The petitioner and her late husband constructed a house on a portion of the private respondent's land and paid monthly rent. When they were unable to pay rent totaling P2,160, the private respondent filed an ejectment case. The petitioner then filed various court cases including a petition for certiorari, prolonging the litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's actions were dilatory tactics and frivolous attempts to prolong the case unnecessarily. The conduct deserved the court's condemnation for misusing the certiorari remedy and wasting the court's time.
The petitioner and her late husband constructed a house on a portion of the private respondent's land and paid monthly rent. When they were unable to pay rent totaling P2,160, the private respondent filed an ejectment case. The petitioner then filed various court cases including a petition for certiorari, prolonging the litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's actions were dilatory tactics and frivolous attempts to prolong the case unnecessarily. The conduct deserved the court's condemnation for misusing the certiorari remedy and wasting the court's time.
The petitioner and her late husband constructed a house on a portion of the private respondent's land and paid monthly rent. When they were unable to pay rent totaling P2,160, the private respondent filed an ejectment case. The petitioner then filed various court cases including a petition for certiorari, prolonging the litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's actions were dilatory tactics and frivolous attempts to prolong the case unnecessarily. The conduct deserved the court's condemnation for misusing the certiorari remedy and wasting the court's time.
The petitioner and her late husband constructed a house on a portion of the private respondent's land and paid monthly rent. When they were unable to pay rent totaling P2,160, the private respondent filed an ejectment case. The petitioner then filed various court cases including a petition for certiorari, prolonging the litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's actions were dilatory tactics and frivolous attempts to prolong the case unnecessarily. The conduct deserved the court's condemnation for misusing the certiorari remedy and wasting the court's time.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
DE Bacaling v.
Laguna
GR. No. L-26694 ; December 18, 1973
Esguerra, J.
Facts:
Private respondent Hector Laguda is a registered owner
of a residential land where petitioner and her late husband Ramon Bacaling, constructed a residential house on a portion of said lot, paying monthly rentalof P80.00. unable to pay a total of P2,160.00, an action for ejectment was filed by herein private respondent against petitioner in her capacity as judicial administratrix of the estate of her late husband, Dr. Bacaling. The filing of said case spawned various court suits such as petition for certiorari, which further prolong the litigation.
Issue:
W/N the petitioner’s counsel deserved condemnation
before the SC
Held:
Yes.
The present petition smacks of a dilatory tactic and a
frivolous attempt resorted to by petitioner to frustrate the prompt termination of the ejectment case and to prolong litigation unnecessarily. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner and her counsel deserves the vigorous condemnation if this Court, because it evinces a flagrant misuse of the remedy of certiorari which should only be resorted to in case of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by an inferior court. A recourse of this kind unduly taxes the energy and the patience of the courts and simply wastes the precious time that they could well devote to really meritorious cases.