G.R. No. L-38377 October 15, 1975
Capt. Conrado M. Cabagui, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals Third Division, and The People of the Philippines, respondents, Eugenio M. Millado, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Eugenio M. Millado, counsel for petitioner Capt. Conrado M. Cabagui, filed multiple petitions before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn Cabagui’s final conviction for malversation of public funds. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction on June 8, 1973. Millado’s first petition for review was denied on January 15, 1974, for being filed nearly five months late. Undeterred, he filed a second petition in March 1974, which was dismissed by the Court on May 8, 1974, with a warning against filing multiple petitions for the same cause.
Millado filed a third petition in November 1974. The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated November 20, 1974, ordered this petition expunged from the records and required Millado to show cause within ten days why he should not be disciplined for trifling with the Court. Millado failed to submit any explanation by the January 3, 1975 deadline. Consequently, the Court suspended him from the practice of law on February 7, 1975. He later filed a belated compliance in April 1975, pleading excusable negligence and apologizing.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Eugenio M. Millado should be held liable for professional misconduct for filing multiple petitions for the same cause and for failing to comply with a Supreme Court resolution requiring him to show cause.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Millado is guilty of gross negligence and abuse of the judicial process. The Supreme Court found his actions constituted a clear abuse of the right to recourse. By filing successive petitions—a first petition denied for tardiness, a second dismissed with a warning, and a third petition—he engaged in forum-shopping, attempting to get a favorable action from one division after an adverse action from another. This conduct trifles with the Court and impedes the administration of justice, as explicitly warned against in the Court’s prior resolution.
Furthermore, his failure to comply with the show-cause resolution of November 20, 1974, within the granted period demonstrated gross negligence in his duties to the Court. His belated apology and plea for relief were deemed insufficient and untenable, as his memorandum continued to argue the merits of the already-final case. However, considering that Millado had been under suspension since February 1975, the Court deemed this period sufficient penalty. His suspension was lifted with a stern warning that any future infractions would be dealt with severely.