AC 4766; (December, 2002) (Digest)
Adm. Case No. 4766 December 27, 2002
T’BOLI AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. (TADI), complainant, vs. ATTY. NEPTHALI P. SOLILAPSI, respondent.
FACTS
T’Boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. (TADI) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi for forum-shopping and violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94. TADI had contracts with Multi-Fruit Growers Cooperative and Eduards Small Coconut Farmers Cooperative, requiring them to sell their pineapple produce exclusively to TADI. On August 15, 1996, TADI filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 594-S) for breach of contract against the cooperatives before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surallah. The day before, on August 14, 1996, Multi-Fruit Cooperative, through respondent as counsel, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 179) against TADI for damages with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Surallah. Subsequently, respondent filed eleven more cases on behalf of cooperative members against TADI in the same MCTC (Civil Case Nos. 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, and 196), all praying for TADI to desist from interfering with their harvesting and disposal of fruits. The verification and certification annexed to these complaints stated that the plaintiffs had not filed any other suit involving the same cause, failing to disclose the pendency of the earlier cases (Civil Case Nos. 179, 180, and 594-S). The MCTC dismissed several of these later cases for litis pendentia and for violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi is guilty of forum-shopping.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of forum-shopping. The Supreme Court found that the elements of forum-shopping were present. There was identity of parties or interests, as the later cases were filed by members of the same cooperatives involved in the prior suits, all represented by respondent against the same defendant, TADI. There was identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts, as all complaints sought to restrain TADI from interfering with the harvesting and sale of pineapples, arising from the same contractual disagreements. Consequently, a judgment in one case would constitute res judicata in the others. The Court held that respondent, as counsel who prepared and signed the pleadings, was responsible for the false certifications of non-forum shopping. His defense that the prior cases were known to the MCTC judge was rejected, as the duty to make a full disclosure under oath was personal and could not be excused. The Court adopted the modified recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, suspending respondent from the practice of law for two years.