Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ernesto B. Flores for forum shopping, grave misconduct, undue delay of justice, and violation of his oath and applicable laws. This stemmed from Atty. Flores' actions as counsel for the losing litigant-members of the BENECO Board of Directors in NLRC Case No. RAB-1-0313-84. Following a Supreme Court decision and a writ of execution to enforce reimbursement of amounts paid to Peter Cosalan, Atty. Flores filed a Motion for Clarification with the Supreme Court, which was noted without action. Subsequently, he filed a suit with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Baguio City, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the writ of execution. This case was dismissed by the RTC. Thereafter, Atty. Flores proceeded to levy on the properties of BENECO Board Members Abundio Awal and Nicasio Aliping. He then filed separate complaints with the RTC, Branch 9, La Trinidad, Benguet, for Judicial Declaration of Family Home Constituted, Ope Lege, and thus Exempt from Levy and Execution, also seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was filed with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP found respondent guilty of violating Canons 10 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a six-month suspension. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and adopted the IBP's findings but increased the penalty. The Petition: The complainant, BENECO, alleged that Atty. Flores engaged in forum shopping by filing multiple suits to frustrate the execution of a final judgment. It was also alleged that Atty. Flores made a deliberate misrepresentation in his comment to the administrative complaint, claiming that the RTC dismissal of the injunction suit was not appealed, when in fact it was.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Ernesto B. Flores engaged in forum shopping. Whether respondent Atty. Ernesto B. Flores committed falsehood in his comment before the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Ernesto B. Flores guilty of forum shopping and making a falsehood. He was suspended from the practice of law for a total period of two (2) years, one year for forum shopping and another year for the falsehood committed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court affirmed that Atty. Flores engaged in forum shopping. Although his initial failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping was not a violation of Circular No. 28-91 or Administrative Circular No. 04-94 because these applied to petitions filed with the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and later to all initiatory pleadings, respectively, the prohibition against forum shopping predates these circulars. The Court reiterated that forum shopping exists when a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum due to an adverse opinion in one, or institutes multiple actions grounded on the same cause, gambling for a favorable disposition. The vexation caused to courts and litigants by seeking rulings on the same or related causes or reliefs in different courts is the most important factor. In this case, Atty. Flores filed an injunction suit with the RTC to enjoin the execution of a labor arbiter's decision, which was dismissed. He then filed two more identical suits with another RTC branch, ostensibly for the judicial declaration of a family home, but with the real objective of restraining or delaying the enforcement of the same writ of execution. This demonstrated a deliberate attempt to obtain the same relief in different courts, thereby trifling with the judicial process and shopping for a "friendly" forum. On the issue of falsehood: The Court found Atty. Flores liable for making a falsehood in his comment to the administrative complaint. He claimed that the dismissal of the injunction suit (Civil Case No. 2738-R) was not appealed, and that the case was deemed terminated. However, the records clearly showed that an appeal was indeed perfected, and the entire record of the case was transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals even issued a resolution dismissing the appeal. Atty. Flores' withdrawal of the appeal did not negate the fact that an appeal was filed and perfected. His statement that no appeal was perfected was false, and this falsehood was committed in an attempt to cover up his forum shopping. Lawyers owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the courts and must not do any falsehood or mislead the courts by any artifice, as mandated by Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who trifles with judicial processes, engages in forum shopping and blatantly lies in his pleadings must be sanctioned. The Court increased the penalty from the IBP's recommendation of six months to a total of two years suspension from the practice of law.