AC 6760; (January, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 6760; January 30, 2013
ANASTACIO N. TEODORO III, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ROMEO S. GONZALES, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Anastacio N. Teodoro III filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales for alleged forum shopping in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Gonzales acted as counsel for Araceli Teodoro-Marcial in two cases filed against Anastacio: (1) Special Proceeding No. 99-95587 for the settlement of the intestate estate of Manuela Teodoro, and (2) Civil Case No. 00-99207 for Annulment of Document, Reconveyance and Damages. The complaint alleged that Atty. Gonzales filed the civil case without indicating the pending special proceeding, constituting deliberate forum shopping. Atty. Gonzales admitted assisting in both cases but denied forum shopping, arguing the cases differed in parties, subject matter, and remedies, and that the complaint was meant to harass him. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Gonzales liable, recommending a one-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors reversed this, dismissing the case for lack of merit.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales committed forum shopping, thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Gonzales administratively liable for forum shopping. The Court applied the test for forum shopping, which exists when the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are present: (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of rights or causes of action, and (c) identity of relief sought. All three elements were satisfied. First, there was identity of parties, as the same heirs of Manuela Teodoro initiated both cases against the same defendant, Anastacio Teodoro III, representing identical interests. Second, there was identity of causes of action, as both cases hinged on the same substantial issue—whether Manuela held a Malate property in trust for the heirs—requiring the same evidence to prove the trust. Third, there was identity of relief sought, as a ruling in either case (e.g., declaring the property part of Manuela’s estate or annulling its sale) would resolve the other, making the reliefs substantially similar. By filing the civil case without disclosing the pending special proceeding, Atty. Gonzales violated his duty as a lawyer to assist in the administration of justice and avoid conduct that delays or obstructs it. The Court reversed the IBP Board of Governors, but modified the penalty to a CENSURE with a warning that any future violation would be dealt with more severely.