Dimagiba vs Montalvo, Jr.
, 202 SCRA 641
Adm. Case No. 1424, October 15, 1991
FULL TEXT
Doctrine: Indiscriminate filing of suits against a party, clearly intended for harassment (Dimagiba v
Montalvo, Jr., 202 SCRA 641)
FACTS:
This is a complaint filed by Ismaela Dimagiba against Atty. Jose Montalvo for Malpractice, for
stretching to almost a half a century a litigation arising from the probate of a will of the late
Benedicta de Los Reyes which instituted Ismaela Dimagiba as the sole heir of all the properties.
The clients of Atty. Montalvo, namely: Dionisio Fernandez, Eusebio Reyes, Luisa Reyes, Mariano
Reyes, Cesar Reyes, Leonor Reyes, filed a case against Ismaela Dimagiba with the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan.
In summary, the following are the litigations that ensue from the probate of the Will of De Los
Reyes as found by the Solicitor General involving the same parties and the same cause of action:
1. Special Proceedings No. 831 instituted on January 1, 1955. The Will was admitted to probate but
was subsequently appealed.
2. CA-G.R. No. 31221-R. This was an appeal of the decision in Spec. Proc. No. 831. The decision was
affirmed.
3. G.R. Nos. L-23638 and L-23662. This decision dated October 12, 1967, in the Supreme Court,
upheld the decision CA-G.R. No. 31221-R, in effect, affirming the due execution the Will and the
capacity of the Testator as well as the institution of the complainant.
4. Civil Case No. 3677-M. Filed in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan on June 4, 1968, this was a
petition for the nullification of the Will. This was dismissed.
5. Civil Case No. 200 which was redocketed as Civil Case No. 4078-M. This complaint dated November
3, 1970 was again dismissed.
6. Civil Case No. 4151-M. This case, filed on February l6, 1972, for the partition of the property left
by the deceased Benedicta De los Reyes on the ground of the nullity of the Will, was again dismissed
for failure to prosecute.
7. Civil Case No. 4188-M. Filed on May 25,1972, with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch
2, the respondent Atty. Montalvo, Jr., joined the descendants of the collateral relatives of the
deceased De Los Reyes against herein complainant Dimagiba. This case was dismissed.
8. Civil Case No. 4458-M. Civil Case No. 4188-M was appealed. But without waiting for the outcome,
Atty. Montalvo, Jr., filed Civil Case No. 4458-M on April 5, 1974 which was a complaint for the
cancellation of the transfer certificates of title in the name of Ismaela Dimagiba and the issuance of
new certificates of title in the name of the late Benedicta de los Reyes.
Contention of the petitioner:
In view of the numerous cases filed against Dimagiba by the same parties, through their counsel,
Atty. Montalvo, she was constrained to report to that [sic] Honorable Court of the actuation of
said lawyer who is a member of the Philippine Bar attending to cases of non suit, which
cause harassment on her part.
Contention of the respondent:
The parties in this case are the ones in possession of the property Subject of Sp. Proc. No. 831 of the
CFI, Bulacan. They cannot be ejected from the land holdings because they claim that the case
filed by Atty. Montalvo is still pending in Court.
Atty. Montalvo’s Answer:
at the instance of different parties; or by reason of different causes of action and all the pleadings
filed by the undersigned were and/or the result of a very painstaking, diligent, and careful
study and evaluation of the facts and law involved therein such that even before signing the
same, the undersigned has always been of the honest and sincere belief that its filing is for the
interest of justice - certainly never for harassment; (2) that the reason why the parties tenant could
not be ejected from their land as stated by complainant in her complaint is because of the passage
of Presidential Decree No. 27 which emancipated the farmers from their bondage and declared
them as owners of the rice and corn land they tilled upon the passage of the decree coupled with
the very acts of the complainant herself; and that (3) the complainant by filing this instant
complaint for disbarment wants to cow and intimidate the undersigned in order to withdraw as
counsel of his clients because she has been thwarted in her erroneous belief that she owns
exclusively all the properties comprising the estate of the late Benedicta de Los Reyes and could not
accept and take into account the reality that by virtue of the final decision of the Supreme Court in
G.R. No. 5618 and 5620 she is not the sole owner of the present estate of the deceased but only a co-
owner with the clients of the undersigned.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Montalvo is guilty of Malpractice
RULING:
YES.
Clearly, the respondent Montalvo, Jr. repetitively filed several complaints in various forms involving
the same parties and the same subject matter, persistently raising issues long laid to rest by final
judgment.
This misbehavior in facie curia consisting of a stubborn refusal to accept this Court's
pronouncements is in fact even summarily punishable under Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court.
Any lawyer who assumes the responsibility for a client' cause has the duty to know the entire
history of a case, specially if any litigation has commenced. In the case at bar, even Atty. Montalvo
does not deny the fact that the probate of the will o the late Benedicta de los Reyes has been an
over-extended a contentious litigation between the heirs.
A lawyer should never take advantage of the seemingly endless channels left dangling by our legal
system in order wangle the attention of the court. Atty. Montalvo may have thought that lie could
get away with his indiscriminate filing o suits that were clearly intended to harass Ismaela
Dimagiba When court dockets get clogged and the administration of justice is delayed, our judicial
system may not be entirely blame less, yet the greater fault lies in the lawyers who had taken their
privilege so lightly, and in such mindless fashion.
The Code of Professional Responsibility states that:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest immoral or deceitful
conduct.chanrobles virtual law library
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not for any corrupt motive or interest encourage any suit or proceeding
or delay any man's cause.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find him guilty of malpractice as charged. He has violated his
oath not to delay any for money or malice, besmirched the name of an honorable profession, and
has proven himself unworthy of the trust repose in him by law as an officer of the Court. We have
not countenanced other less significant infractions among the ranks of our lawyers. He deserves the
severest punishment of DISBARMENT.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE on the basis of the foregoing, and consisted with the urgent need to maintain the high
traditions and standards of the legal profession and to preserve undiminished public faith in
attorneys-at-law, the Court Resolved to DISBAR the respondent Atty. Jose Montalvo, Jr. from the
practice law. His name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Copies of this Resolution shall be circulated to all courts of the country and entered in the personal
record of respondent Atty. Jose Montalvo, Jr.
