Adao vs. Docena

Filing an election protest and a petition for injunction involving the same parties does not constitute forum shopping where there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, as the causes of action are entirely different.

Edesio Adao was proclaimed the duly elected barangay captain of Barangay Mabuhay, Taft, Eastern Samar, in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections. Nerio Naputo, the losing candidate, was represented by respondents Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr. The dispute centered on the barangay election results and the subsequent election for president of the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) in Taft, Eastern Samar, in which Adao's participation was sought to be enjoined.

On May 13, 1997, Edesio Adao was proclaimed the duly elected barangay captain of Barangay Mabuhay, Taft, Eastern Samar, in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections. Nerio Naputo, the losing candidate, was represented by respondents Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr. On May 22, 1997, Naputo filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Taft, Eastern Samar, contesting Adao's proclamation. On June 13, 1997, Adao filed a motion to dismiss the election protest on the ground that the MTC had not acquired jurisdiction over his person.

On the same day, June 13, 1997, respondents, acting as counsels for Naputo, filed a petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Borongan, Samar, seeking to prevent Adao from participating in the June 14, 1997 election for president of the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) in Taft, Eastern Samar. The RTC issued a TRO on the same day, and as a result, Adao failed to participate in the ABC election. On June 23, 1997, Adao filed his answer to the petition for injunction. Because the ABC election was already over, respondent Atty. Docena filed a notice to dismiss the petition for injunction for being moot. Adao objected to the dismissal in open court, but the incident was not resolved.

Meanwhile, in the election protest before the MTC, respondent Atty. Docena moved for an extension of time to file a comment on Adao's motion to dismiss, which was granted by the MTC. On January 8, 1999, Adao filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment against respondents, alleging that their act of filing unfounded and baseless cases against him constituted political harassment and violated Rules 1.02, 1.03, and 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant further alleged that respondents' filing of a false certification on non-forum shopping attached to their petition for injunction constituted a violation of the rule on forum shopping. Respondents maintained that the injunction case and the election protest were two different cases and that there could be no violation of the false certification rule because there was no forum shopping. They likewise expressed remorse and offered their sincere apologies for their unintentional filing of the injunction case if it were to be considered forum shopping.

• Political Harassment and Violation of the CPR: Complainant alleged that respondents' act of filing unfounded and baseless cases against him constitutes political harassment and a violation of Rules 1.02, 1.03, and 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• False Certification on Non-Forum Shopping: Complainant alleged that respondents' filing of a false certification on non-forum shopping attached to their petition for injunction constitutes a violation of the rule on forum shopping.

• No Forum Shopping: Respondents argued that the injunction case and the election protest are two different cases, and that there can be no violation of the false certification rule because there is no forum shopping.
• Remorse and Apology: Respondents expressed remorse and offered their sincere apologies to the Court for their unintentional filing of the injunction case if the same were to be considered as forum shopping.

• Forum Shopping: Whether the filing by respondents of an election protest with the MTC and a petition for injunction with the RTC against complainant constitutes forum shopping.

• Forum Shopping: No. The filing of an election protest and a petition for injunction does not constitute forum shopping where, despite identity of parties, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, as the causes of action are entirely different.

• 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, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. A party violates the rule against forum shopping if the elements of litis pendentia are present or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. The three elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity of parties or at least of parties representing the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata or will constitute litis pendentia. Applying these elements, although there was identity of parties, there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. The election protest before the MTC raised the issue of who between the parties won the election, with respondents praying that Naputo be declared the rightful winner. The petition for injunction before the RTC, on the other hand, sought to prevent complainant from participating in the June 14, 1997 ABC election. The causes of action were different, and the reliefs prayed for were at variance with each other. Accordingly, no forum shopping existed, and the allegation that respondents submitted a false certification on non-forum shopping was not proven.

• Elements of Forum Shopping — Forum shopping exists when the following elements concur: (1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia. The Court applied this test and found that although the first element (identity of parties) was present, the second and third elements were absent because the election protest and the petition for injunction involved different causes of action and different reliefs.

• "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, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment." — This passage defines the core concept of forum shopping, establishing the foundational principle against which the Court tested the conduct of respondents.
• "As the causes of action and the reliefs prayed for in the election protest and petition for injunction are entirely different, there can be no forum shopping." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, directly stating the conclusion that the two filings did not constitute forum shopping because of the absence of identity of causes of action and reliefs.
• "Unfortunately, he failed to prove his allegation that respondents submitted to the RTC a false certification on non-forum shopping for actually they did not engage in forum shopping." — This passage clarifies that the charge of filing a false certification on non-forum shopping necessarily fails where no forum shopping was committed, linking the certification requirement to the substantive finding.

• Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 154187, April 14, 2004 — Cited for the definition of forum shopping and the principle that a party violates the rule against forum shopping if the elements of litis pendentia are present or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. This case itself cited T'Boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. (TADI) vs. Solilapsi, 394 SCRA 269 (2002).
• PAL Employees and Loan Association, Inc. vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 161110, March 30, 2006 — Cited for the enumeration of the three elements of forum shopping. This case itself cited Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., 397 SCRA 431 (2003).

• Rule 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Complainant alleged violation of this rule but the Court found no forum shopping occurred.
• Rule 1.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. Complainant alleged violation but the Court found no forum shopping occurred.
• Rule 12.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. Complainant alleged violation but the Court found no forum shopping occurred.
• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended) — Provides that submission of a false certification on non-forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, without prejudice to corresponding administrative and criminal actions. The Court noted this provision but found no false certification was submitted because no forum shopping was committed.
• Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 — Requires a certification on non-forum shopping to be submitted with petitions filed in court. The IBP found respondents violated this circular, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding no forum shopping existed.

Puno, C.J. (Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Corona, Azcuna, JJ.