Adao v. Docena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edesio Adao was proclaimed the duly elected captain of Barangay Mabuhay, Taft, Eastern Samar, following the May 12, 1997 barangay elections. The losing candidate, Nerio Naputo, subsequently filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Adao filed a motion to dismiss this protest, asserting the MTC lacked jurisdiction over his person. Procedural History: Concurrently with the election protest, Naputo's counsels, respondents Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr., filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to prevent Adao from participating in the June 14, 1997 election for president of the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC). The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which prevented Adao's participation. After the ABC election, the respondents moved to dismiss the injunction petition as moot. The administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Adao on January 8, 1999, alleging political harassment and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, which recommended admonishment and reprimand for filing a false certification on non-forum shopping. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Petition: This Court reviews the administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Edesio Adao against Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr. Adao alleged that the respondents engaged in political harassment and violated Rules 1.02, 1.03, and 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing unfounded cases and a false certification on non-forum shopping. The core issue before the Court is whether the filing of an election protest with the MTC and a petition for injunction with the RTC constituted forum shopping. The Court must determine if the respondents' actions violated the rules against forum shopping and the submission of false certifications.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of an election protest with the MTC and a petition for injunction with the RTC by the respondents constitutes forum shopping. Whether the respondents violated the rule on forum shopping by submitting a false certification on non-forum shopping.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for disbarment against Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. The elements of litis pendentia or res judicata must be present. In this case, while there was an identity of parties, there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. The election protest filed with the MTC aimed to determine who between the parties won the barangay captain election, with the prayer that Naputo be declared the rightful winner. Conversely, the petition for injunction filed with the RTC sought to prevent complainant from participating in the ABC president election. The causes of action were different: one was a protest of an election result, and the other was a petition to enjoin participation in a subsequent election. The reliefs prayed for were also distinct. Therefore, forum shopping did not exist. On the issue of false certification on non-forum shopping: The Court found that since the respondents did not engage in forum shopping, their submission of a certification on non-forum shopping, even if it stated that no other action was pending, did not constitute a false certification. The Court reiterated that under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, submission of a false certification on non-forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, without prejudice to administrative and criminal actions. However, in this instance, the complainant failed to prove the allegation that respondents submitted a false certification because, as determined by the Court, no forum shopping occurred. Consequently, the administrative complaint for disbarment was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court and a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court, involving the same parties but asserting different rights and praying for different reliefs, does not constitute forum shopping. The causes of action and reliefs prayed for in an election protest (determining the rightful winner) and a petition for injunction (preventing participation in a subsequent election) are distinct.