Bautista-Pangilinan vs. Atty. Icasiano

A lawyer who files multiple certiorari petitions before different courts, all seeking to prevent execution of the same judgment and raising substantially the same issues, commits forum shopping in violation of Canon II, Section 23 of the CPRA, and where aggravating circumstances are present with no mitigating circumstances, the penalty may be imposed at up to double the maximum prescribed for the offense.

Carolina Bautista-Pangilinan is the registered owner of a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125621. She was represented in litigation by her attorney-in-fact, Miriam B. Bustamante. Vivian Sanchez was the adverse party occupying the subject property and was assisted by respondent Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano as counsel. The dispute originated from an ejectment case between Pangilinan and Sanchez before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, and the administrative case for disbarment was filed by Pangilinan against Atty. Icasiano for alleged forum shopping and illegal land grabbing in connection with his handling of the ejectment proceedings.

Carolina Bautista-Pangilinan is the registered owner of a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125621. She filed a Complaint for Ejectment with Damages against Vivian Sanchez, docketed as Civil Case No. 10-39977 and raffled to Branch 35 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. Sanchez was assisted by respondent Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano. On May 8, 2013, the MeTC rendered a Decision in favor of Pangilinan, ordering Sanchez to vacate the subject property. A Writ of Execution was issued on November 21, 2013.

On February 14, 2014, Sanchez, through Atty. Icasiano, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-14-01503-CV (the First Petition), assailing the November 21, 2013 Omnibus Order. Atty. Icasiano thereafter filed a Motion for Inhibition against the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 84, which was granted, and the case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 93. In a Decision dated July 15, 2015, the RTC dismissed Sanchez's First Petition.

Meanwhile, on January 28, 2015, while Sanchez's First Petition before RTC Branch 93 was still pending, Pangilinan filed a Motion to Implement Writ of Execution before the MeTC. The MeTC issued a May 5, 2015 Order granting the motion. Pangilinan thereafter discovered that Sanchez, through Atty. Icasiano, had filed another Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-15-06347-CV (the Second Petition), raffled to RTC Branch 88 and then re-raffled to RTC Branch 105 due to voluntary inhibition. The Second Petition, filed on July 13, 2015, assailed the May 5, 2015 Order. It was dismissed in a November 17, 2016 Decision, with RTC Branch 105 declaring Sanchez guilty of forum shopping. The records do not show that this decision was appealed.

Pangilinan thereafter filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Icasiano for forum shopping and illegal land grabbing. In his Answer with Counter Charges, Atty. Icasiano claimed that the MeTC Decision was a void judgment because Bustamante, Pangilinan's representative, did not have legal authority to represent her, asserting that the Special Power of Attorney attached to the ejectment complaint was invalid. He further claimed that Bustamante lacked authority to file the disbarment complaint, and that no forum shopping occurred because the two petitions assailed different orders and would not amount to res judicata. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal, finding no proof of land grabbing, no SPA for the disbarment complaint, and no forum shopping because the MeTC Decision was allegedly void. The IBP Board of Governors reversed, finding Atty. Icasiano guilty of forum shopping and recommending a three-month suspension. The Supreme Court agreed with the finding of guilt but increased the penalty to one year.

• Forum Shopping: Complainant alleged that Atty. Icasiano committed forum shopping by filing two separate certiorari petitions before different RTC branches while the first was still pending, both seeking to prevent execution of the MeTC ejectment decision.
• Illegal Land Grabbing: Complainant alleged that Atty. Icasiano engaged in illegal land grabbing activities, though the text indicates this was characterized as a mere statement without proof or evidence.

• Void Judgment: Respondent argued that the MeTC Decision was void because Pangilinan's representative, Bustamante, did not have legal authority to represent her, as the Special Power of Attorney attached to the ejectment complaint was invalid; consequently, the complaint should have been dismissed outright and the subsequent execution proceedings were also void.
• Lack of Authority to File Complaint: Respondent claimed that Bustamante likewise lacked the right to bring the disbarment complaint for lack of a Special Power of Attorney from Pangilinan.
• No Forum Shopping: Respondent argued that although he filed the First Petition on February 14, 2014 and the Second Petition on July 13, 2015, the filing of the Second Petition was not barred by the doctrine of forum shopping because the two petitions assailed different orders—the November 21, 2013 Omnibus Order and the May 5, 2015 Order, respectively—and there was no identity between the two proceedings such that the First Petition would amount to res judicata in the Second Petition. He further averred that he even prayed in the Second Petition that it be raffled to RTC Branch 93, considering its relation to the First Petition.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Atty. Icasiano committed forum shopping by filing two successive certiorari petitions before different RTC branches, both seeking to prohibit execution of the same MeTC ejectment decision.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the recommended penalty of three months' suspension was appropriate, or whether a greater penalty was warranted given aggravating circumstances.

• Forum Shopping: Yes. Atty. Icasiano committed forum shopping by filing two certiorari petitions that sought substantially the same reliefs—maintaining his client's possession, prohibiting implementation of the writs of execution, and declaring the MeTC judge to have acted with grave abuse of discretion—in violation of Canon II, Section 23 of the CPRA.
• Proper Penalty: The penalty was increased to one year's suspension. Two aggravating circumstances—a prior disciplinary record and lack of remorse—with no mitigating circumstance, justified imposing a penalty up to double the maximum prescribed under Canon VI, Section 39 of the CPRA.

• 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 is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. Although Atty. Icasiano questioned two separate orders—the November 21, 2013 Omnibus Order and the May 5, 2015 Order—and his client disclosed the filing of the First Petition in the Second Petition's Verification and Certification, both petitions sought identical reliefs: (1) to maintain the status quo of his client's possession; (2) to prohibit implementation of the writs of execution issued by the MeTC; and (3) to declare that Judge Pascua-Lee acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motions for execution. RTC Branch 105 itself declared Sanchez guilty of forum shopping in its November 17, 2016 Decision, and that decision was not appealed, so the finding stands. Respondent's defense that the MeTC Decision was void for lack of a valid SPA did not excuse the forum shopping, as the Court did not accept the premise that the MeTC Decision was void.

• Proper Penalty: The CPRA classifies willful and deliberate forum shopping as a serious offense, punishable by disbarment, suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six months, and/or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. Two aggravating circumstances were present: first, respondent had a prior disciplinary record, having been found guilty in Quilendrino vs. Atty. Icasiano and meted the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning for violating Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the CPR; second, respondent showed no remorse, remaining adamant that he did not commit forum shopping. No mitigating circumstance was present. Pursuant to Canon VI, Section 39 of the CPRA, where one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Court may impose penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed. Accordingly, the Court found a one-year suspension appropriate, exceeding the IBP BOG's recommended three months but remaining within the authorized range.

• Forum Shopping in Legal Ethics — Forum shopping is 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 is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant 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, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. The Court applied this doctrine to find that filing two certiorari petitions assailing different orders but seeking the same reliefs—maintaining possession, prohibiting execution, and declaring grave abuse of discretion—constituted forum shopping, notwithstanding disclosure of the first petition in the second.

• Graduated Penalties Under the CPRA — The CPRA classifies willful and deliberate forum shopping as a serious offense punishable by disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, and/or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. Under Canon VI, Section 39, where one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Court may impose penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed. The Court applied this provision by considering two aggravating circumstances—a prior disciplinary record and absence of remorse—and no mitigating circumstance, justifying a one-year suspension.

• "Forum shopping is 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." — This is the canonical definition of forum shopping adopted by the Court, drawn from Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc. vs. Coca-Cola FEMSA Phils., and applied to establish the elements of the violation.

• "Although respondent questioned two separate orders and his client disclosed the filing of the First Petition in her Verification and Certification, he and his client still sought the same relief in the Second Petition: (1) to maintain the status quo of his client's possession of the disputed property; (2) to prohibit the implementation of the writs of execution issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court; and (3) to render judgment declaring Judge Pascua-Lee as having acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the motions for execution." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: that identity of reliefs sought, not merely identity of orders assailed, determines whether forum shopping exists.

• "Given the foregoing, We find the imposition of a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year appropriate for respondent's transgressions." — This is the dispositive ruling on penalty, reflecting the application of Canon VI, Section 39 with two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance.

• Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc. vs. Coca-Cola FEMSA Phils., 915 Phil. 655 (2021) — Cited as the source of the controlling definition of forum shopping and the ultimate standard for its determination, namely the vexation caused the courts and parties by seeking the same or substantially the same reliefs from different fora.

• Quilendrino vs. Atty. Icasiano, A.C. No. 9332, February 27, 2019 — Cited as a prior disciplinary record against the same respondent, establishing an aggravating circumstance. In that case, respondent was meted the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning for violating Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the CPR.

• Canon II, Section 23, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — Provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly engage or through gross negligence in forum shopping, which offends against the administration of justice and is a falsehood foisted upon the court. Also prohibits instituting or advising the client to institute multiple cases to gain leverage, harass a party, delay proceedings, or increase the cost of litigation. This was the primary provision violated by respondent.

• Canon I, Section 1, CPRA — Requires a lawyer to make legal services accessible in an efficient and effective manner, maintaining independence, acting with integrity, and ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of justice. Respondent's conduct was found to transgress this provision.

• Canon III, Sections 2 and 7, CPRA — Section 2 requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, promote respect for legal processes, and assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Section 7 prohibits frivolous suits and abuse of court processes, including filing suits without evidentiary support, unduly impeding execution of judgments, and abusing court processes. Both provisions were found violated.

• Canon VI, Sections 33(n), 37(a), and 39, CPRA — Section 33(n) classifies willful and deliberate forum shopping as a serious offense. Section 37(a) prescribes the penalty for serious offenses: disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, and/or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. Section 39 authorizes the Court to impose penalties up to double the maximum where aggravating circumstances are present and no mitigating circumstances exist. These provisions governed the penalty imposed.

• Revised Lawyer's Oath — Respondent's conduct was found to transgress the oath's recitals requiring a lawyer to conscientiously and courageously work for justice, do no falsehood, and faithfully discharge duties with integrity and utmost civility.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson) and Hernando, J., concurred. Zalameda, J. and Marquez, J. were on official business.