G.R. No. 159691 , February 17, 2014
HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO, REPRESENTED BY: LOLIBETH SOTTO NOBLE, DANILO C. SOTTO, CRISTINA C. SOTTO, EMMANUEL C. SOTTO and FILEMON C. SOTTO; and SALVACION BARCELONA, AS HEIR OF DECEASED MIGUEL BARCELONA, Petitioners, vs. MATILDE S. PALICTE, Respondent.

FACTS

This case originated from a series of litigations involving the heirs of the late Don Filemon Y. Sotto over four real properties from his estate. The Supreme Court, in its June 13, 2013 decision, noted that this was the fifth suit reaching the Court on the same matter. The Court observed a clear demonstration of unmitigated forum shopping by the petitioners and their counsel, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay. Atty. Mahinay was directed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating the rule against forum shopping. In his compliance, Atty. Mahinay offered several explanations: (1) the first three cases did not resolve the issues in Civil Case No. CEB-24393; (2) the cause of action arose only when respondent Palicte violated her “hypothetically admitted” agreement with Marcelo Sotto; (3) he did not prepare or sign the complaint but assumed responsibility for its filing; (4) he filed a motion for referral or consolidation of the civil case with the intestate proceedings; and (5) he acted in good faith in assisting the estate administrator.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay committed forum shopping.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay committed forum shopping. The Court found his explanations unsatisfactory. Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, founded on the same transactions and facts, raising substantially the same issues. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are present. Here, the identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for were present, and any judgment in the other actions would constitute res judicata. Atty. Mahinay’s reliance on a hypothetical admission from a motion to dismiss was unjustified, as such admission only pertains to testing the sufficiency of the complaint and does not admit facts judicially known to be untrue or legally impossible. His claim of good faith was contradicted by his active participation in filing multiple actions involving the same properties and issues, despite prior adverse rulings. The Court emphasized that lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence, which includes not filing frivolous or repetitive suits. Under Revised Circular No. 28-91, willful and deliberate forum shopping constitutes direct contempt of court. Atty. Mahinay was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of ₱2,000.00.