Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 387 views

    1 BANOGON-vs-ZERNA

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    The petitioner filed a motion to amend a 1926 decision and a petition for review 31 years after the decision became final. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss 14 years later, which was granted as the petitions were filed far beyond the allowable periods. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the petitioner guilty of laches for the unreasonable delay in claiming their rights. The Court noted lawyers have a duty to assist in proper administration of justice and know the limits of allowable periods, and this case showed a failure of the lawyer's responsibilities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1 BANOGON-vs-ZERNA

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    387 views1 page
    The petitioner filed a motion to amend a 1926 decision and a petition for review 31 years after the decision became final. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss 14 years later, which was granted as the petitions were filed far beyond the allowable periods. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the petitioner guilty of laches for the unreasonable delay in claiming their rights. The Court noted lawyers have a duty to assist in proper administration of justice and know the limits of allowable periods, and this case showed a failure of the lawyer's responsibilities.

    Original Description:

    Banogon v Zerna

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed a motion to amend a 1926 decision and a petition for review 31 years after the decision became final. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss 14 years later, which was granted as the petitions were filed far beyond the allowable periods. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the petitioner guilty of laches for the unreasonable delay in claiming their rights. The Court noted lawyers have a duty to assist in proper administration of justice and know the limits of allowable periods, and this case showed a failure of the lawyer's responsibilities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    387 views1 page

    1 BANOGON-vs-ZERNA

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    The petitioner filed a motion to amend a 1926 decision and a petition for review 31 years after the decision became final. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss 14 years later, which was granted as the petitions were filed far beyond the allowable periods. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the petitioner guilty of laches for the unreasonable delay in claiming their rights. The Court noted lawyers have a duty to assist in proper administration of justice and know the limits of allowable periods, and this case showed a failure of the lawyer's responsibilities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-35469 October 9, 1987

    ENCARNACION BANOGON, ZOSIMA MUNOZ, and DAVIDINA MUNOZ, petitioners,


    vs.
    MELCHOR ZERNA, CONSEJO ZERNA DE CORNELIO, FRANCISCO ZERNA, and the HON.
    CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental (Branch III).

    FACTS:

     On February 9, 1926, the CFI of Negros Oriental (Branch 3) rendered a decision of a land dispute
    in favored of Zerna. The decision became final and executory after thirty days.
     On March 6, 1957 (after 31 years), Banogon filed a motion to amend the decision followed by a
    petition for review on judgment on that same year.
     On October 11,1971 (after 14 years), Zerna filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
     On December 8, 1971, the petition for review on judgment was dismissed and the motion for
    reconsideration was denied on February 14, 1972 considering the fact that it was beyond the
    allowable period.
     Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE: WON Banogon’s suit should prosper. (NO)

    HELD:

    The petitioner is guilty of laches of being unreasonable delayed of action in claiming the rights,
    considering the fact that it took thirty-one years for the petitioner to file for amendment of the decision and
    petition for review. In relation to that, the action taken was beyond the allowable period for filing of
    amendment and petition for review. The delayed of filing for their petition for amendment and review of
    the decision constitutes bar to their petition.

    Policy:

    Lawyers have duties and responsibilities to assist in the proper administration of justice. But in
    this case the lawyer violates the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him by filing of motion and petition
    way beyond the scope of allowable period. As officer of the court he or she ought to know by heart their
    mandated duties and responsibilities. It manifested in this case that the profession was put to shame and
    creates public distrust. The lawyer must be responsible enough to his or her client in helping especially in
    claiming his or her client’s right.

    As officer of the court they should exercise properly and correctly the mandates entrusted to them
    in assisting the administration of justice, by doing this, in order to uplift the image of the legal profession in
    the society due to the fact that nowadays legal professions merely perceived as money making
    profession, in a sense that it misinterpreted the law to the point of distortion in order to achieve their
    purposes.

    You might also like