Garcia v. Francisco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Concordia B. Garcia and other lessors leased a parcel of land to Sotero Baluyot Lee for 25 years. Upon expiration, Lee refused to vacate, claiming an option to extend the lease and a right of pre-emption. Procedural History: Garcia filed a disbarment complaint against Lee's counsel, respondent Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco, alleging that Francisco commenced various suits before different courts to thwart Garcia's right to regain her property, all of which were decided against Lee. These proceedings stemmed from the lease contract and involved the same issues and parties, constituting forum-shopping. The Petition: The complainant alleged that respondent Francisco engaged in a pattern of filing multiple suits to delay the recovery of the property, including a specific performance case dismissed by the RTC, an unlawful detainer case where Lee's defense of pendency of another case was rejected, a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the MTC judge which was dismissed, a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals assailing the dismissal of the prior certiorari petition, another petition for certiorari and annulment of the unlawful detainer decision, and subsequent petitions for certiorari with injunctions and restraining orders before the RTC and the Supreme Court, all of which were denied or dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco grossly abused his right of recourse to the courts and violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco guilty of gross abuse of his right of recourse to the courts and violation of his oath. He was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross abuse of right of recourse and violation of oath: The Court found that the cause of respondent's client was obviously without merit, a fact that respondent was aware of when he resorted to various legal gambits. These actions continuously sought relief that was consistently denied, as respondent should have expected. By grossly abusing his right to file actions and continuously seeking relief that was repeatedly rebuffed, respondent disdained his obligation as a lawyer to maintain only just actions and honest defenses. His actions added to the clogged dockets of the courts, wasted their valuable time, and caused inconvenience and expense to the complainant. The Court emphasized that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. By violating his oath not to delay any man for money or malice, respondent besmirched the name of the legal profession and proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him as an officer of the Court. Considering his age and experience, he should have known better than to use his legal practice as an instrument for harassment and misuse of judicial processes. For this serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he deserved to be sanctioned not only as punishment but also as a warning to other lawyers.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who grossly abuses his right of recourse to the courts by arguing a cause that is obviously without merit, thereby delaying the administration of justice and causing undue expense and inconvenience to the opposing party, violates his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law.