G.R. No. A.C. No. 6943; March 13, 2009
Atty. Godofredo C. Manipud, Complainant, vs. Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, Respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Godofredo C. Manipud filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista for alleged forum shopping, violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and improper conduct. Complainant, as mortgagee of a property owned by Jovita de Macasieb, initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings after the mortgagor defaulted. Respondent, as counsel for the mortgagor, filed a complaint for annulment of the real estate mortgage and notice of extrajudicial sale (Civil Case No. 2005-0107-D) on March 22, 2005, which resulted in a temporary restraining order. After the trial court denied the prayer for a preliminary injunction on May 18, 2005, complainant applied for a new notice of extrajudicial sale. Respondent filed a second complaint for annulment (Civil Case No. 2005-0253-D) on July 20, 2005. Complainant alleged that both complaints contained identical allegations, involved the same parties, subject matter, facts, issues, and relief, constituting forum shopping. Complainant also later alleged that respondent collaborated with an impostor, as Jovita de Macasieb had been dead since 1968, and that respondent notarized complaints signed by “Jovita Macasieb,” misrepresenting her identity. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found respondent not administratively liable for forum shopping, as it was not willful or deliberate, and the IBP Board of Governors approved this recommendation. Complainant then filed a motion for reinvestigation, raising the issue of respondent “resurrecting” a dead client.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for: (1) forum shopping; and (2) allegedly representing a deceased client and collaborating with an impostor.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the IBP Resolution dismissing the complaint.
1. On forum shopping: The Court upheld the IBP’s finding that respondent was not guilty of willful or deliberate forum shopping. Respondent disclosed the pendency of the first case in the second complaint’s Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping and attached a copy of the first complaint. The objective of preventing forum shopping—avoiding vexation to courts and conflicting decisions—was not violated, as both cases were raffled to the same branch and no undue vexation occurred.
2. On representing a deceased client: The Court ruled that this issue was not properly raised. During the IBP mandatory conference, the parties defined the sole issue as whether forum shopping was committed. Complainant attempted to introduce evidence of the mortgagor’s death but was reminded by the Investigating Commissioner that the proceeding was limited to the forum shopping issue. Since complainant failed to raise this as an issue before the IBP or in the original complaint, and did not assail the IBP’s forum shopping findings in his motion for reinvestigation, it could not be considered at a late stage. Thus, the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.