Villanueva vs. Alentajan

A lawyer who files a second action involving the same parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought after a prior judgment has become final commits forum shopping in violation of Canon 1, Rule 10.3 of Canon 10, and Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law. The authority of the complainant to initiate a disbarment proceeding is immaterial, as disbarment is a matter of public interest and the complainant is not a party but a witness.

The heirs of Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr.—Erlinda, Paz, Anna, and Bienvenido IV—claimed ownership over a real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 79724 registered in the name of Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr. and Erlinda O. Marquez. COCOLIFE, as transferee-owner, held title to the same property following foreclosure proceedings on a real estate mortgage. The dispute centered on the validity of those foreclosure proceedings and the consequent issuance of title in COCOLIFE's name. Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan served as counsel for the Marquez heirs in the subsequent filings that gave rise to the disbarment complaint.

On September 6, 2005, Erlinda Marquez, in her personal capacity and as attorney-in-fact of Bienvenido O. Marquez IV, Anna Corina Gisela O. Marquez, and Paz Louella Erica Beatriz O. Marquez, filed a complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings, certificate of sale, and transfer certificate of title against COCOLIFE, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-5629. The RTC of Quezon City, Branch 77, dismissed the complaint in an Order dated January 28, 2008. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in its November 6, 2009 Decision, and the Supreme Court denied the petition for review in a Resolution dated July 26, 2010. The Resolution became final and executory on September 22, 2010.

Despite the finality of that judgment, on July 26, 2013, the heirs of Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr.—Erlinda, Paz, Anna, and Bienvenido IV—through the assistance of Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan, filed another complaint before the RTC, Branch 90 of Quezon City for reconveyance and annulment of title with application for preliminary injunction and prayer for a temporary restraining order against COCOLIFE and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV. The complaint pertained to the same property covered by TCT No. 79724. The RTC dismissed the complaint in its Order dated November 12, 2013, on the ground that the cause of action was barred by prior judgment.

Thereafter, Erlinda, assisted by Atty. Alentajan, filed a criminal complaint for violation of Sections 1 and 36 of R.A. No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act) in relation to Sections 4 and 6 of R.A. No. 3765 (Truth in Lending Act) against the officers of COCOLIFE-Insurance. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City dismissed the complaint for lack of merit in its Resolution dated July 2, 2014, and Erlinda's motion for reconsideration was denied on September 16, 2014. Another criminal complaint was filed for violation of Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code (robbery in an uninhabited place or a private building) against the officers of COCOLIFE-Insurance, but the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed it for insufficiency of evidence on January 17, 2014. Lastly, the heirs filed a Petition for Contempt against the officers of COCOLIFE-Insurance, which the RTC, Branch 92 of Quezon City dismissed on March 24, 2014.

On October 2, 2014, COCOLIFE, represented by Guillermo Villanueva, filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Alentajan before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, alleging that he was guilty of forum shopping. COCOLIFE argued that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping filed before the RTC, Branch 90 failed to disclose that his client had already commenced an action involving the same subject property, the same parties, and the same issues, and that a false certification was likewise filed for the Petition for Contempt before the RTC, Branch 92. In his Answer, Atty. Alentajan contended that the sworn statement of Amado E. Tayag was falsified because the COCOLIFE board resolution dated April 26, 2011 never authorized Tayag or Villanueva to file the disbarment case, as the resolution referred to a different legal action and not to the disbarment case filed more than three years later.

• Forum Shopping: COCOLIFE argued that Atty. Alentajan was guilty of forum shopping when the verification and certification of the complaint filed before the RTC, Branch 90 of Quezon City failed to state that his client had already commenced an action for the same subject property between the same parties and the same issues.
• False Certification: COCOLIFE contended that Atty. Alentajan's client, through his assistance, filed another false certification for their Petition for Contempt before the RTC, Branch 92 of Quezon City.
• Unlawful Conduct: COCOLIFE argued that Atty. Alentajan, as counsel, filed multiple actions in different courts, constituting unlawful conduct as an officer of the court, in violation of his oath, Canon 1 of the CPR, and Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.

• Lack of Authority to File Disbarment Case: Atty. Alentajan averred that the sworn statement of Amado E. Tayag was absolutely falsified and fabricated because the COCOLIFE board resolution dated April 26, 2011 never authorized Tayag nor Villanueva to file the instant disbarment case. The resolution referred to a different legal action and not to the disbarment case, which was brought only on or about September 15, 2014, a lapse of more than three years from the date of the resolution.
• No Special Power of Attorney: Atty. Alentajan argued that Villanueva had no authority to represent COCOLIFE in the disbarment case because Villanueva had no special power of attorney executed in his favor by COCOLIFE.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Atty. Alentajan committed forum shopping by filing Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV despite the finality of the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-05-5629.
• Authority to File Disbarment Case: Whether complainant Villanueva had the authority to file the disbarment case against Atty. Alentajan on behalf of COCOLIFE.

• Forum Shopping: Yes. Atty. Alentajan committed forum shopping because the elements of res judicata—identity of parties, identity of causes of action, and identity of reliefs sought—were present in both Civil Case No. Q-05-5629 and Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV.
• Authority to File Disbarment Case: The issue is immaterial. A complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party but a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention, and the right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor limited to those who suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari. It is present when the elements of litis pendentia exist or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, requiring: (a) identity of parties or parties representing the same interests, (b) identity of rights or causes of action, and (c) identity of reliefs sought. All three elements were satisfied. First, identity of parties existed because the initiating parties in both cases were the same heirs of Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr., representing the same interest as claimants of ownership over the property covered by TCT No. 79724, and COCOLIFE was the sole private respondent in both cases, espousing the same interest as transferee-owner. Second, identity of causes of action was established because the test does not depend on the form of the action but on whether the same evidence would support both causes of action. The trial court in Civil Case No. Q-05-5629 had already ruled on the validity of the foreclosure and the issuance of TCT in favor of COCOLIFE, and the evidence necessary to prove the claim in the second case had already been presented in the first. Third, identity of reliefs was present because the prayers in both cases—annulment of foreclosure and title versus reconveyance and annulment of title—were substantially the same such that a ruling in one would have resolved the other. Atty. Alentajan's culpability was not diminished by the fact that he did not act as counsel in Civil Case No. Q-05-5629, because he knowingly filed another civil case despite the finality of the prior judgment. His filing of additional criminal complaints and a petition for contempt, all dismissed, further demonstrated abuse of court processes. He violated Canon 1 (obedience to laws and promotion of respect for legal processes), Rule 10.3 of Canon 10 (observance of rules of procedure and non-misuse to defeat justice), Rule 12.02 of Canon 12 (prohibition against filing multiple cases arising from the same cause), and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 (prohibition against undue delay by misusing court processes).

• Authority to File Disbarment Case: The Court emphasized that it may conduct its own investigation into charges against members of the bar irrespective of the form of the initiatory complaint. A complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party but a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers; the real question is whether the attorney remains a fit person to practice law. The procedural requirement that only a real party-in-interest may initiate a suit does not apply in disbarment cases. The person who called the Court's attention to the misconduct is in no sense a party and generally has no interest in the outcome. Any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings, and the right to institute them is not confined to clients. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest, and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. Hence, whether Villanueva had authority from COCOLIFE to initiate the disbarment case was not material.

• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari. It is present when the elements of litis pendentia exist or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, requiring: (a) identity of parties or at least parties representing the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights or causes of action, and (c) identity of reliefs sought. The Court applied this test to find that Atty. Alentajan's filing of a second civil case involving the same property, parties, and causes of action after a prior judgment had become final constituted forum shopping.

• Nature of Disbarment Proceedings and Standing of Complainant — A complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party but a witness who brought the matter to the Court's attention. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings; the real question is whether the attorney is still fit to remain a member of the bar. The procedural requirement that only a real party-in-interest may initiate a suit does not apply. Any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings, and the right is not confined to clients nor dependent on the complainant having suffered injury. The Court relied on this doctrine to hold that Villanueva's authority to represent COCOLIFE was immaterial.

• "Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari." — This passage provides the canonical definition of forum shopping applied in the decision, establishing the legal standard against which Atty. Alentajan's conduct was measured.

• "The Court may conduct its own investigation into charges against members of the bar, irrespective of the form of initiatory complaints brought before it. A complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court." — This passage articulates the rationale for disregarding the issue of the complainant's authority, affirming that disbarment is a public-interest proceeding in which the complainant's standing is not a jurisdictional requirement.

• "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his/her client, but not at the expense of the truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple cases constitutes abuse of the court's processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice." — This passage defines the ethical boundary between a lawyer's duty of fidelity to the client and the overarching obligation to the administration of justice, forming the basis for the Court's imposition of the three-month suspension.

• Polanco vs. Cruz, 598 Phil. 952 (2009) — Cited as the source of the definition of forum shopping and the three-element test (identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought). Followed and applied to the facts of this case.
• Mendoza vs. La Mallorca Bus Company, 172 Phil. 237 (1978) — Cited for the principle that the test of identity of causes of action does not depend on the form of the action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and present causes of action. Followed.
• Linzag vs. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 506 (1998) — Cited for the principle that parties cannot avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying the form of their action or adopting a different method of presenting it. Followed.
• Heck vs. Judge Santos, 467 Phil. 798 (2004) — Cited for the holding that any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings, and that the right to institute disbarment is not confined to clients. Applied to reject the argument that Villanueva lacked authority.
• Ylaya vs. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390 (2013) — Cited for the principle that a complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party but a witness, and that there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings. Followed.
• Figueras vs. Jimenez, 729 Phil. 101 (2014) — Cited for the proposition that the person who called the attention of the court to a lawyer's misconduct is in no sense a party and generally has no interest in the outcome. Followed.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Applied to hold Atty. Alentajan liable for filing multiple cases arising from the same cause.
• Rule 10.3, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates lawyers to observe the rules of procedure and not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Applied to Atty. Alentajan's filing of a second civil case despite the finality of a prior judgment on the same matter.
• Rule 12.02, Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from filing multiple cases arising from the same cause. Applied to Atty. Alentajan's successive filings of civil, criminal, and contempt cases involving the same property and parties.
• Rule 12.04, Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits the undue delay of a case by misusing court processes. Applied to Atty. Alentajan's conduct in filing multiple actions that were all dismissed.
• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court — Requires the certification against forum shopping in initiatory pleadings. Referenced in the disbarment complaint as violated by Atty. Alentajan's failure to disclose the prior final judgment in the certification filed before the RTC, Branch 90.
• SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94 — Makes willful and deliberate forum shopping punishable as direct or indirect contempt of court. Cited to underscore the gravity of forum shopping as a transgression.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred.