AC 11121; (September, 2016) (Digest)
A.C. No. 11121, September 13, 2016
Delia Lim, Complainant, vs. Atty. Aquilino Mejica, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Delia Lim, then Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar, was charged by respondent Atty. Aquilino Mejica with grave oral defamation before the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor (OAPP). The OAPP dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. Atty. Mejica filed a motion for reconsideration. While this motion was pending, he filed a second criminal complaint for the same offense directly with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The MCTC dismissed the case on the ground of prescription.
Lim subsequently filed this administrative complaint for disbarment, alleging that Atty. Mejica deliberately committed forum shopping by filing the same complaint with the MCTC while his motion for reconsideration was pending with the OAPP. Atty. Mejica defended his actions by claiming he acted in good faith upon advice that an oral defamation case could be filed directly in court and was not aware this constituted forum shopping.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Aquilino Mejica should be suspended from the practice of law for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
The Supreme Court found Atty. Mejica administratively liable, but not for forum shopping. The Court clarified that forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. Here, the second requisite was absent. The complaint before the OAPP sought a prosecutor’s finding of probable cause to hold Lim for trial, while the complaint before the MCTC sought her conviction. These are distinct reliefs; the first is investigatory and preliminary, the second is judicial and adjudicatory. Therefore, no forum shopping was committed.
However, the Court held Atty. Mejica liable for violating Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and good faith. His act of simultaneously pursuing two separate proceedings based on the same cause, without full disclosure to both tribunals, constituted a lack of candor. A lawyer must inform the court of any related pending case to allow the court to exercise its sound discretion. Atty. Mejica’s failure to do so, regardless of his claim of good faith, fell short of the profession’s exacting standards of honesty.
Considering his previous administrative sanctions, the Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty. Atty. Aquilino Mejica was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.