Scribd
Upload
73 views1 page

Lim Se V Argel

Lim Se and Benito Lim leased commercial property in Baguio City from various parties from 1965 to 1977. Another party, Bulatano, claimed ownership of the property and filed cases to recover rents and possession. Ocampo and San Pedro filed a third-party complaint to have Lim Se and Benito vacate the premises, which was granted via summary judgment. However, Lim Se and Benito appealed and were issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction placing them back in possession. An attorney not involved in the lower court cases, Atty. Adaza, filed a motion to lift the injunction. The Supreme Court held Atty. Adaza in contempt for his characterization of the injunction, which treated the court's resolution disrespectfully and

Uploaded by

claudenson18
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
73 views1 page

Lim Se V Argel

Lim Se and Benito Lim leased commercial property in Baguio City from various parties from 1965 to 1977. Another party, Bulatano, claimed ownership of the property and filed cases to recover rents and possession. Ocampo and San Pedro filed a third-party complaint to have Lim Se and Benito vacate the premises, which was granted via summary judgment. However, Lim Se and Benito appealed and were issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction placing them back in possession. An attorney not involved in the lower court cases, Atty. Adaza, filed a motion to lift the injunction. The Supreme Court held Atty. Adaza in contempt for his characterization of the injunction, which treated the court's resolution disrespectfully and

Uploaded by

claudenson18
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

LIM SE V.

ARGEL

Facts: Lim Se and Benito Lim were leasing from Chiombon, through her attorney-in-fact San Pedro, the
ground floor, mezzanine, and basement of the Venancia Building in Baguio City from 1965 to 1970.
When the lease expired, Lim Se leased the same premises from the Estates of Reyes, Sr. from 1971 to
1973.
An interpleader action was filed by Lim Se and the other tenants against San Pedro and the Estate to
determine to whom rentals will be paid; the Court ruled in favour of the Estate.

From 1974 to 1977, Lim Se and his son Benito leased the premises from the Estate. The New Life Café
and Restaurant was operated by Benito on the premises.

Meanwhile, Bulatano, who claimed to have purchased on December 9, 1970 the said building from
Ocampo, who allegedly bought it from Chiombon, filed an action for the recovery of rentals and
damages from the Estate, Lim, Ocampo and Remedios for their occupancy of the building. He also
filed a case in the Caloocan City Branch of CFI of Rizal to recover possession against Ocampo and San
Pedro. Ocampo and San Pedro thus instituted a third party complaint against Lim Se and Benito to
vacate the premises. Lim Se and Benito opposed due to improper venue (there was a stipulation in the
contract that in case of a suit, it should be filed in the City of Baguio, which was denied.

A summary judgment was granted in favour of Ocampo and San Pedro, in which Lim Se and Benito
were ordered to vacate the premises. Lim Se and Benito appealed while Ocampo and San Pedro asked
for a writ of execution. Lim Se and Benito also filed an MR and to hold the case in abeyance, which
was denied. The summary judgement was declared final and executory, the appeal not having been
perfected.
A writ of possession instead of the usual writ of execution was issued by the Branch Clerk of Court, in
which the City Sheriff was ordered to take possession of the premises occupied by Lim, to eject them
and anybody claiming under them and to deliver the possession to Ocampo and San Pedro.

Sheriff Par then delivered the writ to Lim and issued an ultimatum that they should remove all their
properties from the premises within two hours.

Petitioners are claiming that the writ was enforced in a most cruel and oppressive manner and that
the Court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of jurisdiction in rendering a summary
judgment in the ejectment case (the third party complaint). After a bond was given by petitioners, a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued, directing the Sheriff to place petitioners in
possession of the premises from which they had been ousted.
Atty. Adaza, a lawyer who never appeared in the lower court and acted independently of both San
Pedro’s and Ocampo’s lawyers, filed a motion to lift the injunction.

Issue: W/N Atty. Adaza should be cited for contempt.

Held: Yes.
Atty. Adaza’s characterization of the mandatory injunction as “unjust and a miscarriage of justice” and
as devoid of factual and legal basis is unfounded and unwarranted. He treated a resolution of the
Court as if it were a pleading of the adversary which he could assail in unrestrained or abrasive
language. His unjustified and disrespectful characterization carries with it obvious derogatory
implications or innuendos which clearly constitute direct contempt or contempt in facie curiae.

You might also like