DOMINGO C. GAMALINDA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. FERNANDO ALCANTARA AND JOSELITO LIM, RESPONDENTS.

In his verified letter-complaint dated June 19, 1991,^[1]
complainant Domingo Gamalinda charges retired Judge Fernando Alcantara and
Atty. Joselito Lim with grave abuse of their profession (“labis nilang
pag-abuso sa kanilang propesyon”), deception, threats, dishonoring and
injuring the reputation of said complainant and bringing about the loss of his
land.

The court finds the charges to be without basis and accordingly
dismisses them.

The administrative complaint against retired Judge Fernando
Alcantara is a futile attempt to resurrect the charges filed against him in
Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-494, which were dismissed by this Court in its
resolution of September 8, 1988 for having become moot and academic Adm. Matter
No. MTJ-90-494 was filed only on July 22, 1987, or five (5) months after the
respondent judge’s retirement from the service on February 3, 1987. No motion for reconsideration having been
seasonably filed by complainant, that resolution has become final and
executory. It serves as a bar to a
relitigation of the same charges against respondent judge.^[2] That those charges are now being
brought against respondent judge in his capacity as an attorney does not help
the cause of complainant, for the change in the form of action or remedy
pursued does not bar the application of the rule of res judicata.^[3]

On the other hand, the record establishes that Atty. Lim was
merely performing his duty as counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3827
when he did what is now complained of.^[4]

In Civil Case No. 3827 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac,
Branch LXIII, Salud Balot and Felicidad Balot had sued the heirs of Apolinario
Gamalinda^[5]
for reconveyance, with damages, of the eastern half of Lot No. 3217 of the
cadastral survey of Victoria, Tarlac, which was allegedly inadvertently
included in the original certificate of title of Apolinario Gamalinda. In the course of the trial, plaintiffs were
able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction against the “defendants,
their agents, representatives or other persons acting in their behalf, ordering
them to desist from threshing and carting away the palay harvest on Lot No.
3217 of the Cadastral Survey of Victoria, * * * until further order of this
Court. * * *”^[6]
This injunction was made permanent in the decision of the lower court rendered
on July 26, 1977 in favor of the plaintiffs.

Pending appeal to the Court of Appeals, complainant herein
entered a portion of the area in dispute, in the belief that the whole of Lot
No. 3217 belonged to him by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with
Quitclaim^[7]
executed in his favor by the heirs of Apolinario Gamalinda on May 6, 1985. It must be noted that at that time title to
Lot No. 3217 was still in the name of Apolinario Gamalinda. Thus, when Maximiano Tiburcio, Protacio
Cabatino and Maxima Mateo, tenants of Salud Balot, entered the portion being
cultivated by complainant, the latter reported the incident to the police.

From Salud Balot’s viewpoint, it was complainant who intruded
into her land. Relying therefore on the
injunction issued by the lower court, she filed through counsel, Atty. Lim, a
motion to declare complainant Gamalinda in contempt of court.

Complainant interposed the defense that the area in dispute in
Civil Case No. 3827 was different from the area occupied by him. To resolve the issue, the lower court with
his agreement, ordered a resurvey of Lot No. 3217. The result of the resurvey showed that contrary to complainant’s
claim, the lot occupied by him was the very same land involved in Civil Case
No. 3827. Accordingly, the lower court
declared complainant in contempt in an order dated July 24, 1986 which was
affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals in a decision rendered on March 21,
1998.^[8]

Considering that Tiburcio, Cabatino and Mateo are tenants of
Salud Balot and complainant is the successor-in-interest of the heirs of
Apolinario Gamalinda, the defendants in Civil Case No. 3827, it is clearly
erroneous for complainant to claim that neither he nor Tiburcio, Cabatino and
Mateo had anything to do with said civil case. Being privies to the parties, they are necessarily bound by the orders
rendered in said case.

On October 12, 1987, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision,
affirming in toto the judgment of the lower court in Civil Case
No. 3287.^[9]
After the appellate court’s decision had become final, Atty. Lim moved for the
execution of the affirmed judgment,^[10]
and when the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied, filed an “Urgent
Motion to Require Domingo Gamalinda to Surrender TCT 186299 to the Clerk of
Court and to Authorize the Latter to Execute s Reconveyance of Lot 3217-A in
Favor of Plaintiffs.”^[11]
That motion was granted by the lower court, but complainant refused to surrender
the Owner’s Copy of TCT No. 186299, prompting Atty. Lim to file the questioned
“Motion to Declare Owner’s Copy of TCT 186299 Null and Void,”^[12]
which the lower court granted on July 31, 1989.

It is clear from the foregoing that the questioned acts of Atty.
Lim were all done in line with his duty to prosecute his clients’ cause in
Civil Case No. 3827. The first motion
was filed to protect his clients’ possessory rights over the property in
dispute while the second motion was made to procure execution of the decision
in Civil Case No. 3827.

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.^[13]
He shall serve his client with competence and diligence,^[14]
and his duty of entire devotion to his client’s cause not only requires, but
entitles him to employ every honorable means to secure for the client what is
justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the
latter’s cause to succeed.^[15]
An attorney’s duty to safeguard the client’s interests commences from his
retainer until his effective release from the case^[16]
or the final disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation.^[17]
During that period, he is expected to take such reasonable steps and such
ordinary care as his client’s interests may require.

This is precisely what Atty. Lim was doing when he filed the
motions complained of. He should be
commended, not condemned, for diligently and competently performing his duties
as an attorney.

With respect to the complainant’s contention that the Deed of
Sale of Unregistered Land relied upon by the lower and appellate courts in
Civil Case No. 3827 is a forged or fake instrument, suffice it to say that this
is a matter that should have been litigated in said case instead of being raised
for the first time in these proceedings. In any case, there being no showing that Atty. Lim was aware of any
defect in that deed, the charge of deception against him will not lie. Absent, too, is any showing that Atty. Lim
had anything to do with the preparation of the criminal information, and for
the same reason he cannot be called to account for it.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative charges against retired
Judge Fernando Alcantara and Atty. Joselito Lim are DISMISSED for lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Grino-Aquino, and Medialdea,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Written in Tagalog and received by the Court on July 11, 1991, pp. 1-4, Rollo

^[2]
Sy Kao vs. Court of Appeals, 132 SCRA 302

^[3]
Medija vs. Patcho, 132 SCRA 530

^[4]
Atty. Lim is being faulted for filing two (2) motions in Civil Case No.
3827: 1) motion to declare complainant
Domingo Gamalinda in indirect contempt of court; and 2) motion to declare
complainant’s Owner’s Copy of TCT No. 186299 null and void. Complainant claims that he has nothing to do
with said civil case and that the lot involved therein is different from his
(complainant’s) land.

^[5]
Namely: Jose, Irineo, Leon, Socorro,
Cirilo, Wilhelmina, and Fortunato, all surnamed Gamalinda; Francisca, Praxedes,
Porfirio, Pacifico, Alejandria, and Federico, all surnamed Allarde; and Avelina
and Basilia, both surnamed Rigor

^[6]
Annex “A” to Annex “5” of Comment of Atty. Lim, p.67, Rollo

^[7]
Exhibit IV-A, pp. 22-26, Rollo

^[8]
Annex “7”, Comment of Atty. Lim, pp. 73-78, Rollo

^[9]
CA-G.R. No. CV No. 62907, Annex “14”, Ibid, pp. 105-112,
Rollo

^[10]
Annex “15”, Ibid, pp. 113, Rollo

^[11]
Annex “16”, Ibid, pp. 115-117, Rollo

^[12]
Annex “17”, Ibid, p. 119, Rollo

^[13]
Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility

^[14]
Canon 18, Ibid

^[15]
Canon 15, Canon of Professional Ethics; cf. Economics Ins. Co. vs. Uy
Realty, G.R. No. 28056, August 31, 1970,
cited in Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 4th Ed., 1989, p. 163

^[16]
Wack Wack Golf & Country Club vs. CA, 106 Phil. 501 (1959); Guanzon v.
Aragon, 107 Phil. 315 (1960)

^[17]
Visitacion vs. Manit, G.R. No. 27231, March 27, 1969; Ward vs.
Todd, 103 U.S. 327, 26 L Ed. 339 (1881)