Go vs. Teruel

A lawyer commits willful and deliberate forum shopping when he prepares and files multiple administrative complaints against the same opposing counsel based on substantially identical causes of action, regardless of whether one complaint is filed by his client and the other by himself, and irrespective of whether the second pleading was separately docketed or merely admitted as part of the record in the first case; such conduct violates the duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice and constitutes grounds for suspension.

Atty. Joseph Vincent T. Go and Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel served as opposing counsel in Civil Case Nos. 1172 and 1176 for Forcible Entry with Damages pending before Branch 68 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumangas, Iloilo. The professional conflict between the two lawyers escalated when Atty. Go filed administrative charges against Atty. Teruel before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), prompting Atty. Teruel to prepare responsive pleadings that included not only defenses but also counter-charges against Atty. Go.

• Professional Relationship: Atty. Go and Atty. Teruel were opposing counsel in Civil Case Nos. 1172 and 1176 for Forcible Entry with Damages pending before Branch 68 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumangas, Iloilo.
• First Administrative Complaint: On April 4, 2011, Atty. Go filed a Complaint for Falsification, Perjury, and violations of Canons 8, 10, and 11 of the CPR against Atty. Teruel before the IBP-CBD, docketed as Case No. 11-2989. Atty. Go alleged that Atty. Teruel maliciously charged him with deliberate misrepresentation regarding the date of receipt of a Notice of Appealed Case.
• Counter-Complaint: Atty. Teruel filed his Answer on May 13, 2011, and subsequently a Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint on June 22, 2011, charging Atty. Go with violations of Section 20(b) and (f), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canon 11 and Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of the CPR.
• Client's Complaint: On June 21, 2011, one day before Atty. Teruel filed his Counter-Complaint, his client Rev. Fr. Antonio P. Reyes filed a Complaint for grave professional misconduct against Atty. Go, docketed as IBP-CBD Case No. 11-3105. Atty. Teruel prepared this Complaint.
• Second Administrative Complaint: On October 13, 2011, Atty. Go filed another verified Complaint docketed as IBP-CBD No. 11-3225 against Atty. Teruel, alleging that Atty. Teruel violated Rules 12.02 and 12.04 and Canon 8 of the CPR by filing multiple actions arising from the same cause (forum shopping). Atty. Go pointed out that the Counter-Complaint and Fr. Reyes' Complaint were substantially identical except for the complainants' names.
• IBP Proceedings: The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Teruel committed forum shopping but not willfully or deliberately, noting Atty. Teruel's disclosure in the Verification and Certification portion of his Counter-Complaint regarding the existence of Fr. Reyes' Complaint. The IBP-BOG adopted this finding and dismissed the Complaint with a warning.
• OBC Findings: The Office of the Bar Confidant found that Atty. Teruel actually committed willful and deliberate forum shopping, noting that he had a hand in preparing Fr. Reyes' Complaint and filed his own Counter-Complaint merely a day later with the same tenor. The OBC emphasized that mere substantial identity of parties or community of interests suffices for forum shopping, and that Atty. Teruel's disclosure did not negate his liability.

• Forum Shopping: Atty. Go maintained that Atty. Teruel violated Rules 12.02 and 12.04 as well as Canon 8 of the CPR by knowingly filing two identical complaints for disbarment against him. He argued that the act of filing multiple actions involving the same or identical causes of action constitutes forum shopping, regardless of whether one pleading was separately docketed.
• Real Party-in-Interest: Atty. Go argued that if Atty. Teruel was a real party-in-interest, he could have joined Fr. Reyes as a complainant in CBD Case No. 11-3105 instead of filing a separate but substantially identical Counter-Complaint.
• Harassing Tactics: Atty. Go posited that by filing multiple administrative complaints, Atty. Teruel employed harassing tactics against him.
• False Certification: Atty. Go asserted that Atty. Teruel's certification that he had not filed any complaint involving the same issues was partly false and misleading because the Counter-Complaint raised identical facts, issues, and reliefs as those in Fr. Reyes' Complaint.
• Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirement: Atty. Go contended that Atty. Teruel or Fr. Reyes failed to inform the IBP Commissioner in CBD Case No. 11-3105 of the filing and pendency of the subsequent Counter-Complaint as required under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

• No Forum Shopping: Atty. Teruel countered that he did not commit forum shopping because his Counter-Complaint, being undocketed, had yet to be acted upon and thus could not be treated as a complaint for purposes of applying the rule against forum shopping.
• Separate Parties: Atty. Teruel argued that Fr. Reyes filed the Complaint in his personal capacity and that Fr. Reyes was not a party in the first administrative case (CBD Case No. 11-2989).
• Good Faith Disclosure: Atty. Teruel maintained that he expressly stated in the Verification and Certification portion of his Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint the existence of Fr. Reyes' Complaint against Atty. Go, demonstrating good faith and negating willful and deliberate forum shopping.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Atty. Teruel committed willful and deliberate forum shopping when he prepared Fr. Reyes' Complaint and filed his own Counter-Complaint one day later, both containing substantially identical allegations against Atty. Go.
• Effect of Non-Docketing: Whether the lack of separate docketing of the Counter-Complaint negates the existence of forum shopping.
• Effect of Disclosure: Whether Atty. Teruel's disclosure in the Verification and Certification portion of his Counter-Complaint that Fr. Reyes had filed a similar complaint negates his liability for forum shopping.

• Forum Shopping: Atty. Teruel committed willful and deliberate forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action to obtain a favorable judgment. Atty. Teruel prepared and filed both administrative actions with full knowledge that they shared the same cause of action and contained nearly identical allegations. The outcome in one case would necessarily affect the other since both shared the same cause of action and involved the same parties. Mere substantial identity of parties, or a community of interests between a party in the first case and a party in the subsequent case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case, is sufficient to establish forum shopping.
• Effect of Non-Docketing: The lack of separate docketing does not negate forum shopping. Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court penalizes the commencement or filing of actions involving the same parties, issues, and reliefs, without qualification that pleadings must first be accepted or properly docketed. Atty. Teruel's Counter-Complaint was admitted as part of his Rejoinder to Reply in CBD Case No. 11-2989, satisfying the filing requirement.
• Effect of Disclosure: The disclosure in the Verification and Certification portion does not negate willful and deliberate forum shopping. As a lawyer, Atty. Teruel is tasked to assist courts in the speedy administration of justice, not to resort to forum shopping which clogs dockets. The certification that he had not filed any complaint involving the same issues was partly false and misleading because the Counter-Complaint raised identical facts, issues, and reliefs as Fr. Reyes' Complaint.
• Violations: Atty. Teruel violated Rule 12.02 (filing multiple actions arising from the same cause), Rule 12.04 (unduly delaying a case or misusing court processes), and Canon 1 (obeying laws and promoting respect for law and legal processes) of the CPR, as well as the Lawyer's Oath (not wittingly promoting groundless suits and not delaying any man for money or malice).

• Forum Shopping — Defined as 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. The elements are: (1) filing of multiple suits; (2) involving the same parties (or substantial identity/community of interests); (3) for the same cause of action; and (4) for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment or increasing the chances thereof. It exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Atty. Teruel's preparation and filing of two substantially identical complaints against the same opposing counsel constituted willful and deliberate forum shopping, notwithstanding that one complaint was filed by his client and the other by himself.
• Commencement vs. Docketing — Forum shopping is committed upon the filing or commencement of multiple actions involving the same parties, causes of action, and reliefs before a court, tribunal, or agency. There is no requirement that the pleadings must first be accepted by the tribunal or properly docketed before forum shopping attaches; the intent to secure a favorable ruling by filing multiple complaints is what is penalized. The Court applied this to rule that Atty. Teruel's Counter-Complaint, though undocketed, constituted forum shopping because it was filed and admitted as part of the record in the first administrative case.
• Lawyer's Duty to Assist in Administration of Justice — Lawyers have a duty to assist courts in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Filing multiple actions contravenes this duty because it clogs court dockets and diverts time and resources from other cases. This duty is embodied in Canon 12 of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath. The Court relied on this doctrine to emphasize that Atty. Teruel's disclosure of the pending complaint did not excuse his conduct, as his duty required him not to file the duplicate action in the first instance.

• "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. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision." — Cited from Alonso v. Relamida and adopted by the Court as the controlling definition of forum shopping.
• "The Court notes that it is not strictly the actual docketing of the administrative complaints but the mere act of filing multiple complaints with the same cause/s of action, parties and relief/s which constitutes a violation of the rule against forum shopping." — Articulates the principle that forum shopping is committed upon filing, not upon docketing.
• "Lawyers should not trifle with judicial processes and resort to forum shopping because they have the duty to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Filing of multiple actions contravenes such duty because it does not only clog the court dockets, but also takes the courts' time and resources from other cases." — Emphasizes the ethical duty violated by forum shopping.
• "All lawyers must bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor an empty formality. When they take their oath as lawyers, they dedicate their lives to the pursuit of justice. They accept the sacred trust to uphold the laws of the land." — Reinforces the solemnity of the Lawyer's Oath and the professional responsibilities attendant thereto.

• Alonso v. Relamida, 640 Phil. 325 (2010) — Controlling precedent defining forum shopping as the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action to obtain a favorable judgment; followed in establishing the elements and scope of forum shopping.
• In Re: Ildefonso Suerte, 788 Phil. 492 (2016) — Cited regarding the duty of lawyers not to trifle with judicial processes and the consequences of forum shopping; followed in determining the appropriate penalty of suspension.
• Teodoro III v. Gonzales, 702 Phil. 422 (2013) — Cited regarding the violation of Canon 1 of the CPR when engaging in forum shopping; followed in linking forum shopping to the duty to uphold the law.

• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court (Certification against forum shopping) — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency. The Court applied this provision to emphasize that the filing (not merely the docketing) of multiple actions triggers liability, and that willful and deliberate forum shopping constitutes grounds for administrative sanctions.
• Rule 12.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. The Court found Atty. Teruel violated this rule by filing his Counter-Complaint while simultaneously preparing Fr. Reyes' Complaint on the same cause.
• Rule 12.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes. The Court held that forum shopping constitutes misuse of court processes.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. The Court found that engaging in forum shopping violated this canon because it disrespects legal processes and clogs dockets.
• Lawyer's Oath — Specifically the provisions that a lawyer shall not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; and shall delay no man for money or malice. The Court found Atty. Teruel violated these recitals by filing multiple groundless suits to harass opposing counsel.

Leonen (Chairperson), Inting, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ.