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; sheriff 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 sheriff from
enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied
- Sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to redeem
- Sheriff 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 sheriff 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 sheriff 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 sheriffs 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.