Manipud v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Godofredo C. Manipud was the mortgagee of a property owned by Jovita de Macasieb. Upon failure to pay, he filed an application for extra-judicial foreclosure. While the public auction was scheduled, respondent Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, as counsel for the mortgagor, filed a complaint for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage and Notice of Extrajudicial Sale with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. A TRO was issued, but the prayer for preliminary injunction was later denied. Subsequently, another Notice of Extrajudicial Sale was issued. Respondent then filed another case for annulment of real estate mortgage, which complainant alleged contained the same allegations, parties, subject matter, facts, issues, and relief as the first complaint, constituting forum shopping. Procedural History: Complainant filed a disbarment complaint against respondent for forum shopping and violation of his attorney's oath and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent not administratively liable for lack of showing that the filing of the second complaint was willful and deliberate. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Complainant filed a motion for reinvestigation, arguing that other issues, such as the alleged resurrection of a dead person, were not addressed. The Supreme Court noted that these additional allegations were not raised as issues before the IBP. The Petition: Complainant sought the disbarment of respondent for alleged forum shopping and improper conduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista committed forum shopping. Whether respondent violated his attorney's oath and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically concerning the acts related to the filing of the complaints. Whether respondent engaged in improper conduct by allegedly resurrecting a dead person and allowing an impostor, and whether this issue was properly raised before the IBP.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the complaint against Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista for lack of merit. The Court found no reason to disturb the IBP's findings that the respondent did not commit forum shopping and that the issue of allegedly resurrecting a dead person was not properly raised before the IBP.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court reiterated that forum shopping must be willful and deliberate to warrant disciplinary action. In this case, respondent disclosed the pendency of the first complaint in the second complaint and attached a copy thereof. Furthermore, respondent promptly filed a motion to withdraw the second complaint. The Court found that respondent's explanation, that the second complaint was filed out of pity for his client and as a reaction to a second application for extrajudicial foreclosure, coupled with the disclosure and prompt withdrawal, indicated good faith rather than willful intent to engage in forum shopping. The Court also noted that both cases were raffled to the same branch, and the first case was dismissed, thus preventing the possibility of conflicting decisions and undue vexation to the courts and parties. On the alleged violation of attorney's oath and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that the acts complained of, primarily the filing of the two complaints, did not constitute forum shopping. Therefore, the alleged violations stemming from forum shopping were not substantiated. The Court also emphasized that the primary issue before the IBP was forum shopping, and other allegations, such as the resurrection of a dead person, were not raised as issues during the mandatory conference or in the proceedings before the IBP. On the alleged improper conduct of resurrecting a dead person: The Court held that this issue was not properly raised before the IBP. The complainant only learned of the alleged death of Jovita de Macasieb after the mandatory conference where issues were defined. Despite this knowledge, the complainant did not raise this matter as an issue during the mandatory conference or in his position paper. Therefore, the Court could not pass upon this allegation at this late stage of the proceedings, as it was never formally presented and resolved by the IBP.
Main Doctrine
Forum shopping must be willful and deliberate to merit disciplinary action. The mere filing of a second complaint, especially when the pendency of the first is disclosed and the second complaint is promptly withdrawn, does not automatically constitute forum shopping if there is no intent to obtain a favorable decision from different fora or to create the possibility of conflicting rulings.