G.R. No. 6377 March 12, 2007
Rufa C. Suan vs. Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez
FACTS
Complainant Rufa C. Suan, a director of Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc., filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez, a bank stockholder. The charges stemmed from a mandamus case respondent filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking to enjoin the bank’s annual stockholders’ meeting. To secure a temporary restraining order, respondent submitted a surety bond with an attached certification from the Court Administrator. Complainant alleged this certification pertained only to transactions before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and not the RTC, constituting dishonest conduct. Complainant further accused respondent of perjury and forum shopping, citing alleged inconsistencies in stockholding percentages stated in his RTC complaint versus a separate complaint filed with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), and claiming the causes of action in both fora were identical.
Respondent denied the allegations. He explained the attachment of the MTCC certification was an inadvertent error by the bonding company, promptly rectified by an ex-parte motion to submit the correct RTC certification. He defended the bond’s validity, presented evidence of compliance with collateral requirements, and argued there was no material inconsistency between the two complaints to constitute perjury. He also maintained the RTC and BSP cases involved different causes of action and reliefs, negating forum shopping.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez should be held administratively liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, perjury, and forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommendation. On the charge of dishonest conduct, the Court found no deliberate intent to mislead. The erroneous attachment of the MTCC certification was deemed a mere inadvertence, as respondent promptly moved to correct it. The Court reasoned that not every oversight equates to deceit, especially where, as here, the respondent had nothing to gain and risked dismissal of his own case by submitting a defective certification.
Regarding perjury, the Court held the alleged inconsistencies in the stockholding percentages (70% vs. 80% majority; ₱6 million vs. ₱5 million minority) between the RTC and BSP complaints were not substantial enough to constitute willful falsehood. The variances did not touch upon the core issues of the cases and were insufficient to prove a deliberate intent to swear falsely.
On forum shopping, the Court ruled the causes of action and reliefs sought in the RTC and BSP proceedings were distinct. The RTC case primarily involved corporate rights and injunctive relief, while the BSP complaint addressed alleged governance violations for regulatory action. The difference in objectives and forums indicated no willful and deliberate forum shopping. The power to disbar is exercised with great caution; absent clear evidence of serious misconduct affecting one’s fitness as a lawyer, the complaint must fail.
