Garciano vs. Ferrer

Filing successive petitions for certiorari before different divisions of the Court of Appeals involving the same parties, cause of action, and relief constitutes forum shopping, regardless of simultaneous filing and withdrawal of the first petition, and subjects the offending lawyer to administrative suspension.

Dionisio Donato T. Garciano, then Mayor of Baras, Rizal, appointed Rolando Pilapil Lacayan as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary, replacing Nolasco Vallestero. Vice Mayor Wilfredo Robles opposed the appointment, asserting that the position was not vacant and that the vice mayor, not the mayor, held appointing authority pursuant to the Local Government Code and relevant administrative opinions. Garciano removed Vallestero from the municipal payroll, prompting Vallestero to file a criminal complaint before the Sandiganbayan and, together with Robles and other Sangguniang Bayan members, a civil action for mandamus and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, seeking payment of salaries.

• The Underlying Appointment Dispute: Dionisio Donato T. Garciano, as Mayor of Baras, Rizal, appointed Rolando Pilapil Lacayan as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary, replacing Nolasco Vallestero. Vice Mayor Wilfredo Robles contested the appointment, claiming the position was not vacant and that the vice mayor held the appointing authority pursuant to Section 444 of the Local Government Code, DILG Opinion No. 08-95, and Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 92-1111. Garciano proceeded to remove Vallestero's name from the municipal payroll.

• The Trial Court Proceedings: Vallestero filed a criminal complaint against Garciano before the Sandiganbayan (SB Case No. 27195). Separately, Vallestero, Robles, and other Sangguniang Bayan members instituted a civil action for mandamus and damages with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal (Branch 80, Acting Presiding Judge Paterno G. Tiamson), seeking payment of their salaries. On June 24, 2003, the RTC ordered Garciano and other municipal officials (Municipal Treasurer Corazon Endozo, Budget Officer Almario Matawaran, and Accountant Joan Ferrera) to release funds and pay Vallestero's salaries and benefits. Garciano, et al. failed to comply with the writ of execution, leading the RTC to find them liable for indirect contempt and order their incarceration for up to six months until satisfaction of the judgment, plus a P30,000.00 fine.

• The Successive Certiorari Petitions: On October 9, 2003, Garciano, et al., represented by Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals Eleventh Division (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79752) assailing the contempt order. The petition was verified solely by Mayor Garciano; the other petitioners were allegedly unavailable at the time of filing. On October 16, 2003, while the First Petition remained pending, Atty. Ferrer filed a second Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals Third Division (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79904) involving the same parties, assailing the same RTC orders, and seeking identical reliefs including a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. This Second Petition was verified by all four petitioners (Garciano, Endozo, Matawaran, and Ferrera). On the same day, Atty. Ferrer filed before the Eleventh Division an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw the First Petition, ostensibly to avail of other remedies and because no comment had yet been filed.

• The Court of Appeals Ruling on Forum Shopping: In its Decision dated August 19, 2008, the Third Division dismissed the Second Petition with prejudice for deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping. The Court found that Atty. Ferrer and his clients filed two successive petitions based on the same cause of action and prayer. The withdrawal of the First Petition was deemed an attempt to "camouflage the glaring and blatant irregularity," as the proper remedy was to seek amendment or supplementation of the First Petition rather than file a new one. The Court held that forum shopping was committed upon the filing of the Second Petition while the First Petition was concealed and pending. The Court of Appeals further noted that different divisions of the Court of Appeals are considered separate fora for purposes of forum shopping, and that courts cannot take judicial notice of pending cases in other divisions. Garciano, et al. and Atty. Ferrer were found guilty of direct contempt and fined P2,000.00, with the matter referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for disciplinary action against Atty. Ferrer.

• Forum Shopping Violation: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, through Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag, adopted the Court of Appeals' findings in toto, concluding that Atty. Ferrer clearly violated the rule against forum shopping by filing multiple petitions based on the same cause of action and prayer. The Commissioner emphasized that the Court of Appeals Decision was "loud and clear" in its factual findings regarding the deliberate nature of the violation.

• Recommended Penalty: The Commissioner recommended that Atty. Ferrer be suspended for three months from the practice of law with a stern warning against repetition. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently modified this to a penalty of reprimand with a warning, finding the three-month suspension too severe.

• Good Faith and Technical Defect: Atty. Ferrer maintained that he acted in good faith and in the best interest of his clients, whose liberty was at stake. He argued that the First Petition suffered from a technical defect—only Mayor Garciano verified it, while the other petitioners were unavailable—potentially hampering the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order. He claimed it was "more realistic and expedient" to file a new petition verified by all rather than amend the first, which would have required a hearing.

• Simultaneous Filing and Withdrawal: Atty. Ferrer asserted that the Motion to Withdraw the First Petition and the filing of the Second Petition were made simultaneously on October 16, 2003, not successively. Thus, there was no opportunity for conflicting decisions, and he had substantially complied with the rule against forum shopping.

• Single Forum Defense: Atty. Ferrer argued that no forum shopping occurred because both petitions were filed before the Court of Appeals, albeit different divisions. He contended that the divisions are not different tribunals but part of one court, and that forum shopping requires seeking a favorable opinion in a different forum after an adverse opinion in another, which was not the case here.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Atty. Ferrer committed forum shopping by filing successive petitions for certiorari before different divisions of the Court of Appeals involving the same parties and cause of action.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. Ferrer should be held administratively liable for violating the rule against forum shopping and what penalty should be imposed.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping was established. The filing of multiple cases based on the same cause of action and prayer, even before different divisions of the same court, constitutes forum shopping. The elements of forum shopping—identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for founded on the same facts, and identity such that any judgment rendered would amount to res judicata—were all present. The Court of Appeals' finding that different divisions are separate fora for forum shopping purposes was affirmed, citing Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 which requires disclosure of pending actions in "different Divisions" of the Court of Appeals.

• Simultaneous Filing Not a Defense: The simultaneous filing of the Second Petition and the Motion to Withdraw the First Petition did not cure the violation. Once a case is filed and docketed, it is pending and subject to the court's jurisdiction; withdrawal rests upon the court's discretion, not the litigants' behest. Atty. Ferrer was duty-bound to inform the Third Division of the pendency of the First Petition in the Eleventh Division. The concealment of the First Petition in the verification of the Second Petition constituted willful and deliberate forum shopping.

• Good Faith Not a Defense: The defense of good faith and substantial compliance cannot exonerate a lawyer from a clear violation of the rule against forum shopping. The elements of forum shopping are expected to be fundamentally understood by members of the bar. Incompetence in not knowing the rule or willful violation both justify administrative liability.

• Administrative Liability and Penalty: Atty. Ferrer was found administratively liable for violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (obeying laws and promoting respect for legal processes) and the Lawyers' Oath (not promoting groundless suits). The Supreme Court modified the IBP recommendation and imposed a penalty of six months' suspension from the practice of law, citing precedent in Alonso v. Relamida, Jr. where similar conduct resulted in a six-month suspension.

• Forum Shopping — Defined as the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The requisites are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that filing successive petitions before different divisions of the Court of Appeals constitutes forum shopping.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping (Rule 7, Section 5) — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that he has not commenced any other action involving the same issues, or if there is such pending action, to state its status. Failure to comply is not curable by mere amendment. Willful and deliberate forum shopping is ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt and administrative sanctions. The Court emphasized that the certification requirement applies to actions pending in different divisions of the Court of Appeals.

• Duty of Courts and Litigants Regarding Pending Cases — Courts cannot take judicial notice of actions filed before other courts or even before different divisions of the same court. It is the party and counsel's duty to inform the court of any pendency of similar cases. Once a case is filed and accepted, withdrawal rests on the court's discretion, not the litigant's behest.

• "There is forum shopping 'when a party repetitively avails 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.'"

• "Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata)."

• "Respondent must be reminded that the withdrawal of any case, when it has been duly filed and docketed with a court, rests upon the discretion of the court, and not at the behest of litigants."

• "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court's processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court."

• Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., 660 Phil. 504 (2011) — Controlling precedent defining forum shopping and enumerating the elements of litis pendentia and res judicata in the context of forum shopping; followed in defining the three ways forum shopping may be committed.

• Chua v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company — Cited in Asia United Bank for the three modes of committing forum shopping; followed.

• Dy v. Mandy Commodities Co, Inc., 611 Phil. 74 (2009) — Controlling precedent explaining the purpose of the rule against forum shopping (to avoid rendition of contradictory decisions by competent tribunals); followed.

• Alonso v. Relamida, Jr., 640 Phil. 325 (2010) — Controlling precedent establishing that incompetence of counsel in not knowing the rule against forum shopping justifies administrative liability; followed in imposing six-month suspension.

• Teodoro v. Atty. Gonzales, 702 Phil. 422 (2013) — Controlling precedent holding that forum shopping violates Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; followed.

• Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Court — Governs the certification against forum shopping, requiring certification under oath of no pending similar actions and providing for sanctions including summary dismissal with prejudice and direct contempt for willful and deliberate forum shopping; applied to establish the certification requirement and sanctions.

• Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 — Requires petitioners to certify under oath that no similar action is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof; applied to establish that different divisions of the Court of Appeals are considered separate fora for forum shopping purposes.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes; applied to hold that forum shopping violates this canon.

• Lawyers' Oath — Exhorts lawyers not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit"; applied to emphasize the duty not to engage in forum shopping.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ.