Go v. Teruel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a dispute between Atty. Joseph Vincent T. Go and Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel, who were opposing counsel in Civil Case Nos. 1172 and 1176 for Forcible Entry with Damages. Atty. Go filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Teruel for alleged falsification and perjury, and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Atty. Go claimed Atty. Teruel maliciously accused him of misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty regarding the timely filing of a Memorandum of Appeal. Subsequently, Atty. Teruel filed a counter-complaint against Atty. Go, alleging violations of the Rules of Court and the CPR. Further complicating matters, Atty. Teruel's client, Fr. Antonio P. Reyes, initiated a separate complaint for grave professional misconduct against Atty. Go, which Atty. Teruel also prepared. Procedural History: Atty. Go filed an administrative complaint (IBP-CBD Case No. 11-2989) against Atty. Teruel. In response, Atty. Teruel filed a Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint. Concurrently, Fr. Reyes, with Atty. Teruel's assistance, filed a separate complaint (IBP-CBD Case No. 11-3105) against Atty. Go. Atty. Go then filed the present complaint (IBP-CBD No. 11-3225) against Atty. Teruel, alleging forum shopping due to the filing of substantially similar complaints. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially dismissed Atty. Go's complaint, finding no willful forum shopping but warning Atty. Teruel to be more prudent. Atty. Go moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Aggrieved, Atty. Go elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) reviewed the case and recommended Atty. Teruel's suspension for six months, finding that he had committed forum shopping. The Petition: Atty. Go filed a petition before the Supreme Court assailing the IBP Board of Governors' resolutions that dismissed his administrative complaint against Atty. Teruel. The core of Atty. Go's petition was that Atty. Teruel violated Rules 12.02 and 12.04, and Canon 8 of the CPR by filing multiple administrative actions arising from the same cause, constituting forum shopping. Atty. Go argued that Atty. Teruel's counter-complaint and Fr. Reyes' complaint were substantially identical and both were prepared by Atty. Teruel, thereby demonstrating a deliberate attempt to harass him and increase the chances of obtaining a favorable ruling. The petition sought the imposition of appropriate sanctions against Atty. Teruel for these violations.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Teruel committed forum shopping. Whether Atty. Teruel violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Teruel guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. Dispositive Portion: ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel is hereby found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. Respondent is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to this Court that his suspension has started and to copy furnish all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel. Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel as an attorney-at-law; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their guidance and information.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Atty. Teruel committed forum shopping: The Court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) that Atty. Teruel committed willful and deliberate forum shopping. The essence of 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. This includes situations where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in another. In this case, Atty. Teruel prepared Fr. Reyes' Complaint and subsequently filed his own Counter-Complaint a day later. A perusal of both pleadings revealed that significant portions were almost completely the same, save for the complainant's personal details. Atty. Teruel's admission that he prepared Fr. Reyes' Complaint underscored his knowledge of the allegations and issues. The Court emphasized that it is not the actual docketing of the administrative complaints but the mere act of filing multiple complaints with the same cause/s of action, parties, and reliefs that constitutes a violation. The provision on certification against forum shopping requires reporting of any pending similar action, and Atty. Teruel's certification that he had not filed any other action involving the same issues was found to be partly false and misleading. The Court rejected Atty. Teruel's defense that his disclosure of Fr. Reyes' complaint negated his liability, stating that as a lawyer, he has a duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice, not to clog the dockets through forum shopping. The Court concluded that Atty. Teruel willfully committed forum shopping by instituting two actions grounded on the same cause, even if he was not strictly a complainant in Fr. Reyes' case, because he prepared and filed both with full knowledge of their identical nature and potential impact on each other. There was no specific ratio provided in the original text regarding the violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Therefore, no corresponding ratio can be provided for the second issue.
Main Doctrine
Filing multiple administrative actions grounded on the same cause of action, even if one is a counter-complaint and the other is a complaint prepared by the same counsel, constitutes willful and deliberate forum shopping, violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.