G.R. No. A.C. No. 13752 (Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5596), August 06, 2025
Carolina Bautista-Pangilinan, represented by Miriam B. Bustamante, Complainant, vs. Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano, Respondent.

FACTS

This is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano for alleged forum shopping and illegal land grabbing. The case stemmed from an ejectment case (“Carolina Bautista Pangilinan, represented by her Attorney-in-fact Miriam Bautista Bustamante v. Vivian Sanchez,” docketed as Civil Case No. 10-39977) involving a property registered in complainant Carolina Bautista-Pangilinan’s name. The adverse party, Vivian Sanchez, was represented by Atty. Icasiano. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) rendered a Decision on May 8, 2013, in favor of Pangilinan, ordering Sanchez to vacate, and a Writ of Execution was issued on November 21, 2013. On February 14, 2014, Sanchez, through Atty. Icasiano, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (First Petition, docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-14-01503-CV) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). This petition was eventually dismissed by RTC Branch 93. While the First Petition was pending, Pangilinan filed a Motion to Implement Writ of Execution, which the MeTC granted in a May 5, 2015 Order. Subsequently, Pangilinan discovered that Sanchez, again through Atty. Icasiano, filed a second Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Second Petition, docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-15-06347-CV) before RTC Branch 88 (later re-raffled to Branch 105), which was dismissed in a November 17, 2016 Decision that explicitly declared Sanchez guilty of forum shopping. Pangilinan filed the present administrative complaint alleging Atty. Icasiano committed forum shopping. In his defense, Atty. Icasiano argued the MeTC Decision was void due to an allegedly invalid Special Power of Attorney from Pangilinan to her representative, and that the two petitions assailed different orders (the November 21, 2013 Omnibus Order and the May 5, 2015 Order) and thus did not constitute forum shopping. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) Investigating Commissioner initially recommended dismissal for lack of merit. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) reversed this, found Atty. Icasiano guilty of forum shopping, and recommended a three-month suspension.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano is guilty of forum shopping, constituting a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

RULING

Yes, Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano is guilty of forum shopping. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the IBP Board of Governors but modified the penalty. Forum shopping is defined as the repetitive availment of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, founded on the same transactions and essential facts, raising substantially the same issues. The Court found that although Atty. Icasiano filed two petitions assailing two separate MeTC orders (the November 21, 2013 Omnibus Order and the May 5, 2015 Order), both petitions sought identical reliefs: to maintain his client’s possession, to prohibit the implementation of the writs of execution, and to declare the MeTC judge as having acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Second Petition was filed while the First Petition was still pending. Furthermore, the November 17, 2016 Decision of RTC Branch 105, which was not appealed, expressly declared his client guilty of forum shopping. This conduct violates Canon II, Section 23 of the CPRA, which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly engaging in or being grossly negligent in forum shopping. The Court also noted that Atty. Icasiano transgressed other provisions of the CPRA. Considering the presence of aggravating circumstances and the absence of mitigating circumstances, and pursuant to Canon VI, Section 39 of the CPRA, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months.