Petititoner was able to obtain a writ of execution in it’s favor which levied the personal properties of

Cosmos foundry for the purpose of conducting an auction sale

Respondent Lo Bu filed a motion to recall writ of execution on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of
court.

Court denied Lo Bu’s motion and his subsequent appeal

Meanwhile Respondent Lo Bu then filed a replevin suit for the same property

Petitioner filed a motion dismiss complain stating that respondent has no cause of action since they are
a fictitious entity based on the findings of the court.

The courts then dismissed the complaint and was elevated to the CA.

Petitioner files this case

IN RELATION TO THE TOPIC

Respondent Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall the writ of execution alleging that there was no
jurisitction to pass upon the validity of the sale of the New Century/Cosmos Foundry shop

They also filed a motion praying for the return of the levied properties asserting that the petitioners
failed to put up an indemnity bond

And a third motion to allow the sheriff to keep the levied properties at the factory

All of which were denied by the court

Counsel Busmente, consel to respondent Lo Bu denied such allegation??

He denied the fact that om

Other Case [Petitioner Lo Bu Respondent – Labor Union]

On January 26, Appellant Lo Bu voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the CIR by filing an
urgent write of execution which question the jurisdiction of said court to pass upon the validity og the
sale of the new century foundry shop to him without the latter being made a party to the case.

He also assiailed the jurisidiction of the court in a decision rendered against respondents (labor union) in
another case by means of alias writ of execution against his properties
Petitioners urgent motion was set for feb 5 whilst his acution sale of properties was on jan 31.

The CIR ordered the sheriff not to go with the sale one day before the sale itself (jan 30)

On feb 3, petitioner filed another urgent motion praying for the return of the properties on the ground
that Labor Union did not pay the indemnity bond.

These motions were denied.

What was different was that Atty. Busmente

ISSUE: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Bustamante in denying the facts alleged in the petition to
defend the cause of his client is commendable.

HELD: NO

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
THE LAW.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he
shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules
of Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.
Petitioners version

Jan 16 writ of execution for the levying of properties of Cosmos Foundry shop for the purpose of sale

Lo Bu filed a motion to recall writ of execution on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction

Feb 3 Another motion by Lo Bu on the ground that petitioners failed to put up an indemnity bon

Court denied motion of Lo Bu and his motion for reconsideration

Meanwhile, Lo Bu filed a replevin suit

Petitioner filed to dismiss such case since it was found out based on court records that respondent is a
fictitious buyer

Lower courts dismissed the complaint and was elevated to CA for centiorari by the petitioner

Accordent to Busmente

On Jan 26, Lo Bu filed a motion to recall writ of execution questioning the jurisdiction of the court as
well as questioning the legality of the sale of the foundry shop without him being made a party to the
case.

Lo Bu’s case was se for hearing on Jan 31 but then the CIR issued an order not to proceed with the sale
one day before the hearing.

On Feb 2, another motion based on the ground that petitioners failed to put up an indemnity bond and
that they return his property pursuant to Sec 17 rule 39 of the ROC

This was denied by the courts

ON Feb 10 Cosmos Labor interposed opposition against Lo Bu’s previous motions made on Jan 26 and
Feb 2.

On Feb 27, Lo Bu received an order denying his motions and ordering the sheriff to proceed with the
sale.

Issue: Is Busmente’s actions commendable?

Held:

No.

Aside from being poorly written with unnesccary matter without due regard to logic or coherence, he
could add that his denial was to be correlated to special defenses, where he concentrated on points not
previously admitted.

Despite, this Atty. Busmente is not guilty since he is expected to defend his clients causes with zeal but
not at the cost of disregarding the truth and in defiance of court order.

He should remember his obligations as an officer of the court and not a errant boy to his client.