Suan v. Gonzalez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rufa C. Suan charged respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, perjury, and forum shopping. Respondent, a stockholder of Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc., filed a case for Mandamus, Computation of Interests, Enforcement of Inspection, Dividend and Appraisal Rights, Damages and Attorney’s Fees against the bank and its Board of Directors, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the annual stockholders' meeting and election. Procedural History: The trial court issued a TRO conditioned upon respondent's posting of a bond. Respondent submitted JCL Bond No. 01626 with a certification from the Court Administrator's office regarding the bonding company's lack of pending obligations with the government concerning confiscated bonds in civil and criminal cases. Complainant alleged that respondent submitted a certification applicable only to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) instead of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and that the bond was defective due to failure to post the required collateral. Complainant also alleged perjury due to alleged inconsistencies in respondent's statements regarding stockholdings in a complaint filed with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the RTC complaint. Finally, complainant alleged forum shopping due to the alleged similarity of causes of action in the RTC and BSP cases. The Petition: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the complaint, finding that the complainant failed to prove dishonesty. The IBP Board of Governors approved the dismissal. Complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the IBP ignored her evidence and failed to state clear reasons for its resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by submitting a certification applicable only to the MTCC instead of the RTC. Whether the injunction bond was wrongfully released by the bonding company due to the alleged failure to put up the required collateral. Whether respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez committed perjury due to alleged inconsistencies in his statements regarding stockholdings in separate complaints. Whether respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez engaged in forum shopping by filing cases before the RTC and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommending the dismissal of the administrative complaint for disbarment/suspension against respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found no merit in the complainant's insistence that respondent deliberately attached the MTCC certification. The Court inclined to believe the IBP's finding that the certification was inadvertently attached. While litigants are expected to examine their documents, not every mistake is deemed dishonest or deceitful. Respondent had nothing to gain and risked dismissal by submitting the wrong certification. Furthermore, respondent promptly filed a motion to replace the certification upon discovering the inadvertence, which militates against the claim of deliberate deception. The Court reiterated that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and the case must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof, requiring clear preponderant evidence to justify administrative penalties. On the alleged wrongful release of the injunction bond: The Court found this argument without merit. The IBP correctly disregarded the February 28, 2004 letter of Evelyn R. Ramirez, the bonding company's Officer-in-Charge, because Ramirez later wrote another letter on March 19, 2004, informing the trial court of respondent's compliance with the required collateral. This subsequent letter indicated that the issue of collateral was resolved. On the alleged perjury: The Court held that the allegation of perjury was bereft of merit. Citing Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice, the Court stated that a mere assertion of a false, objective fact is not enough for perjury; it must be proven that the statement was false and that the defendant did not believe it to be true. The Court found no contradictory statements by the respondent. The figures regarding stockholdings in the BSP complaint (estimated at ₱5 million for minority and 80% for majority) were considered mere estimates and did not contradict the figures in the RTC complaint (₱6 million for minority and 70% for majority). For perjury to prosper, the complainant must prove the falsity of the statements and that the respondent did not believe them to be true, which was not met here. The IBP correctly noted the absence of malice and attributed any inexactitude to the bank's refusal to allow inspection of its books. On the alleged forum shopping: The Court agreed with the IBP that there was no forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action to obtain a favorable judgment. The Court outlined the requisites: identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and that any judgment in one action would amount to res judicata in the other. The intra-corporate case before the RTC sought to compel disclosure, inspection of records, and damages, with a prayer for a TRO, which only courts can issue. The complaint with the BSP invoked its supervisory powers over banking operations, seeking an investigation into alleged unsafe and unsound business practices and corrective measures. These proceedings were of different natures, praying for different reliefs, and a ruling by the BSP would not adversely affect the resolution of the intra-corporate case. Furthermore, forum shopping must be willful and deliberate. The respondent's Certification of Non-Forum-Shopping substantially complied by disclosing the BSP complaint, negating willfulness and deliberation.
Main Doctrine
The complainant failed to prove by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof that the respondent lawyer engaged in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, committed perjury, or committed forum shopping. Mere allegations and inconsistencies in estimated figures do not constitute perjury, and the filing of separate cases before different forums with distinct causes of action and reliefs does not amount to forum shopping, especially when the filing of the wrong certification was inadvertent and promptly corrected.