G.R. No. A.C. No. 3923. March 30, 1993.
Concordia B. Garcia, complainant, vs. Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Concordia B. Garcia and others leased a parcel of land to Sotero Baluyot Lee for 25 years beginning May 1, 1964. After the lease expired, Lee refused to vacate, claiming an option to extend and a right of pre-emption. Garcia alleges that Lee’s counsel, respondent Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco, initiated multiple legal proceedings to thwart her right to regain the property, all of which were decided against Lee. These proceedings involved the same issues and parties, constituting forum-shopping. The specific actions filed by Francisco on behalf of Lee were: (1) a complaint for specific performance and reconveyance (Civil Case No. Q-89-2118) dismissed on August 10, 1989; (2) in response to Garcia’s unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 1455), Lee filed an answer alleging pendency of the first case, which was rejected; (3) a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the MTC judge (Civil Case No. Q-89-3833), dismissed on January 9, 1990; (4) a petition to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. Sp No. 20476) assailing the dismissal, denied on May 31, 1990; (5) after losing the unlawful detainer case, a petition for certiorari and annulment of that decision (Civil Case No. Q-90-5852), which the Court of Appeals later nullified; (6) after a writ of execution was issued in the detainer case, a petition to the Supreme Court, denied on January 27, 1992; and (7) a final petition for certiorari in the RTC to set aside the writs of execution, dismissed on August 4, 1992. Francisco, in his comment, claimed he was merely availing of remedies authorized by law.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by grossly abusing judicial processes through filing multiple, meritless actions that caused delay and harassment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco guilty of gross misconduct. The cause of his client was obviously without merit, and Francisco was aware of this. He willfully resorted to a series of legal gambits, continuously seeking relief that was consistently denied, thereby clogging court dockets, wasting judicial time, and causing inconvenience and expense to the complainant. By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts to argue a repeatedly rebuffed cause, he violated his oath not to delay any man for money or malice and his duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to maintain only actions that are just and defenses honestly debatable under the law. Considering his age and experience, he should have known better than to misuse judicial processes for harassment. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED for ONE YEAR from the practice of law and from all rights and privileges appurtenant to membership in the Philippine Bar.