G.R. No. A.C. No. 4058 March 12, 1998
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Atty. Ernesto B. Flores

FACTS

The complainant, Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), filed an administrative complaint seeking the removal or suspension of respondent Atty. Ernesto B. Flores from the bar for forum shopping, which amounted to grave misconduct, unduly delaying the administration of justice, and violating his oath. The case stemmed from the respondent’s actions as counsel for the losing board members of BENECO in NLRC Case No. RAB-1-0313-84. After the Supreme Court’s final decision in G.R. No. 89070, a Writ of Execution was issued to collect from the board members the amount BENECO paid to the winning party. Respondent filed a “Motion for Clarification” with the Supreme Court, which was noted without action. He then filed a complaint for injunction (Civil Case No. 2738-R) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio to enjoin the execution, but it was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed two separate complaints (Civil Cases Nos. 93-F-0414 and 93-F-0415) with the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, for the judicial declaration of family home to exempt the properties from levy. In his Comment before the Supreme Court, respondent falsely stated that the dismissal order in Civil Case No. 2738-R was not appealed on time, when in fact an appeal had been interposed and later withdrawn.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Ernesto B. Flores should be disciplined for forum shopping and for making a false statement in his pleading.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of forum shopping and falsehood, warranting suspension from the practice of law. The Supreme Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) finding of guilt but increased the recommended suspension period from six months to one year and six months. The Court held that while the respondent’s failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to his RTC complaints did not violate the specific circulars (as they were not yet applicable to those courts at the time of filing), he was still guilty of forum shopping under the established rule against splitting a cause of action and filing multiple suits to delay execution. His actions in filing successive cases in different courts to obstruct the enforcement of a final Supreme Court decision constituted willful forum shopping. Furthermore, his false statement in his Comment regarding the appeal of the dismissal order constituted a violation of his duty of candor to the court. These acts were in breach of Canons 10 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to observe candor, fairness, and good faith toward the court and to assist in the speedy administration of justice.