Lim vs. Mejica

Filing a criminal complaint directly with a trial court while a motion for reconsideration of a prosecutor's dismissal is pending does not constitute forum shopping where the reliefs sought are distinct—the prosecutor's determination of probable cause being investigatory and the court's judicial determination of guilt being adjudicatory—and where the offense charged (grave oral defamation) is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court and does not require preliminary investigation; however, a lawyer violates Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to disclose to the trial court the pendency of related proceedings before the prosecutor and by failing to withdraw the motion for reconsideration therein, thereby failing to observe candor and fairness in dealings with the court.

Atty. Aquilino Mejica filed a criminal complaint for grave oral defamation against Delia Lim, then Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar, before the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor (OAPP) on July 16, 2008. The complaint alleged that Lim uttered slanderous words against him at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan. Following the dismissal of the complaint for lack of probable cause and the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Atty. Mejica filed the same complaint before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) while his motion for reconsideration remained pending before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP).

• The Alleged Defamation: On July 16, 2008, Atty. Mejica filed a criminal complaint for grave oral defamation against Delia Lim, then Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar, before the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor (OAPP). The complaint alleged that Lim uttered slanderous words in the local dialect at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan, stating that Atty. Mejica had been suspended from the practice of law for six months by the IBP.
• Prosecutor's Proceedings: Acting Provincial Prosecutor Cornelio M. Umil II issued a Resolution on February 19, 2009 dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause. Atty. Mejica filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated May 20, 2009.
• Parallel Court Proceedings: While the Motion for Reconsideration remained pending before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP), Atty. Mejica filed the same complaint for grave oral defamation before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Oras, Eastern Samar on March 31, 2009, docketed as Criminal Case No. (0)2009-03.
• Dismissal by MCTC: On July 6, 2009, the MCTC issued an Order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action had already prescribed. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but denied on September 14, 2009.
• Administrative Complaint: Consequently, Lim filed an administrative complaint for disbarment alleging that Atty. Mejica deliberately committed forum shopping by filing the same complaint with the MCTC during the pendency of his Motion for Reconsideration before the OPP.
• Defense of Atty. Mejica: In his Answer, Atty. Mejica argued that the filing was made in good faith and based on a wrong notion that the complaint for oral defamation was within the jurisdiction of the OPP. He alleged that he consulted a Public Attorney's Office lawyer who advised him that oral defamation cases are not subject to preliminary investigation and may be filed directly with the MCTC. He claimed ignorance that the case could be filed directly with the MCTC and asserted that the filing was a result of mere inadvertence immediately rectified upon coming to his knowledge.
• IBP Proceedings: During the mandatory conference scheduled by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on August 31, 2010, only Lim and her counsel appeared; Atty. Mejica was absent. The IBP-CBD terminated the mandatory conference on January 10, 2011 and directed the parties to submit position papers.

• Forum Shopping: Lim maintained that Atty. Mejica deliberately committed forum shopping when he filed the same criminal complaint with the same attachments before the MCTC during the pendency of his Motion for Reconsideration before the OPP regarding the dismissal of the same complaint.
• Violation of CPR: Lim argued that Atty. Mejica violated Rule 1.03 of Canon 1, Rule 12.02 of Canon 12, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in forum shopping and thereby eroding public confidence in the legal profession.

• Good Faith and Lack of Malice: Atty. Mejica countered that the filing of the case before the MCTC pending the resolution of his Motion for Reconsideration before the OPP was made in good faith and without malice. He argued that he was unaware that an oral defamation case could be filed directly with the MCTC without preliminary investigation.
• Reliance on Counsel's Advice: He maintained that he consulted a Public Attorney's Office lawyer who advised him that oral defamation is not subject to preliminary investigation and may be filed directly with the MCTC, and that he acted based on this advice.
• Distinct Nature of Proceedings: He argued that since the criminal complaint was filed before the OAPP, its resolution for probable cause would not bar the court's judicial determination of probable cause, considering that preliminary investigation is not required for oral defamation.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Atty. Mejica committed forum shopping in violation of Rule 12.02 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a criminal complaint before the MCTC while a motion for reconsideration of the prosecutor's dismissal was pending before the OPP.
• Candor to Court: Whether Atty. Mejica violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to inform the MCTC of the pendency of related proceedings before the prosecutor and by failing to withdraw his motion for reconsideration therein.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty of five years suspension imposed by the IBP is proper considering Atty. Mejica's previous disciplinary infractions.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping was not established. The requisites of litis pendentia—identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought—were not present. Specifically, no identity of relief existed between the complaint before the OPP, which sought a determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information, and the complaint before the MCTC, which sought the conviction of the accused. The prosecutor's power is merely investigatory, while the court exercises judicial power; these are distinct actions that should be independently assailed. Moreover, grave oral defamation, punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, does not require preliminary investigation under Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the MCTC therefore had exclusive jurisdiction over the offense.
• Candor to Court: Atty. Mejica violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to exercise candor and courtesy to the court. By failing to inform the MCTC of the pendency of his Motion for Reconsideration before the OPP and by failing to withdraw that motion despite the subsequent filing of the complaint before the MCTC, he made a mockery of the judicial process and eroded public confidence in lawyers. Candor and fairness are cardinal requirements for every practicing lawyer, who is bound by oath to speak the truth and conduct himself with fidelity to the courts.
• Proper Penalty: The penalty of five years suspension imposed by the IBP was set aside. While Atty. Mejica had previous infractions—suspension for three months in Baldado v. Atty. Mejica for negligence and two years in Caspe v. Mejica for corrupt motive—the instant violation involved no bad faith or malice, being merely the result of a wrong notion regarding jurisdiction. The supreme penalty of disbarment is reserved for clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer; where a lesser penalty suffices, disbarment is not imposed. Accordingly, suspension from the practice of law for six months with a warning that a similar offense will be dealt with more severely was deemed appropriate to protect the interest of the court, the legal profession, and the public.

• Forum Shopping Test: Forum shopping 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 test requires: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case. The pivotal consideration is the vexation caused to courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related cases and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions.
• Nature of Prosecutor's Power vs. Judicial Power: The determination made by the Secretary of Justice (or prosecutor) on whether there is a prima facie case for prosecution is distinct from the judicial determination by the trial court that there is probable cause for continued hearing of the criminal case. The former is an exercise of investigatory power under the Revised Administrative Code, while the latter is an exercise of judicial power under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
• Preliminary Investigation Requirement: Preliminary investigation is required only for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day without regard to the fine. For offenses below this threshold, such as grave oral defamation (punishable by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum), the complaint may be filed directly with the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
• Candor to Court: Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility imposes upon every lawyer the duty to observe candor, fairness, and good faith in dealings with the court. This includes the obligation to disclose to the court the pendency of related proceedings that might affect the case before it and to avoid conduct that makes a mockery of the judicial process.

• "There is forum shopping whenever as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another."
• "The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought."
• "Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another."
• "What is pivotal in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related cases and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or administrative agencies upon the same issues."
• "The determination made by the Secretary of Justice on whether there is a prima facie case for the prosecution of the case is distinct from the judicial determination of the RTC that there is no probable cause for the continued hearing of the criminal case."
• "Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. It is a cardinal requirement for every practicing lawyer. They are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their clients."
• "Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the [CPR]. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession."

• Yu v. Lim, 645 Phil. 421 (2010) — Cited for the test and requisites of forum shopping, including the definition of litis pendentia and the concept that forum shopping exists when elements of litis pendentia are present or where res judicata would apply.
• Co v. Lim, et al., 619 Phil. 704 (2009) — Applied to distinguish between the prosecutor's investigatory power to determine probable cause and the court's judicial power to determine probable cause for continued hearing, holding these to be distinct actions.
• Baldado v. Atty. Mejica, 706 Phil. 1 (2013) — Cited as a previous disciplinary case against the respondent where he was suspended for three months for negligence in failing to protect client interest, considered in determining the proper penalty.
• Caspe v. Mejica, A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015, 752 SCRA 203 — Cited as a previous disciplinary case where respondent was suspended for two years for corrupt motive in facilitating the filing of cases, considered in aggravation of the penalty.

• Rule 1.03, Canon 1; Rule 12.02, Canon 12; Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Allegedly violated by the respondent; the Court found no violation of Rule 12.02 but found violation of Canon 10.
• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court; violated by the respondent for failure to disclose pending proceedings.
• Section 3(2), Chapter 1, Title III, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987 — Defines the Department of Justice's power to investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute offenders, cited to emphasize the investigatory nature of the prosecutor's function.
• Section 1, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs the institution of criminal actions; cited to distinguish between offenses requiring preliminary investigation and those that may be filed directly with the court.
• Section 1, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Defines preliminary investigation and specifies when it is required (for offenses punishable by at least four years, two months and one day); applied to determine that grave oral defamation does not require preliminary investigation.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court — Provides grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys, cited regarding the standard for imposing the supreme penalty of disbarment.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ.