Castaneda vs Ago

Topic: Not Act as Instigator of Controversy Title: CASTANEDA vs AGO Reference: G.R. No. L-28546

July 30, 1975

FACTS - Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries. - Judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson - SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution; Ago’s motion denied, levy was made on Ago’s house and lots; sherif advertised the sale, Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC ffirmed dismissal - Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain sherif from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied - Sherif sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to redeem - Sherif executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to the properties - Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sherif from registering the final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued - Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sherif from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition - Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction. ISSUES Whether or not the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy RULINGS

No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sherif’s sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice. A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position. It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his case. If he finds his client’s cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate.