Avida Land Corp. vs. Argosino

Name: Ermeline J. Tampus – 2.5 J.D.
CASE DIGESTS ON BASIC LEGAL ETHICS
 Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.
Avida Land Corporation vs. Atty. Al C. Argosino

A.C. No. 7437, August 17, 2016
Facts:
Complainant is a Philippine corporation engaged in the development and sale of subdivision houses and
lots. Respondent was counsel for Rodman Construction & Development Corporation (Rodman).
Complainant entered into a Contract to Sell with Rodman, under which the latter was to acquire from
the former a subdivision house and lot in Santa Rosa, Laguna through bank financing. In the event that
such financing would be disapproved, Rodman was supposed to pay the full contract price of
P4,412,254.00, less the down payment of P1,323,676.20, within 15 days from its receipt of the loan
disapproval.
After settling the down payment, Rodman took possession of the property. In three separate letters,
complainant demanded that Rodman pay the outstanding balance of P3,088,577.80. Both parties agreed
that the amount would be paid on a deferred basis within 18 months.
Rodman made a partial payment of P1,458,765.06 from March 1999 to July 1999, which complainant
disputed.
Consequently, complainant rescinded the Contract to Sell by notarial act, and demanded that Rodman
vacate the subject property. As Rodman remained in possession of the property, complainant filed an
unlawful detainer case against the former before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Makati City.
Rodman filed a Complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking the
nullification of the rescission of the Contract to Sell. It also prayed for the accounting of payments and
the fixing of the period upon which the balance of the purchase price should be paid.
The MTC took cognizance of Rodman's HLURB Complaint, and dismissed the unlawful detainer case on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
In its subsequent Decision, the HLURB Board modified the arbiter's ruling, directing Rodman "to
immediately pay its outstanding balance failing in which respondent shall have the right to rescind the
contract subject to a refund of all the sums paid by complainant less deductions as may be stipulated in
the contract and less monthly compensation for the use of the premises at the rate of 1% of the
contract price per month."
Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the HLURB Board's Decision, questioning the order to
refund the sums paid by Rodman less deductions in case of a rescission of the contract. Rodman filed a
Comment/Opposition to complainant's motion and sought a clarification of certain aspects of the
Decision, but did not move for reconsideration.
The HLURB Board thereafter issued a Resolution modifying its earlier Decision. Complainant (Rodman) is
directed to immediately pay to the respondent (herein complainant) its outstanding balance of
P1,814,513.27, including interests and penalties. Failing in which, the respondent shall have the right to
rescind the contract subject to a refund of all the sums paid by the complainant less deductions as may
be stipulated in the contract and less monthly compensation for the use of the premise. Neither of the
parties appealed the judgment within the period allowed, it became final and executory.
Respondent filed an Opposition/Comment on the motion and subsequently a Rejoinder to complainant's

Reply.
HLURB Regional Office accordingly computed the interest due, arriving at the total amount of
P2,685,479.64 as payment due to complainant. It also directed the issuance of a Writ of Execution
implementing the HLURB Board's earlier Resolution.
Instead however of complying with the Order and the Writ of Execution, respondent, on behalf of
Rodman, filed a Motion (1) to Quash the Writ of Execution; (2) for Clarification; and (3) to Set the Case
for Conference. Said motion injected new issues and claims and demanded the inclusion in the Order of
a "provision that upon actual receipt of the amount of P2,685,479.64, [complainant] should
simultaneously turn-over the duplicate original title to Rodman."
Respondent also filed a Petition to Cite Complainant in Contempt for issuing a demand letter to Rodman
despite the pendency of the latter's Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution. Respondent thereafter
moved for the inhibition of Atty. Aquino as arbiter of the case and for the setting of a hearing on the
Petition to Cite Complainant in Contempt. The motion alleged that Arbiter Aquino had shown bias in
favor of complainant, and that she had failed to set the Petition for hearing.
HLURB Regional Office (1) denied the motion for inhibition; (2) granted complainant's Motion for
Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution and Writ of Possession; and (3) directed complainant to comment on
the Petition citing the latter for contempt.
Arbiter Foronda held that (1) the notice of re-raffle was not an indispensable prerequisite for a
substitute arbiter to have jurisdiction over a case at the execution stage; (2) the claim of Rodman that its
Motion for Reconsideration of the 23 April 2008 Order had remained unresolved was rendered moot by
Arbiter Aquino's eventual inhibition from the case; and (3) Rodman's prayer for the summary dismissal
of complainant's motions to resolve the Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution was
denied.
Resolution put an end to the long-drawn-out dispute, as respondent did not file any more pleadings.
On 21 February 2007, in the midst of the squabble over the HLURB case, complainant - through its vice
president for project development Steven J. Dy - filed a Complaint-Affidavit against respondent for
alleged professional misconduct and violation of the Lawyer's Oath. The Complaint alleged that
respondent's conduct in relation to the HLURB case manifested a disregard of the following tenets: his
Comment, respondent claimed that what primarily caused the delays in the HLURB case were the legal
blunders of complainant's counsel.
Respondent also raised the issue of complainant's counsel's erroneous acts of notarial rescission and
filing of an ejectment suit before the trial court. These acts allegedly contributed to the delay in the
resolution of the dispute. Argued that he could not have possibly caused delays in the execution of the
Decision dated 22 June 2005 at the time the instant Complaint was filed on 21 February 2007, as
complainant filed its Motion for Writ of Execution before the HLURB Regional Office only in April 2007.
Respondent asserted that he merely followed his legal oath by defending the cause of his client with
utmost dedication, diligence, and good faith. As respondent allegedly continued performing dilatory and
frivolous tactics, complainant filed Supplemental Complaints against him.
Issue:
The only issue before Us is whether respondent's act of filing numerous pleadings, that caused delay in
the execution of a final judgment, constitutes professional misconduct in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.
Held:
Atty. Al C. Argosino is found GUILTY of violating Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year effective upon the finality of this Resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Avida Land Corp. vs. Argosino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Avida Land Corp. vs. Argosino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Name: Ermeline J. Tampus – 2.5 J.D.

CASE DIGESTS ON BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

Avida Land Corporation vs. Atty. Al C. Argosino

Respondent filed an Opposition/Comment on the motion and subsequently a Rejoinder to complainant's

You might also like