G.R. No. 6403 , August 31, 2004
Rudecon Management Corporation and Atty. Rudegelio D. Tacorda, complainants, vs. Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants filed a disbarment case against Atty. Manuel N. Camacho for alleged forum-shopping. The controversy stemmed from two related court actions. On September 3, 1998, Atty. Camacho, representing Sisenando Singson, filed a complaint for damages and reconveyance against Rudecon Management Corporation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 79 (Civil Case No. Q-98-35444). Subsequently, on September 21, 1998, Atty. Camacho, again for Singson, filed a Motion for Intervention with an attached Answer in Intervention in an unrelated unlawful detainer case (Rudecon vs. Veluz) pending on appeal before RTC Branch 78 of the same court (Civil Case No. Q-98-35326). Rudecon moved to cite Singson and Atty. Camacho for contempt for violating the rule against forum-shopping, alleging the Answer in Intervention raised the same issues as the separate complaint.
On November 6, 1998, RTC Branch 78 issued an Order finding Singson and Atty. Camacho liable for forum-shopping and contempt, reprimanding them. This order became final and executory as it was not appealed. Based on this final order, complainants initiated the present administrative case, arguing Atty. Camacho violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and specific Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Camacho denied the allegations, contending the two cases involved different causes of action and reliefs.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) Whether respondent is guilty of forum-shopping; and (2) Whether respondent may be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled affirmatively on the first issue but negatively on the second, dismissing the administrative case.
On the issue of forum-shopping, the Court held that the final and executory November 6, 1998 Order of the RTC, which found Atty. Camacho guilty of forum-shopping, is conclusive. The principle of immutability of final judgments applies; a final judgment can no longer be modified and the issues settled therein cannot be relitigated. Since Atty. Camacho did not appeal the RTC’s finding, he is bound by it. The Court cannot re-examine the factual basis of that final order in this administrative proceeding.
However, on the issue of administrative liability under the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court found insufficient evidence to warrant sanctions. While the final RTC order established the fact of forum-shopping for contempt purposes, an administrative case for disbarment or suspension requires a higher standard of proof. The burden is on the complainant to present clear, convincing, and preponderant evidence that the lawyer acted with willful and deliberate dishonesty or bad faith. The mere fact of a technical violation, as found in the contempt order, does not automatically equate to an ethical breach warranting disbarment. The Court emphasized that administrative sanctions require proof of malicious intent or a corrupt motive. Here, complainants failed to substantiate that Atty. Camacho’s actions constituted a willful and deliberate attempt to deceive the courts or engage in unethical conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, while the act was procedurally improper, it did not rise to the level of an administrative offense requiring the penalty of suspension or disbarment. The Integrated Bar