Millare v. Montero FACTS: Petitioner Rodolfo Millare‘s mother, Pacifica Millare obtained a favorable judgement from the MTC, Bangued, Abra which ordered Respondent Eustaquio Montero‘s client, Elsa Dy Co to vacate the
premises which is the subject of the ejectment case. Thereafter, Thereafte r, Montero filed numerous cases in hopes of getting a favorable decision for Co. (1) Civil Case No. 344 which is an appeal from t he decision rendered in civil case no. 844 of the MTC of Bangued, Abra with the RTC, Abra (2) CA-G.R. CV C V No. 11404 which is an appeal from the decision of the RTC, Abra (3) CA-G.R. SP No. 11690 which is an action for the annulment of decisions and/or reformation or novation of decisions filed with the CA (4) G.R. No. 86084 which is a petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court (5) CA-G.R. SP No. 17040 which is an appeal and/or review by c ertiorari filed with the CA as well (6) SP Civil Action No. 624 which is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with preliminary issuance of prohibitory order filed with the RTC of Abra. ISSUE:WON Montero violated Canon 12 of the Code of P rofessional Responsibility HELD:Yes. The rights of Co as Montero‘s client were fully protected and her defenses were properly
ventilated when Montero filed an appeal from the MTC t o the RTC but Montero thereafter resorted to devious and underhanded means to delay the execution of j udgement by the MTC adverse to Co. RATIO:Canon 12 of the CPR provides that a lawyer is required to exert e xert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. I t is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgement.
