FIRST DIVISION
JOHN SIY LIM, A.C.
No. 5653
Complainant,
Present:
PANGANIBAN, C.J., Chairperson,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus- AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO,* JJ.
ATTY. CARMELITO A. Promulgated:
MONTANO,
Respondent. February 27, 2006
x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Atty. Carmelito
A. Montano stands charged with gross misconduct relative to his filing of Civil
Case No. C-19928 entitled Spouses Tomas
See Tuazon and Natividad
See Deecho v. John Siy Lim
and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City.[1]
It appears that complainant John Siy Lim was the defendant in Civil Case No. C-14542 for
reformation of contract, quieting of title, with damages, then pending before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The complainant appealed the case to
the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 40167. In its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, the appealed Order dated November 16, 1992, is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the original Decision of the trial court, dated
December 2, 1991, hereby REINSTATED, with the modification that plaintiff-appellee is ordered to pay defendant-appellant the sum of
Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos a month as reasonable rental for the use
and occupation of Apartment No. 161 from July 15, 1988 until the premises shall
have been vacated and possession thereof peacefully turned over to defendant-appellant.
The counterclaim for attorney’s fees of defendant-appellant is DENIED.
There is no clear showing that the action taken by plaintiff-appellee was done in bad faith. There should be no penalty
on the right to litigate.[3]
The aggrieved party elevated the
matter to this Court, and the petition was docketed as G.R. No. 119794. On
On
1. Plaintiff is aware that pursuant to the decision of the court, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the decision on the
present case had already become final and executory.
2. In order to avoid undue inconvenience on the part of herein defendant, plaintiff shall voluntarily settle the money judgment as stated in the decision sought to be enforced.
3. The plaintiff will be filing Eight Hundred Ten Thousand (P810,000.00)
Pesos, equivalent to 162 months of rent as per decision and the same to
be covered by supersedeas bond issued by a reliable
insurance company to answer for said obligation.
4. Every month starting P5,000.00
as monthly rent.[8]
On the same date, respondent,
in behalf of his clients (the spouses Tomas See Tuazon)
filed the Complaint[9] for nullity of TCT and other documents, reconveyance, maintenance of physical possession before the
RTC of Caloocan City, eventually raffled to Branch
121 thereof (Civil Case No. C-19928).
Meantime,
on
This prompted the complainant to file
the instant complaint for disbarment against respondent. In his
Complaint-Affidavit[12] dated
6. Evidently, I have been subjected to harassment by the antics of the
respondent in filing a recycled case docketed as Civil Case No. C-19928 on
In his Comment,[14]
respondent denied the allegations against him. While he admitted that he filed
Civil Case No. C-19928 as counsel for the plaintiff therein, he claimed that it
was not filed with malicious intent. Moreover, while the new case involved the
same party, it was for a different cause of action and relief, and, as such,
the principle of res judicata did not
apply. He further explained that the complaint in Civil Case No. C-14542 was
for declaratory relief or reformation of instrument, while Civil Case No. 19928
was for annulment of title. He accepted the case based on “his professional
appreciation that his client had a good case.”
In his Reply,[15]
the complainant stressed that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping;
Civil Case No. C-19928 was nothing but a revival of the old complaint; and “the
lame excuse of the respondent that the present case is an action in rem while
the other case is an action in personam” did
not merit consideration.
On
On
The case was re-assigned to
Commissioner Doroteo B. Aguila
who submitted his Report and Recommendation dated
According to the Investigating
Commissioner, the elements of res
judicata are present in this case as to bar the filing of Civil Case No.
C-19928 since (a) the judgment in Civil Case No. C-14542, upholding the
validity of the absolute deed of sale, had attained finality; (b) the court
which rendered the decision had the required jurisdiction; and (c) the
disposition of the case was a judgment on the merits.
On
We
agree that respondent is administratively liable.
In this case, it is clear that
respondent is guilty of forum shopping. By his own admission, he was aware that
Civil Case No. C-14542 was already final and executory when he filed the second
case (Civil Case No. C-19928). His allegation that he “was not the original
counsel of his clients” and that “when he filed the subsequent case for nullity
of TCT, his motive was to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed
were not properly addressed in the prior case for reformation and quieting of
title,” deserves scant consideration. As a responsible member of the bar, he
should have explained the effect of such final and executory decision on his
clients’ rights, instead of encouraging them to file another case involving the
same property and asserting the same rights.
The essence of forum shopping is the
filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of
action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a
favorable judgment. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two
or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the
chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining its
existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the
filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[17]
Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in another.[18]
Thus, the following requisites should concur:
(a) identity
of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding
particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. x x x[19]
The fact that the parties in the
first and second cases are not identical will not prevent the application of
the principle of res judicata. Mere
substantial identity of parties, or a community of interests between a party in
the first case and a party in the subsequent case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case, is sufficient.[20] Moreover, a party cannot, by varying the
form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape
the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not
be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies.[21]
This was what respondent resorted to in order to give some semblance of merit
to the complaint for annulment of title. He should have realized that
the ruling of the Court in Tuazon v. Court of Appeals[22] effectively
determined with finality the rights and obligations of the parties under the
questioned deed of sale.
A
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth
and the administration of justice.[23] The
filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court’s processes and
improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration
of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer
who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the
execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary
action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation
of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and
to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent
with truth and honor. [24]
The filing of another action
concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02[25]
and Rule 12.04[26]
of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate “to delay no man for money or malice.”[27]
Lawyers
should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct
the administration of justice contravenes such lawyer’s duty. Indeed, the Court
has time and again warned not to resort to forum shopping for this practice
clogs the court dockets.[28]
While we
rule that the respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, we also note
that the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution, to be imposed
only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment
should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end
desired.[29]
WHEREFORE, for violating Canon 12 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Carmelito
A. Montano is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months. He is STERNLY WARNED that any future violation of his duties as a lawyer
will be dealt with more severely. This Decision is immediately executory. Atty.
Montano is DIRECTED to inform the
Court of the date of receipt of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO
YNARES-
On leave
Associate Justice
* On leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 17-24.
[2]
The judge who originally heard the case was Judge Antonio J. Fineza, who was found guilty of gross misconduct in this
Court’s Decision of
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] As earlier noted, the case was transferred to this sala.
[11] Rollo, pp. 48-54.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Foronda v. Guerrero, A.C. No. 5469,
[18] T’Boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. v. Solilapsi, 442 Phil. 499, 508 (2002).
[19]
[20] Dapar v. Biascan,
G.R. No. 141880, September 27, 2004, 439 SCRA 179, 199, citing Rovels Enterprises, Inc. v. Ocampo,
439 Phil. 777, 790-791 (2002).
[21] j. feria and m.c.
noche, civil procedure annotated, volume 2, (2001 ed.) 131, citing Peñalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303 (1912) and Paz v. Inandan, 75
Phil. 608 (1945).
[22] 396 Phil. 32 (2000).
[23] Garcia v. Francisco, A.C. No. 3923,
[24] Foronda v. Guerrero, supra note 15, at 23.
[25] Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
[26] Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.
[27] See Foronda v. Guerrero, supra note 15, at 24.
[28] Sanchez v. Brion,
319 Phil. 67, 70 (1995).
[29] Alitagtag v. Atty. Garcia, 451 Phil. 420, 426
(2003).