G.R. No. A.C. No. 9871, June 29, 2016
In Re: A.M. No. 04-7-373-RTC and A.M. No. 04-7-374-RTC, Prosecutor MARY ANN T. CASTRO-ROA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro-Roa filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of her marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity (First Petition) with the RTC, Branch 56, Mandaue City. The trial court granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. While her Motion to Dismiss this First Petition was still pending before RTC Branch 56, Castro-Roa filed a second Petition for Annulment of Marriage on the ground of fraud (Second Petition) with the RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu. In the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the Second Petition, she failed to disclose the pendency of the First Petition. RTC Branch 60 subsequently granted the Second Petition. Following a judicial audit, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to investigate Castro-Roa’s fitness as a lawyer.
Separately, the Office of the Ombudsman found her guilty of Grave Misconduct for the same act, but the Court of Appeals reversed this administrative ruling. The CA held that a final criminal conviction for perjury was a prerequisite for such an administrative charge and found no forum shopping as the petitions involved different causes of action.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Castro-Roa is administratively liable as a member of the Bar for forum shopping and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Castro-Roa guilty of forum shopping and suspended her from the practice of law for one year. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the Ombudsman’s administrative case by the CA did not bar the disciplinary proceedings before the IBP and the Supreme Court, as these are separate jurisdictions. On the merits, the Court held that Castro-Roa committed forum shopping. The elements of litis pendentia were present: both petitions involved the same parties (Castro-Roa and her husband) and the same relief (the declaration of nullity of their marriage). The fact that the petitions were based on different grounds (psychological incapacity versus fraud) was immaterial, as they ultimately sought the same termination of the marital bond. Her act of filing the Second Petition while the First Petition was still pending, and her deliberate omission of this fact in her certification against forum shopping, constituted a willful attempt to secure a favorable judgment from another court.
This conduct violated her duties as a lawyer. She breached Canon 1, Rule 1.02, and Rule 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in an act aimed at lessening confidence in the legal system and by filing multiple actions arising from the same cause. She also violated Canon 10 and Rules 10.01 and 10.03 by failing in her duty of candor and good faith to the court through her false certification. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount, and Castro-Roa’s actions demonstrated a lack of the integrity required of a member of the Bar.