You are on page 1of 2


Jackie Canlas


This case emerged from an ejectment suit filed by Vicente Caneda against Miguel and Thelma
Masinsin.As a result of the case, the trial court ordered the spouses to vacate the premises, to
remove theirhouse/apartment, to surrender possession of the subject land, and to pay the sum of
P100 a month fromJanuary 1987 as compensation for the use of the premises until the land is
actually vacated. No appealhaving been taken therefrom, the judgment became final and executory.

On August 22, 1985, the Masinsins filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila seeking
theannulment of the decision of the ejectment case and to set aside the order of its execution.
Petition wasdismissed.

On October 7 1985, a complaint for “Annulment of the judgment, Lease Contract and Damages” was
by the Masinsins asking for the nullification of the judgment in the ejectment case. The complaint
wasdismissed due to res judicata.

Petitioners appealed to the CA but the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

When petitioners refused to remove their house, a demolition order was issued. But before
thecompletion of the demolition, a restraining order was issued by the RTC following a petition for
certiorari,with preliminary injunction and for declaratory relief. Petition again was denied.

Petitioners again filed the same suit before a different branch of the Manila RTC. Petition was
ultimatelydismissed on August 23, 1990.

In this present petition for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners contend that the MTC of Manila
has lost jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment suit, when the property in question was
proclaimed anarea for priority development by the National Housing Authority on December 1 1987
by authority of PD2016
WON MTC of Manila lost its jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment suit due to PD

According to a report by manager of the Metro Manila Project Department of the National
HousingAuthority, pursuant to PD No. 1967 (which after amendments became PD No. 2016), the
disputed lot isnot for acquisition by the NHA. It is located outside of the NHA projects under the
Zonal ImprovementProject. The NHA is definitely not acquiring the said land and therefore is not
part of PD 2016. Thus theMTC of Manila has jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment

What immediately catches one’s attention to this case is the evident predile
ction of petitioners, throughdifferent counsel, to file pleadings, one after another, from which not
even this court has been spared.The utter lack of merit of the complainants and petitions simply
evinces the deliberate intent of petitioners to prolong and delay the inevitable execution of a
decision that has long become final andexecutory. The petitioners through different counsels tried
to nullify the same MTC decision before
different branches of the court. The lawyer’s oath is a sacred trust that mu
st be upheld and kept
inviolable. The pertinent part of the lawyer’s oath involved in this case:

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
not delay any man’s cause
for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients and I impose upon myself this obligation
voluntary, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

In no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer, an officer of the court, which visibly
tends toobstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the administration of justice is contumacious calling
for both anexercise of disciplinary action and warranting application of the contempt power.

Petition is dismissed. Petitioner’s counsel of record is strongly CENSURED and WARNED that
a similar infractionof the lawyer’s oath in the future will be dealt with most severely.