Garciano v. Ferrer
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a dispute concerning the appointment of a Sangguniang Bayan Secretary in Baras, Rizal. Mayor Dionisio Donato T. Garciano sought to appoint Rolando Pilapil Lacayan, replacing Nolasco Vallestero. Vice Mayor Wilfredo Robles opposed this, asserting the position was not vacant and that the Vice Mayor, not the Mayor, held appointment authority. Mayor Garciano proceeded with the appointment and removed Vallestero from the payroll. Consequently, Vallestero filed a case before the Sandiganbayan, and Vallestero, Robles, and other Sangguniang Bayan members filed a separate complaint for mandamus and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction against Garciano and other municipal officials before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking payment of their salaries. The RTC ordered Garciano, et al. to release funds and pay Vallestero's salaries and benefits. When Garciano, et al. failed to comply, they were found liable for indirect contempt. Procedural History: Garciano, et al., through their counsel Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer, appealed the RTC's contempt ruling by filing a Petition for Certiorari (First Petition) on October 9, 2003, with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79752. On October 16, 2003, they filed a second Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for injunction (Second Petition) with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79904. On the same day, they filed a motion to withdraw the First Petition, citing the need to correct a technical defect (sole verification by Garciano) and to avail of other remedies. The CA's Eleventh Division granted the withdrawal of the First Petition on October 24, 2003. However, the CA's Third Division, in a Decision dated August 19, 2008, dismissed the Second Petition with prejudice, finding Garciano, et al. and Atty. Ferrer guilty of direct contempt for forum shopping. The CA ordered that a copy of its decision be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for appropriate disciplinary action against Atty. Ferrer. The IBP forwarded the decision to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which treated it as an administrative complaint against Atty. Ferrer. The IBP's Commissioner recommended suspension, but the IBP Board of Governors recommended reprimand with a warning. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court following the IBP's transmission of its Resolution recommending disciplinary action against Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer. The core issue is whether Atty. Ferrer should be held administratively liable for violating the rule against forum shopping. Atty. Ferrer argues he acted in good faith and substantially complied with the rules by filing the second petition and withdrawing the first simultaneously, asserting it was expedient due to a verification defect and the urgency of his clients' situation. He also contends that filing before different divisions of the same court does not constitute forum shopping. The Supreme Court, however, affirms the CA's findings, holding that Atty. Ferrer committed willful and deliberate forum shopping by filing two successive petitions involving the same parties and issues without properly informing the court of the prior filing. The Court finds his defenses of good faith and substantial compliance insufficient to excuse the violation and modifies the IBP's recommended penalty, suspending Atty. Ferrer from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer should be held administratively liable for violating the rule against forum shopping. Whether the simultaneous filing of a second petition for certiorari and the withdrawal of a first petition for certiorari involving the same parties and issues, due to a technical defect in the first, constitutes forum shopping. Whether Atty. Ferrer's actions constituted willful and deliberate forum shopping warranting disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the IBP Commissioner. Respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer was found guilty of violating the rule against forum shopping and was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer should be held administratively liable for violating the rule against forum shopping: The Court affirmed the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the IBP Commissioner, holding that respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer is guilty of violating the rule against forum shopping. The Court reiterated the definition of forum shopping as the repetitive availing of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, founded on the same transactions and essential facts, raising substantially the same issues, either pending or already resolved adversely. The Court emphasized that the rule against forum shopping aims to prevent the rendition of conflicting decisions by different tribunals and to avoid the vexation caused by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. The respondent's actions, in filing two petitions for certiorari concerning the same matter, clearly fell within the prohibited act of forum shopping. On the issue of whether the simultaneous filing of a second petition for certiorari and the withdrawal of a first petition for certiorari involving the same parties and issues, due to a technical defect in the first, constitutes forum shopping: The Court held that the simultaneous filing of the Second Petition and the withdrawal of the First Petition, despite being done on the same day, constituted forum shopping. The Court found that the withdrawal was intended to camouflage the deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping. The Court pointed out that the respondent could have easily filed a manifestation regarding the technical defect of the First Petition instead of filing a second petition. The Court stressed that the rule against forum shopping is violated when a party conceals the existence of a pending petition, even if it is filed before a different division of the same appellate court. The Court also noted that courts do not take judicial notice of cases pending before them or other courts; it is the duty of the party and counsel to inform the court of any such pendency. On the issue of whether Atty. Ferrer's actions constituted willful and deliberate forum shopping warranting disciplinary action: The Court found that Atty. Ferrer's actions constituted willful and deliberate forum shopping. His defense of substantial compliance and good faith could not exonerate him, as members of the bar are expected to fundamentally understand the rule against forum shopping. The Court stated that the respondent's inability to realize that his actions would amount to forum shopping could not be tolerated. The Court cited Alonso v. Relamida, Jr., emphasizing that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of the client but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions is an abuse of court processes and improper conduct that impedes, obstructs, and degrades the administration of justice, subjecting the lawyer to disciplinary action. The Court deemed it necessary to modify the penalty recommended by the IBP and imposed a six-month suspension from legal practice.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who files multiple petitions involving the same issues and causes of action, even if one is withdrawn simultaneously with the filing of another, commits forum shopping, which warrants administrative sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law.