G.R. No.: A.C. No. 8037. February 17, 2016.
Case Title: RE: DECISION DATED AUGUST 19, 2008, 3RD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 79904 [HON. DIONISIO DONATO T. GARCIANO, ET AL. V. HON. PATERNO G. TIAMSON, ETC., ET AL.], PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. JOSE DE G. FERRER, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This is an administrative case against Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer for forum shopping and direct contempt, originating from a Court of Appeals Decision. The factual backdrop involves a dispute over the appointment of the Sangguniang Bayan Secretary of Baras, Rizal. Dionisio Donato T. Garciano, then Mayor, sought to appoint Rolando Pilapil Lacayan, replacing Nolasco Vallestero. Vice Mayor Wilfredo Robles opposed, claiming the position was not vacant and that the appointment authority belonged to the Vice Mayor. Garciano removed Vallestero from the payroll, leading Vallestero to sue before the Sandiganbayan and, with others, file a complaint for mandamus and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction against Garciano and other municipal officials (Garciano, et al.) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal. On June 24, 2003, the RTC ordered Garciano, et al. to pay Vallestero’s salaries. For non-compliance, they were found liable for indirect contempt.
On October 9, 2003, Garciano, et al., through counsel Atty. Ferrer, filed a Petition for Certiorari (First Petition) before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79752 and raffled to the Eleventh Division. On October 16, 2003, they filed another Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order (Second Petition), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79904 and raffled to the Third Division. On the same day, they filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw the First Petition before the Eleventh Division, which was granted on October 24, 2003. The Third Division had issued a temporary restraining order on October 17, 2003.
In the verification of the Second Petition, Garciano, et al. stated there was no other pending petition involving the assailed RTC decision. In their Reply, they admitted filing the similar First Petition but claimed the withdrawal was in good faith to correct a technical defect (the First Petition was verified by only Garciano). They argued there was no forum shopping as both divisions are part of one court and no adverse opinion had been issued when they withdrew.
The Court of Appeals Third Division, in its August 19, 2008 Decision, dismissed the Second Petition with prejudice for deliberate forum shopping. It found that filing two successive petitions and concealing the first when filing the second constituted forum shopping. The withdrawal was intended to camouflage the irregularity. The court held it is the duty of the party and counsel to inform the court of any pending similar case. It found petitioners and Atty. Ferrer guilty of direct contempt, imposing a P2,000.00 fine, and referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for disciplinary action against Atty. Ferrer.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, adopting the Court of Appeals findings, found Atty. Ferrer violated the rule against forum shopping and recommended a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a one-month suspension. Atty. Ferrer, in his Comment, maintained he acted in good faith, that the simultaneous filing and withdrawal substantially complied with the rules, that time was of the essence for his clients, and that no forum shopping occurred as both petitions were filed within the same court (the Court of Appeals).

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer is administratively liable for violation of the rule against forum shopping and for direct contempt of court.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the IBP, with a modification to the penalty.
The Court held that Atty. Ferrer committed a clear violation of the rule against forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when a party seeks a favorable opinion in another court or tribunal after receiving an adverse opinion in one, or when he institutes two or more actions grounded on the same cause, hoping that one would grant favorable relief. The elements are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered is res judicata.
Here, the First and Second Petitions involved the same parties, sought the same relief (to nullify the RTC orders), and were based on the same facts. The filing of the Second Petition while the First was still pending, and the false certification of non-forum shopping in the Second Petition, constituted forum shopping. The Court rejected Atty. Ferrer’s defenses:
1. Good Faith and Technical Defect: The alleged defect (single verification) did not justify filing a second, nearly identical petition. The proper remedy was to seek amendment from the Eleventh Division, not to file anew before another division.
2. Simultaneous Filing and Withdrawal: Filing the withdrawal motion on the same day as the Second Petition did not cure the violation. Forum shopping was committed at the moment the Second Petition was filed without disclosing the pending First Petition.
3. Single Court Argument: The different divisions of the Court of Appeals, while part of one court, are considered separate and independent tribunals for purposes of forum shopping. Filing identical petitions in two divisions is forum shopping.
4. Lack of Adverse Ruling: Forum shopping can occur even before any adverse ruling is issued. The act of filing multiple petitions to increase the chances of obtaining favorable relief is itself prohibited.
The Court emphasized that as a lawyer, Atty. Ferrer has a duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. His actions displayed a lack of candor and respect for the court, warranting disciplinary action. The Court found the one-month suspension recommended by the IBP Board of Governors to be appropriate under the circumstances.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer is found GUILTY of violation of the rule against forum shopping. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month, effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.