MASINSIN V ALBANO (1994) Jackie Canlas VITUG, J.

.: FACTS: 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 their house/apartment, to surrender possession of the subject land,and to pay the sum of P100 a month from January 1987 as compensation for the use of the premises until the land is actually vacated. No appeal having 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 the annulment of the decision of the ejectment case and to set aside the order of its execution. Petition was dismissed. On October 7 1985, a complaint for Annulment of the judgment, Lease Contract and Damages was filed by the Masinsins asking for the nullification of the judgment in the ejectment case. The complaint was dismissed 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 the completion 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 ultimately dismissed 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 an area for priority development by the National Housing Authority on December 1 1987 by authority of PD 2016 ISSUE: WON MTC of Manila lost its jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment suit due to PD 2016 RULING: NO RATIO: According to a report by manager of the Metro Manila Project Department of the National Housing Authority, pursuant to PD No. 1967 (which after amendments became PD No. 2016), the disputed lot is not for acquisition by the NHA. It is located outside of the NHA projects under the Zonal Improvement Project. The NHA is definitely not acquiring the said land and therefore is not part of PD 2016. Thus the MTC of Manila has jurisdiction to enforce its decision in the ejectment case. What immediately catches ones attention to this case is the evident predilection of petitioners, through different 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 and executory. The petitioners through different counsels tried to nullify the same MTC decision before different branches of the court. The lawyers oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable. The pertinent part of the lawyers 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 mans 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 to obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the administration of justice is contumacious calling for both an exercise of disciplinary action and warranting application of the contempt power. Petition is dismissed. Petitioners counsel of record is strongly CENSURED and WARNED that a similar infraction of the lawyers oath in the future will be dealt with most severely.