Bautista-Pangilinan v. Icasiano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Carolina Bautista-Pangilinan (Pangilinan) owned a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125621. She filed a Complaint for Ejectment with Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 10-39977, against Vivian Sanchez (Sanchez). The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City rendered a Decision on May 8, 2013, in favor of Pangilinan, ordering Sanchez to vacate the property. A Writ of Execution was subsequently issued on November 21, 2013. Sanchez was assisted by respondent Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano (Atty. Icasiano). Procedural History: On February 14, 2014, Sanchez, through Atty. Icasiano, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (First Petition), docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-14-01503-CV, assailing the MeTC's November 21, 2013 Omnibus Order. This petition was eventually dismissed by Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 93 in a Decision dated July 15, 2015. While the First Petition was pending, Pangilinan filed a Motion to Implement Writ of Execution, which the MeTC granted in an Order dated May 5, 2015. Pangilinan then discovered that Sanchez, through Atty. Icasiano, filed another Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Second Petition), docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-15-06347-CV, assailing the MeTC's May 5, 2015 Order. The Second Petition was dismissed by RTC Branch 105 in a Decision dated November 17, 2016, which explicitly found Sanchez guilty of forum shopping. The Petition: Pangilinan filed a Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Icasiano for forum shopping and illegal land grabbing, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Icasiano, in his Answer, claimed the MeTC Decision was void due to lack of legal authority of Pangilinan's representative and argued that his filing of the Second Petition was not barred by forum shopping as it assailed a different order. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal for lack of merit. However, the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) reversed this recommendation, finding Atty. Icasiano guilty of forum shopping and recommending a three-month suspension from the practice of law. The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court for final resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano committed forum shopping. Whether Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and the Revised Lawyer's Oath. What is the appropriate penalty for Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano's transgressions, considering his prior administrative offense and lack of remorse.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano GUILTY of violating Canon II, Section 23; Canon I, Section 1; Canon III, Sections 2 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), and the Revised Lawyer's Oath. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for a period of one year, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) that Atty. Icasiano committed forum shopping. Forum shopping is defined as the repetitive availment of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. The ultimate standard in determining forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, thereby creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. It was undisputed that Atty. Icasiano filed two separate but similar petitions for certiorari questioning two orders of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), both of which granted motions for execution filed by the complainant. Although he questioned two separate orders and his client disclosed the filing of the First Petition, he and his client still sought the same relief in the Second Petition: to maintain the status quo of his client's possession, to prohibit the implementation of the writs of execution, and to declare the MeTC judge as having acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 105, where the Second Petition was raffled, had already declared Sanchez guilty of forum shopping in its November 17, 2016 Decision, which was not appealed, thus its finding stands. On Issue 2: The Court found that Atty. Icasiano's conduct transgressed Canon II, Section 23 (Instituting multiple cases; forum shopping), Canon I, Section 1 (Independent, accessible, efficient, and effective legal service), Canon III, Section 2 (The responsible and accountable lawyer), and Canon III, Section 7 (Prohibition against frivolous suits and abuse of court processes) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). Canon II, Section 23 explicitly prohibits a lawyer from knowingly engaging in forum shopping, which is considered an offense against the administration of justice and a falsehood foisted upon the court. Canon III, Section 7 further prohibits lawyers from filing suits not authorized by law, unduly impeding the execution of warranted orders or judgments, or abusing court processes. His actions also violated the Revised Lawyer's Oath, which mandates working for justice, safeguarding rights, doing no falsehood, and not perverting the law to unjustly favor or prejudice anyone. The Court emphasized that willful and deliberate forum shopping is classified as a serious offense under the CPRA. On Issue 3: The Court found the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors' (BOG) recommended penalty of three months suspension insufficient. Willful and deliberate forum shopping is classified as a serious offense under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), punishable by disbarment, suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six months, and/or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. The Court noted that Atty. Icasiano had a prior administrative offense, having been reprimanded with a stern warning in Quilendrino v. Atty. Icasiano for violating Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Furthermore, Atty. Icasiano showed no remorse for his actions, remaining adamant that he did not commit forum shopping. Pursuant to Canon VI, Section 39 of the CPRA, which allows for the imposition of penalties not exceeding double the maximum prescribed when there are aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the Court deemed a one-year suspension from the practice of law appropriate for his transgressions, considering the two aggravating circumstances (prior offense and lack of remorse) and the absence of any mitigating circumstances.
Main Doctrine
The primary legal doctrine established and applied in this case is the strict prohibition against forum shopping by lawyers, as mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). Forum shopping is defined as the repetitive availment of multiple judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, based on substantially the same facts and issues, with the potential for conflicting decisions and the vexation of courts and litigants. The Court emphasizes that such conduct constitutes a serious offense, violating a lawyer's duties to uphold the law, maintain independence, act with fidelity, and avoid abuse of court processes. The case reinforces that a lawyer's prior administrative offenses and lack of remorse are aggravating circumstances that warrant a more severe penalty, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to ethical legal practice.