G.R. No. 86084. July 13, 1995
Rodolfo Millare, complainant, vs. Atty. Eustaquio Z. Montero, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant’s mother, Pacifica Millare, secured a favorable ejectment judgment against Elsa Dy Co from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bangued, Abra. Co, represented by respondent Atty. Montero, appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC decision. Co’s subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed for procedural error in filing an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for review, rendering the MTC judgment final and executory on November 19, 1986. Despite finality, respondent filed multiple actions to obstruct execution, including a petition for annulment or novation of judgment with the CA, a petition for review with the Supreme Court, and a special civil action for certiorari with the RTC, all of which were denied or dismissed.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found respondent guilty of malpractice and recommended suspension from law practice. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final disposition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Montero violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing multiple frivolous actions to delay the execution of a final and executory judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and suspended respondent for one year. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty under Canon 19 is to represent a client within the bounds of the law, employing only fair and honest means. Advocacy permits arguable legal constructions but does not allow knowingly advancing unwarranted claims or prosecuting patently frivolous and meritless appeals.
Respondent’s conduct demonstrated a willful abuse of legal processes. He filed at least six successive actions—including appeals, a petition for annulment, and special civil actions—all aimed at forestalling the execution of a judgment that had long become final. This constituted forum shopping, defined as venturing to another forum after an adverse decision to seek a more favorable resolution. Such repetitive filings mock judicial processes, impede the administration of justice, and violate a lawyer’s duty to maintain only actions that are just and consistent with truth and honor. By intentionally frustrating the rights of a prevailing litigant, respondent disregarded procedural rules and ethical canons, warranting disciplinary action.