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;
Agos motion denied, levy was made on Agos 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 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 sherifs 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 counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty
his clients cause must be encouraged and is to be commended;
what the SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyers
insistence despite the patent futility of his clients position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or
lack of his case. If he finds his clients 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 clients propensity to litigate.