Cobb-Perez v. Judge Lantin (1968) Doctrine: 1.

Accordingly, should there be a conflict between his duty to his client and that to the court, he should resolve the conflict against the former and in favor of the latter, his primary responsibility being to uphold the cause of justice. 2. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Facts: Basically, the spouses Perez were involved in a civil case where a simple money judgment was rendered against them. To execute the judgment, the court levied upon shares of stock of the spouses. With the help of the spouses counsels Attys. Baizas and Bolinas, they resorted to a series of actions and petitions for the sole purpose of delaying the execution of the simple money judgment which has long been final and executory. What they did was attack the execution in a piecemeal fashion, causing the postponement of the execution sale six times. More than eight years after the finality of the judgment have passed, and the same has yet to be satisfied. Example of the spouses modus operandi: (You can skip the enumerated part, theyre not really important, but in case sir asks! ) 1. After the court issued a writ of execution against them, the spouses sought the issuance of preliminary injunctions to restrain the execution of the final judgment. 2. Damaso Perez (husband) temporarily bowed out from the scene. Then here comes his wife Mercedez Cobb-Perez who files a writ of preliminary injunction with the CFI of Rizal with full knowledge that the court in Rizal had no jurisdiction over the matter because the case was originally filed in Manila. 3. Mercedez Cobb-Perez simultaneously filed with the CFI of Manila an urgent motion to lift the writ of execution alleging as justification the conjugal nature of the levied shares of stock and the personal nature of Damaso Perez' judgment debt. 4. Mercedez Cobb-Perez, now assisted by her husband who had staged a comeback, prayed for the issuance of another injunction, this time from Branch XXII of the CFI of Manila (not the same Branch which issued the controverted writ of execution), in connection with the still pending case in the CFI of Rizal. This was denied. 5. On the very day the injunction was denied, Damaso Perez was already prepared with another "remedy," as in fact on that day, he filed in connection with the original judgment (the money judgment) an "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration which denied his wife's above-mentioned motion to recall the controverted writ of execution. The foregoing motion was far from seriously seeking the reconsideration because in the first place Damaso Perez could not legally do for he was not even a party to the denied "Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution" (filed by his wife alone.) This was also denied by the court. (Basically, ganyan ginawa nila for 8 years. File dito, file doon, file kung saan saan. Preliminary injunctions, motions to recall writ of execution, motions to reconsider basta lahat. Kahit na alam nila na irereject lang naman ng court, go lang sila ng go! Pati si SC, napagod na magkwento.) Here comes the relevant part: (sorry it took so long! ) In the courts final (as in final) judgment, the writ of execution against the spouses Perez was upheld, and in addition, the Supreme Court assessed treble costs against petitioners, to be paid by their counsels. Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A. N. Bolinas, while submitting to the judgment on the merits, seek reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their "professional conduct" and condemns them to pay the treble costs adjudged against their clients. Issue: 1. W/N Attys. Baizas and Bolinas should be made to pay treble costs.

Held: YES. Attys. Baizas and Bolinao contends that if there was delay it was because they happened to be more assertive, a quality of lawyers which is not to be condemned. The court replied that a counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and honesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the court does not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of his client's position. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his clients if he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise 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 client's propensity to litigate. Accordingly, should there be a conflict between his duty to his client and that to the court, he should resolve the conflict against the former and in favor of the latter, his primary responsibility being to uphold the cause of justice.