed area is a national park that the Republic
owns; that City Ordinance No. 121 went beyond R.A. No. 1899 which allows municipalities and
chartered cites to reclaim only “foreshore land”. This case was entitled Republic v. Court of Appeal
and docketed as G.R. Nos. 103882 & 105276. This Court upheld the Republic where it declared
null and void the agreement and the Ordinance No. 121. Despite the nullity of the agreement and
RREC’s failure to reclaim the land, this Court awarded RREC compensation for the work it had
actually done based on quantum meruit. It pegged the reasonable value of RREC’s services at P
10,926,071.29, plus interest rate at 6% per annum from 1962 until fully paid. This case, Republic
v. CA became final and executory on July, 27, 1999. On, 2007, Sheriff IV Reyner S. De Jesus
issued a Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay against the Republic for P49,173,064,201.17
instead of P10.9 million as ordered by this Court. The Republic filed a Very Urgent Motion to
Quash the Writ of Execution and Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay but was denied. Hence,
petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals granted the petition. It ruled that Sheriff De Jesus’
notices cannot go beyond the Court’s judgment in Republic v. CA.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in declaring the Writ of Execution and Sheriff De Jesus’ notice of
execution and notice to pay as null and void
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) final and executory decision cannot be amended. It
cannot be done by the trial court, much less by its sheriff. A judgment, once final, is immutable
and unalterable. In Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, 476 SCRA 305
(2005): [This Court’s Decision] may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification
is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless
of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest
court of the land. This Court’s final and executory decision cannot be amended. It cannot be done
by the trial court, much less by its sheriff. The sheriff’s execution of judgment is a purely ministerial
phase of adjudication. In implementing the writ, the sheriff must strictly conform to the letter of the
judge’s order.
The Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay went beyond the dispositive portion in Republic v.
Court of Appeals. In his Notice, Sheriff De Jesus modified our decreed amount of P10.9 million at
6% interest per annum (beginning May 1, 1962 until fully paid) to P49.17 billion at the rate of 6%
per annum from 1962 to 1973 and at the rate of 12% from 1974 to present, compounded.
The sheriff cannot act as a party's agent. He or she can only act as an officer of the court which
he or she represents. Sheriffs, as agents of the law, are duty-bound to fulfill their mandates with
utmost diligence and due care. In executing the court's order, they cannot afford to go beyond its
letter, lest they prejudice "the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.

TITLE: ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS v. REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, G.R. Nos.
208205 & 208212, June 1, 2016
SUBJECT: Legal Ethics; Attorney-Client Relationships; Discharge of Counsel

Principle:
 A lawyer may be dismissed at any time, with or without cause. There is no such thing as
an irrevocable attorney-client relationship. As stated in Busiños v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407
(1997), “the relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and
of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring high degree of fidelity and
good faith.” Thus, when the client itself no longer wants its attorney’s services, the counsel
cannot continue to desperately cling on to it.
Facts:
Atty. Romeo G. Roxas (Atty. Roxas) of RGR & Associates, counsel for RREC since August
6, 1990, filed before this Court a Complaint against the three (3) Court of Appeals Justices who
nullified the Writ of Execution and Sheriff De Jesus' Notice. The Complaint was for the Justices'
alleged misconduct and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in relation to Article
20497 of the Revised Penal Code, and it prayed for their disbarment. Atty. Roxas also filed a
Motion for Inhibition against the three (3) Justices. Both the Complaint and the Motion for Inhibition
were filed without RREC's authority.
On June 29, 2009, RREC terminated the services of RGR & Associates, Atty. Roxas' law
firm, due to loss of confidence and breach of trust. chanrobleslaw. Through a board resolution,
RREC engaged the services of another law firm, Siguion Reyna Montecillo & Ongsiako Law
Offices (Siguion Reyna) on October 29, 2009. Siguion Reyna filed a Notice of Appearance on
November 4, 2009. RREC also filed a Manifestation informing this Court that Atty. Roxas'
Complaint against the Court of Appeals Justices was filed without RREC's knowledge and
conformity. On July 16, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued the Resolution denying RREC and
Pasay City's Motion for Reconsideration and declaring Siguion Reyna as RREC's rightful counsel
of record. On August 1, 2013, Atty. Roxas filed before this Court the Petition docketed as G.R.
No. 208205, referring to it as a Petition for Review Pro Hac Vice. Although he admits that he filed
his Pro Hac Vice Petition in his personal capacity and without RREC's authority, Atty. Roxas
asserts that RGR & Associates is RREC's rightful counsel.111 He assails the Court of Appeals'
July 16, 2013 Resolution, which declared Siguion Reyna as RREC's rightful counsel of record.
According to Atty. Roxas, the termination of RGR & Associates' legal services was made
in bad faith.113 RREC's engagement with his firm was made allegedly "on a contingent or a 'no
cure, no pay' basis[.]"Thus, Atty. Roxas alleges that RGR & Associates' engagement with RREC,
being one coupled with interest, was irrevocable.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Roxas is still the counsel of RREC
Ruling:
No. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “[a] lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of [one’s] client and he [or she] shall always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him [or her].”
A lawyer may be dismissed at any time, with or without cause. In Lim, Jr. v. Villarosa, 490
SCRA 494 (2006): [A client] may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and
thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance. Thus, it has been held that
a client is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another lawyer to
represent him. That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to be
dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the court. There is no such thing as an irrevocable
attorney-client relationship. As stated in Busiños v. Ricafort, “The relation between an attorney
and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very delicate, exacting and confidential
character, requiring high degree of fidelity and good faith.” Thus, when the client itself no longer
wants its attorney’s services, the counsel cannot continue to desperately cling on to it.
What makes RGR & Associates’ discharge as counsel even more allowable is that RREC
terminated its services for a cause. In RREC’s Board Resolution, the dismissal of RGR &
Associates’ engagement was due to its “breach of trust and confidence and clear abuse of
Attorney-Client relationship.” Atty. Roxas’ act of suing the Court of Appeals Justices without
RREC’s prior notice and board approvaL betrayed his client’s trust and confidence.