EDESIO ADAO,
Complainant, -
versus - ATTYS. EDWIN B. DOCENA and
RODOLFO JOJI A. ACOL, JR., Respondents. |
A.C. No. 5073
Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, *YNARES-SANTIAGO, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, JJ. Promulgated: December 10, 2007 |
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
DECISION
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
On
Complainant alleged that on
On
On
On the same day, Naputo, through
his counsels, Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr., respondents, filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Borongan,
Samar a petition for injunction with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent complainant from
participating in the June 14, 1997 election for president of the Association of
Barangay Captains (ABC) in Taft, Eastern Samar. Also on the
same day, the RTC issued a TRO. Thus,
complainant failed to participate in the ABC election.
On
Complainant, in open court, objected to the dismissal of the petition
for injunction. But the incident was
not resolved.
Going back to Naputo’s election
protest, respondent Atty. Docena moved for an
extension of time to file comment on complainant’s motion to dismiss, which was
thereafter granted by the MTC.
On
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not,
for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any man’s cause.
Rule 12.02 – A lawyer
shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Complainant further alleged that respondents’ filing of a
false certification on non-forum shopping attached to their petition for
injunction constitutes a violation of the rule on forum shopping.
In a Resolution dated
The investigation was
conducted by Investigating Commissioner Wilfredo
E.J.E. Reyes. In his Report and
Recommendation dated
The respondents violated Supreme
Court Circular No. 28-91 when they submitted a certification that their client Nerio Naputo had not commenced
any other action or proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal,
when in truth and in fact there was an election case pending before the MTC of
Taft, Eastern Samar.
The respondents had taken the
position that the injunction case and the election protest case are two (2)
different cases. The respondents argued
that there can be no violation of false certification because there is no forum
shopping.
It must be pointed out however
that the final resolution of the injunction case would eventually end with the
determination of the winners. Hence, it
would not be correct to argue that the two (2) cases are not related.
In order for the RTC to finally
establish whether petitioner had the right to the injunctive relief, the court
will have to determine as to who really won in the electoral contest. The determination of the winner was vested in
the Municipal Trial Court.
It can also be observed that the
filing of the injunction case was to prevent the participation of the
complainant in the ABC election. Hence,
when the objective was realized the respondents have immediately filed the
motion to dismiss.
The respondents however, have
shown remorse in their action and has stated in separate manifestation offered
their sincere apologies to the Honorable Court for their unintentional filing
of the injunction case if ever the same is to be considered as forum shopping.
In view of the foregoing
circumstance, the respondents should be admonished and reprimanded for their
act of filing a false certificate in violation of SC Circular No. 28-91 and for
violation of the rules of forum shopping.
On
RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of
this Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully supported
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering
their act of filing false certification in violation of SC Circular No. 28-91
and for violation of the rules on forum-shopping, Respondents are hereby ADMONISHED
and REPRIMANDED.
The fundamental issue for our resolution is whether the
filing by respondents with the MTC of an election protest and with the RTC a
petition for injunction against complainant constitutes forum shopping.
To begin with, 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. A party violates the rule
against forum shopping if the elements of litis
pendentia are present; or if a final judgment in
one case would amount to res judicata in the other.[1]
Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements
concur: (1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent
the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief
prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity
of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other
action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will
constitute litis pendentia.[2]
Applying the foregoing elements to the present case, it is
obvious that forum shopping does not exist.
The allegations in the election
protest and the petition for injunction show that, although there is an
identity of parties, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for.
In the election protest filed with the MTC, the issue is who between the
parties won. Respondents prayed that Naputo be declared the rightful winner.
On the other hand, the petition for injunction, filed by the
same respondents with the RTC, seeks to prevent complainant from participating
in the
It bears stressing that what was filed with the MTC by
respondents was a protest, while the action they filed with the RTC was a petition for injunction. Obviously, the causes of action are
different. Likewise, the reliefs prayed for are at variance with each other.
As the causes of action and the reliefs
prayed for in the election protest and petition for injunction are entirely
different, there can be no forum shopping.
Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended, submission of a false certification on non-forum shopping
constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions.
Here, complainant opted to file an administrative case for
disbarment against respondents.
Unfortunately, he failed to prove his allegation that respondents submitted
to the RTC a false certification on non-forum shopping for actually they did
not engage in forum shopping.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint for disbarment against
Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr. is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
* Designated
to sit as additional Member of the First Division under Special Order No. 474
dated
[1] Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 154187, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 585, citing T’Boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. (TADI) v. Solilapsi, 394 SCRA 269, 278 (2002).
[2] PAL Employees and Loan Association, Inc. v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R, No. 161110, March 30, 2006, 485 SCRA 632, citing Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., 397 SCRA 431 (2003).