SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 8084. August 24, 2015.]

PATROCINIA H. SALABAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANDRES C.

VILLARUEL, JR., respondent.

RESOLUTION

DEL CASTILLO, J : p

This is a complaint for disbarment led by Patrocinia H. Salabao

(complainant) against Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr. (respondent) for abuse of
court processes in violation of Canons 10 and 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. 1 After respondent led his Answer 2 we referred this case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. 3
Factual Background
The facts pertinent to this complaint are summarized in the Report and
Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero as
follows:
Complainant narrates that in 1995 she led a case against Elmer
Lumberio for his deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking her precious
real property situated in Taguig City. After hearing, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 162, Pasig City issued its resolution in her favor in
2002.
Respondent then entered the picture as counsel for Lumberio.
From then on, Complainant complained that Respondent had made her
suer because of his abuse of processes and disregard for her rights
as a litigant.
She narrates as follows:
In 2002, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig City which
tried Civil Case No. 65147 issued its resolution in her favor. In order to
delay the case, Respondent brought the case on appeal to the Court of
Appeals under CA-GR CV No. 76360. The Court of Appeals decided in
her favor on January 13, 2004 but Respondent again led an appeal
before the Supreme Court under GR No. 167413. Lumberio lost and the
case became nal and executory.
Undeterred, respondent tried to defer the execution of the
decision of the RTC, Branch 162, by bringing to the Court of Appeals a
Petition for Annulment of Judgment under CA-GR SP No. 97564. When
rebued, he again appealed to the Supreme Court under GR No.
181243 sans a clear or new arguments other than what he had
presented before the Court of Appeals.
Still, Respondent led a Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 29 November 2007 Order of the RTC before the Court of Appeals under
CA-GR SP No. 101992 which was however dismissed. From hereon,
there was not stopping the Respondent. Once again he led a new
complaint before the RTC of Mauban, Quezon, Branch 64 under Civil
Case No. 08-0666-M. Apart from this, Respondent led several Motion,
Inhibition and Contempt that were meant to delay the resolution of the
case. He likewise led an administrative case against Judge Briccio Ygaa
of RTC Branch 153, Taguig City. Complainant then complained that
Respondent had done more than enough to suppress her rights as a
winning litigant and led this case for abuse of processes pursuant to
Rule 10.03 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Respondent, for his part, denied the accusation and claried that
the several pleadings he had led had centered on the legality of the
court's decision ordering the cancellation of the title of Lumberio in such
ordinary proceeding for cancellation of the title. To his mind, the said
ordinary proceeding for cancellation of title before the RTC Branch 153,
Taguig City was void because the law vests upon the government
through the Solicitor General the power to initiate a reversion case if
there is such a ground to cancel the title issued by the Land
Management Bureau in favor of Lumberio.
With respect to the civil case before the RTC of Ma[u]ban, Branch
64, he explained that the said case does not show that herein counsel
committed any act of dishonesty which may subject him to any
prosecution as he is just exercising his profession to the best of his
ability. 4
In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner
found that respondent "relentlessly led petitions and appeals in order to
exhaust all possible remedies to obtain relief for his client" 5 which he
considered as tantamount to "abusive and a spiteful eort to delay the
execution of Judgment." 6 He noted that after the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasig City, Branch 162 issued a Resolution in Civil Case No. 65147 adverse to
his client, respondent led a barrage of cases/pleadings such as an appeal to
the Court of Appeals (CA) which armed the RTC ruling, a petition for review
with the Supreme Court which was denied for having been led out of time; a
petition for annulment of the RTC judgment which was dismissed by the CA;
another petition for review before this Court which was again denied; a
petition for certiorari which was dismissed by the CA; another civil case before
the RTC of Mauban, Quezon which was dismissed for "improper venue, res
judicata, and violation of the anti-forum shopping law" 7 and that it involved
the same issues as the one led in Pasig RTC. Moreover, he led several
inhibitions, motions and an administrative complaint against the presiding
judge. The Investigating Commissioner, stated:
. . . [O]ne can immediately appreciate and see the abusive and
spiteful conduct of Respondent. He as a lawyer could have hardly
missed knowing that his subsequent actions were merely meant to
harass the opposing litigant as in fact the Supreme Court had already
issued its nal ruling on the matter. After the ruling of the High Court,
Respondent should have known that the case had been nally
adjudicated and no amount of judicial exercise could turn the decision in
his client's favor. From then on, he should have saved his eorts of ling
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 cases and motions in court, as they are futile anyway, because he has
his duty to the court above that to his client.
Needless to state, the Respondent is found herein to have violated
Canon 12, Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR for which he should be
meted with the appropriate administrative penalty. 8
He thus recommended that respondent be meted out the penalty of
suspension for four months.
In its Resolution No. XX-2013-251 dated 20 March 2013, the IBP Board
of Governors adopted and approved the ndings and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.
Respondent led a Motion for Reconsideration on July 20, 2013, stating
that:
2. . . . he had only exhausted all possible remedies available under
the premises;
xxx xxx xxx
With all candor and honesty, undersigned believes that he was
only doing his legal duty as a lawyer to exhaust all legal remedies taking
steps within its framework. He has not done any wrongdoing while
taking such routes. He has never been dishonest;
xxx xxx xxx
4. Respondent believes that undersigned deserves an acquittal
given the fact that it was not shown that he acted in bad faith in taking
such legal remedies.
5. Respondent cannot also be charged with abuse of judicial
process because complainant has other recourse available to execute
the said decision in her favor while there were petitions led,
complainant also did not allege that respondent has abused the judicial
process. The courts to which the said petitions were led also did not
cite the respondent in contempt of court [nor was a warning] given.
xxx xxx xxx
6. Moreover, respondent is now suering from renal failure which
requires him to undergo dialysis three (3) times in a week. To suspend
him for four months would mean that he would stop his dialysis for four
moths [sic] which may cause his immediate death. This Honorable
Commission would not be too happy to see one of its members begging
for alms from PCSO and government ocials to shoulder his dialysis of
about P100,000.00 per month. 9
In a subsequent Resolution No. XXI-2014-182 dated March 23, 2014, the
IBP Board of Governors armed its earlier Resolution and denied
respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, saying that there was no cogent
reason to reverse the ndings of the Commission on Bar Discipline.
The Court's Ruling
While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their
clients, 10 it cannot be emphasized enough that their rst and primary duty is
"not to the client but to the administration of justice." 11 Canon 12 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall exert every eort and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and ecient administration of
justice." Thus, in the use of Court processes, the lawyer's zeal to win must be
tempered by the paramount consideration that justice be done to all parties
involved, and the lawyer for the losing party should not stand in the way of
the execution of a valid judgment. This is a fundamental principle in legal
ethics and professional responsibility that has iterations in various forms:
The Lawyer's Oath:
. . . I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay
no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
delity as well to the courts as to my clients . . . (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 138, Section 20, Rules of Court:
Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as
appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law;
xxx xxx xxx
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the
continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from
any corrupt motive or interest; (Emphasis supplied)
Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not , for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and
shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice .
Rule 12.02 A lawyer shall not le multiple actions arising from
the same cause.
Rule 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes. (Emphasis
supplied)
Because a lawyer is an ocer of the court called upon to assist in the
administration of justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or
impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justies
disciplinary action against him. 12
In this case, the judgment in favor of complainant had become nal and
executory by July 27, 2005. Respondent however proceeded to le no less
than twelve (12) motions and cases in various courts subsequent to the Entry
of Judgment:
Regional Trial Court of Taguig City :
1. Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated April 27, 2006
2. Motion to Admit Adavit of Third-Party Claimant
3. Motion for Early Resolution
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Motion to Observe Judicial Courtesy while the case is pending appeal
with the Court of Appeals
5. Urgent Motion to Defer/Suspend Execution in view of the Order of the
CA
6. Urgent Motion to Reconsider Order
Court of Appeals:
1. Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order with the
Court of Appeals
2. Motion for Reconsideration
3. Petition for Certiorari
4. Urgent Motion to Reiterate the Issuance of Order for Judicial Courtesy
Supreme Court:
1. Petition for Certiorari
2. Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases led, it is clear
that respondent's intention was to delay the execution of the nal judgment.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent was only
doing his duty as a lawyer to exhaust all legal remedies to protect the interest
of his client, his other actions belie his claim of good faith. Respondent led a
civil case for damages with the Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon in
what was clearly a case of forum-shopping. Moreover, respondent led three
Motions to Inhibit against the three judges hearing these cases, and even a
motion to cite the sheri in contempt of court who was simply carrying out
his duty to execute the decision.
In his defense, respondent argued that the Courts did not call attention
to his improper behavior and dilatory tactics. This is not true. In her Order
inhibiting herself from the case, Judge Homena-Valencia stated:
This presiding judge would like to emphasize that, having assumed
her position as acting presiding judge of this branch only last September
2005, she does not know any of the parties from Adam. As such, she
could not be inclined to show bias in favor of one of them. She refuses,
however, to be drawn into a discussion, to put it mildly, with
respondent's counsel as to her knowledge of the law.
However, to obviate any suspicion as to her objectivity, she
inhibits herself from further hearing this case although the reasons
stated by the defendant are not one of those provided for in the Rules
for the voluntary inhibition of a judge.
Respondent's counsel is hereby advised to be more professional
in his language, he, being a lawyer, is rst and foremost an ocer of the
court. 13
In the October 23, 2007 Decision 14 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 97564,
respondent was rebuked for the misuse of court processes, thus:
This Petition for Annulment of Judgment is petitioner's last-ditch
eort to defer the execution of the 31 July 2002 Decision of the Regional
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 162, which has long attained nality.
xxx xxx xxx
In epitome, to sustain petitioner's insinuation of extrinsic fraud is
to make a mockery of Our judicial system. We take exception to the
unjustied delay in the enforcement of the RTC Decision dated 31 July
2002 which has long become nal and executory. This is obviously a
spiteful ploy to deprive respondent of the fruits of her victory.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Annulment of Judgment is hereby
DISMISSED. 15
Moreover, in his Omnibus Order 16 dated September 18, 2008, Judge
Briccio C. Ygaa 17 stated:
This case is a clear example of how a party, aided by a smart
lawyer, could unduly delay a case, impede the execution of judgment or
misuse court processes. Defendant and counsel are very lucky that the
herein plainti has the patience of Job. Should this case reach the
attention of the Supreme Court, where the whole story will be known,
they will have a lot of explaining to do. 18
It is quite clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial
process by abusing Court processes, employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the
execution of a nal judgment, and feigning ignorance of his duties as an
ocer of the court. He has breached his sworn duty to assist in the speedy
and ecient administration of justice, and violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules
10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec.
20 (c) and (g) of the Rules of Court. In so doing, he is administratively liable
for his actions.
Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court provides the penalties of
disbarment and suspension as follows:
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his oce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such oce, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as
an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do x x x.
In previous decisions involving abuse of court processes, 19 this Court
has imposed the penalty of suspension ranging from six months to two years.
In light of the following aggravating circumstances multiplicity of motions
and cases led by respondent, the malice evinced by his ling of various
motions to prevent the judges and sheri from fullling their legal duties,
feigned ignorance of his duties as an ocer of the court, and his lack of
remorse for his actions the Court nds that a penalty of suspension for 18
months would be commensurate to the damage and prejudice that respondent
has inicted on complainant Salabao for his actions.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Andres C. Villaruel,
Jr. is hereby found GUILTY of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 10.03
and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby suspended
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Oce of the Bar Condant
and noted in Atty. Villaruel's record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Mendoza, Leonen and Jardeleza,* JJ., concur.
Footnotes
*. Per Special Order No. 2147 dated August 24, 2015.
1. Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2. Id. at 81-85.

3. Id. at 92.
4. See Report and Recommendation, pp. 2-3, id., unpaginated.
5. Id. at 4; id.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 5; id.

8. Id.
9. Rollo, unpaginated.
10. Valencia v. Cabanting, A.C. Nos. 1302, 1391, & 1543, April 26, 1991, 196 SCRA
302, 308.
11. Id. at 309.
12. Cantorne v. Ducusin, 57 Phil. 23, 25 (1933).
13. See Omnibus Order of Judge Briccio C. Ygaa dated September 18, 2008, p. 6;
rollo, pp. 6-15 at 11.
14. Rollo, pp. 40-46; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and
concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Alio-Hormachuelos and Mario L.
Guaria III.
15. Id. at 40-45.
16. Id. at 6-15.
17. Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 153.

18. Rollo, pp. 14-15.

19. See Penticostes v. Judge Hidalgo, 268 Phil. 86 (1990); Garcia v. Francisco, A.C.
No. 3923, March 30, 1993, 220 SCRA 512; Millare v. Montero, 316 Phil. 29
(1995); Afurong v. Atty. Aquino, 373 Phil. 695 (1999); Re: Administrative
Case Against Atty. Occena, 433 Phil. 138 (2002); Plus Builders, Inc. v. Atty.
Revilla, Jr., 533 Phil. 250 (2006).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com