1 Banogon-vs-zerna

G.R. No. L-35469 October 9, 1987 ENCARNACION BANOGON, ZOSIMA MUNOZ, and DAVIDINA MUNOZ, petitioners, vs. MELCHOR ZERNA, CONSEJO ZERNA DE CORNELIO, FRANCISCO ZERNA, and the HON. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental (Branch III).

FACTS:    



On February 9, 1926, the CFI of Negros Oriental (Branch 3) rendered a decision of a land dispute in favored of Zerna. The decision became final and executory after thirty days. On March 6, 1957 (after 31 years), Banogon filed a motion to amend the decision followed by a petition for review on judgment on that same year. On October 11,1971 (after 14 years), Zerna filed a motion to dismiss the petition. On December 8, 1971, the petition for review on judgment was dismissed and the motion for reconsideration was denied on February 14, 1972 considering the fact that it was beyond the allowable period. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: WON Banogon’s suit should prosper. (NO)

HELD: The petitioner is guilty of laches of being unreasonable delayed of action in claiming the rights, considering the fact that it took thirty-one years for the petitioner to file for amendment of the decision and petition for review. In relation to that, the action taken was beyond the allowable period for filing of amendment and petition for review. The delayed of filing for their petition for amendment and review of the decision constitutes bar to their petition.

Policy: Lawyers have duties and responsibilities to assist in the proper administration of justice. But in this case the lawyer violates the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him by filing of motion and petition way beyond the scope of allowable period. As officer of the court he or she ought to know by heart their mandated duties and responsibilities. It manifested in this case that the profession was put to shame and creates public distrust. The lawyer must be responsible enough to his or her client in helping especially in claiming his or her client’s right. As officer of the court they should exercise properly and correctly the mandates entrusted to them in assisting the administration of justice, by doing this, in order to uplift the image of the legal profession in the society due to the fact that nowadays legal professions merely perceived as money making profession, in a sense that it misinterpreted the law to the point of distortion in order to achieve their purposes.