Tapang vs. Atty. Donayre

A lawyer who deliberately files a second case involving the same parties, cause of action, and prayer after the first case has been finally resolved is guilty of forum shopping in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and her subsequent failure to comply with the IBP's directives during the administrative investigation constitutes willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

Edgardo A. Tapang was the respondent-employer in a labor case for illegal dismissal and monetary claims filed by Ananias Bacalso before the Labor Arbiter, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB VII-09-2458-2009. Atty. Marian C. Donayre served as counsel on record for Bacalso in that proceeding. The administrative complaint arose from Atty. Donayre's filing of a second labor complaint on Bacalso's behalf after the first case had been dismissed with finality, prompting Tapang to charge her with violation of the rule against forum shopping before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline.

Ananias Bacalso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against Edgardo A. Tapang before the Labor Arbiter, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB VII-09-2458-2009. Atty. Marian C. Donayre appeared as counsel on record for Bacalso. In a Decision dated May 14, 2010, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of merit, finding no evidence of an employer-employee relationship between Bacalso and Tapang — no proof of hiring, payment of wages, or exercise of control over Bacalso. Atty. Donayre received a copy of the Decision on May 31, 2010. No appeal was filed with the NLRC, and the Decision became final and executory on June 16, 2010.

Notwithstanding the finality of the dismissal, Atty. Donayre filed another illegal dismissal complaint on Bacalso's behalf on July 5, 2010, docketed as NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 07-1396-10, involving the same parties, the same cause of action, and the same prayer as the earlier case. Tapang filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of res judicata, citing the previous dismissal. Instead of acting on the motion, the Labor Arbiter directed the parties to submit position papers. On March 23, 2011, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of Bacalso, ordering Tapang to pay ₱77,688.00 as separation pay, ₱19,422.00 as 13th month pay, and ₱9,711.00 as attorney's fees. On appeal, the NLRC overturned the ruling and dismissed the second case on the grounds of res judicata and the absence of an employer-employee relationship.

Thereafter, Tapang filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Donayre before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline for alleged violation of the rule against forum shopping. The IBP-CBD directed Atty. Donayre to submit her verified answer, but despite due notice she failed to do so. She also failed to appear at the mandatory conference scheduled on November 7, 2013. When the IBP-CBD required the parties to submit position papers, only Tapang complied. The IBP-CBD again directed Atty. Donayre to submit her position paper within 15 days from receipt of its Order dated November 19, 2014; despite receiving the Order on December 8, 2014, she still failed to file any responsive pleading or position paper.

• Administrative Liability for Forum Shopping: Whether Atty. Donayre should be held administratively liable for violating the rule against forum shopping by filing a second labor case involving the same parties, cause of action, and prayer after the first case had been finally resolved.
• Willful Disobedience of Lawful Orders: Whether Atty. Donayre's repeated failure to comply with the IBP-CBD's directives during the administrative investigation constitutes willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court.

• Administrative Liability for Forum Shopping: Yes. Atty. Donayre deliberately filed a second labor case based on the same cause of action, involving the same parties, and with the same prayer after the first case had been finally resolved, constituting forum shopping under the second mode identified in Chua vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company and violating Rule 10.03, Canon 10, and Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR.
• Willful Disobedience of Lawful Orders: Yes. Atty. Donayre's unjustified failure to file her verified answer, attend the mandatory conference, and submit her position paper despite due notice constituted willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court, in violation of Canon 1 of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath.

• Administrative Liability for 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. As enumerated in Chua vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, forum shopping can be committed in three ways, the second of which — filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer where the previous case has been finally resolved — applies here, the ground for dismissal being res judicata. Although there was no showing that Atty. Donayre prepared or filed the first complaint, she was counsel on record when the LA dismissed it and was furnished a copy of the Decision. The dismissal had the effect of an adjudication on the merits, as it was based on a finding that no employer-employee relationship existed. The elements of res judicata were present: the judgment was final, rendered by a tribunal with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, was a judgment on the merits, and there was identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second cases. Atty. Donayre filed the second case almost one month after the Decision attained finality, revealing misplaced zealousness and malicious intent to relitigate in the hope of gaining a favorable judgment, and demonstrating abuse and misuse of court processes to the detriment of the winning party and the administration of justice.

• Willful Disobedience of Lawful Orders: As an officer of the Court, Atty. Donayre was expected to know that the IBP's directives, as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers, are not mere requests but lawful orders requiring prompt and complete compliance. Her blatant noncompliance — failing to file a verified answer, attend the mandatory conference, and submit a position paper despite receiving due notice — indicated a lack of respect for the Court and the IBP's rules and procedures, tantamount to willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court. In Radial Golden Marine Services Corporation vs. Atty. Cabugoy, the Court held that a lawyer's nonchalant attitude in complying with the IBP's directives constituted willful disobedience warranting suspension, even where the underlying administrative allegations were unsubstantiated. The determination of the appropriate penalty involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts. Given the factual milieu — forum shopping coupled with willful disobedience — the Court deemed a two-year suspension proper, modifying the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation of six months in light of recent jurisprudence, including Villanueva vs. Atty. Alentajan (three months for forum shopping alone) and Radial Golden Marine (two years for noncompliance alone).

• 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. It 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 (ground for dismissal: litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (ground for dismissal: res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). Atty. Donayre committed the second mode by filing a second labor case after the first had been finally resolved, with the same parties, cause of action, and prayer.

• Res Judicata — The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. All elements were satisfied: the LA Decision was final, the LA had jurisdiction, the dismissal was on the merits (finding no employer-employee relationship), and there was identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

• Willful Disobedience of Lawful Orders of the Supreme Court — A lawyer's failure to comply with the IBP's directives in an administrative investigation — including directives to file a verified answer, attend a mandatory conference, and submit a position paper — constitutes willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court, because the IBP acts as the Court's investigating arm and its directives are lawful orders, not mere requests. Such noncompliance violates Canon 1 of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath, independent of any liability for the underlying administrative charge.

• "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 is the canonical definition of forum shopping adopted by the Court, drawn from Atty. Alonso, et al. vs. Atty. Relamida, Jr., and applied to hold Atty. Donayre administratively liable.

• "As an officer of the Court, Atty. Donayre is expected to know that the directives of the IBP, as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers, are not mere requests but are lawful orders which should be complied with promptly and completely." — This passage articulates the principle that IBP directives in disciplinary proceedings carry the force of lawful orders of the Supreme Court, and that noncompliance therewith constitutes willful disobedience independent of the merits of the underlying charge.

• "Such action clearly reveals a misplaced zealousness and malicious intent to relitigate the case in the hope of gaining a favorable judgment. It also demonstrates a clear abuse and misuse of court processes to the detriment not only of the winning party, but also of the administration of justice." — This passage characterizes the respondent's conduct in filing the second labor case after finality of the first, establishing the deliberate and malicious nature of the forum shopping as an aggravating consideration in the imposition of penalty.

• Chua vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, 613 Phil. 143 (2009) — Followed. The Court adopted its enumeration of the three ways forum shopping may be committed, applying the second mode (filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and prayer after the previous case has been finally resolved) to Atty. Donayre's conduct.

• Atty. Alonso, et al. vs. Atty. Relamida, Jr., 640 Phil. 325 (2010) — Followed. Cited as the source of the canonical definition of forum shopping adopted in the decision.

• Villanueva vs. Atty. Alentajan, A.C. No. 12161, June 8, 2020 — Followed. The Court found a respondent lawyer guilty of forum shopping and imposed a three-month suspension, serving as a benchmark for penalty calibration in the present case.

• Radial Golden Marine Services Corporation vs. Atty. Cabugoy, A.C. No. 869, June 25, 2019 — Followed. The Court held that noncompliance with IBP and Court directives constituted willful disobedience warranting a two-year suspension, even where the underlying administrative allegations were unsubstantiated. This precedent supported both the finding of willful disobedience and the two-year penalty imposed on Atty. Donayre.

• Spouses Torres vs. Medina, 629 Phil. 101 (2010) — Cited for the elements of res judicata, which the Court found to be fully satisfied on the facts.

• Canon 10, Rule 10.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Applied to Atty. Donayre's deliberate filing of a second labor case after the first had been finally resolved, constituting misuse of procedural rules to relitigate a decided matter.

• Canon 12, Rule 12.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. Applied to Atty. Donayre's filing of a second illegal dismissal complaint based on the same cause of action as the first.

• Canon 12, 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. Applied to Atty. Donayre's filing of the second case, which abused and misused court processes to the detriment of the winning party and the administration of justice.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied to Atty. Donayre's willful disobedience of the IBP's lawful directives during the administrative investigation.

• Lawyer's Oath — Imposes upon all members of the Bar the duty to support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities. Applied to Atty. Donayre's failure to comply with the IBP's directives, which were lawful orders of the Supreme Court's investigating arm.

Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ., concurred.