A.C. No. 8319 [Formerly CBD Case No.

11-2887]
September
16, 2015
SPOUSES DAVID and MARISA WILLIAMS, Complainants, vs. ATTY.
RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.
Legal and Judicial Ethics; Practice of Law; Forum Shopping; Forum
shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a
party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in
another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded
on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a
favorable disposition. An important factor in determining its existence is the
vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of
similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: On December 2002, the heirs of Aurea Ventolero, represented by
Atty. Enriquez, filed a complaint for forcible entry against the Spouses
Williams before the MCTC of Valencia-Bacong, Negros Oriental. The MCTC
ruled in favor of the heirs. On appeal, the RTC Branch 44 of Negros Oriental
affirmed the decision of MCTC. Pending the reconsideration of the case,
Judge Gonzales of the RTC inhibited himself. Hence, the case was re-raffled
and handed over to RTC Branch 32. The latter reversed and set aside the
MCTC decision and dismissed the complaint against the spouses.
Atty. Enriquez allegedly drafted another complaint for forcible entry
concerning the same lot and urged a certain Paciano, also an alleged heir of
Ventolero, to file such case against Spouses Williams. The MCTC dismissed
the subsequent suit on the ground of litis pendentia. MCTC found that this
second complaint is almost the same as the first complaint. Both involved
the same subject matter and concerned the same cause of action. Also, the
parties in the two cases shared a community of interest.
The Spouses Williams filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment
against Atty. Enriquez for violation of the rule on forum shopping and for
purposely filing a groundless, false and unlawful suit. According to the
spouses, Atty. Enriquez was the head of usurpers, squatters and would be
extortionists who were castigating them for their refusal for a cash payoff.
The spouses contended that even though Atty. Enriquez did not sign the
second complaint, there was evidence that he drafted it and that he took

part in it. The spouses averred that (1) Paciano was illiterate, spoke no
English, and could not have drafted the complaint without Atty. Enriquezs
assistance; (2) the two complaints were one and the same, (3) the person
who marked the annexes in both cases had the same handwriting with that
of Atty. Enriquez; and (4) the answer in the subsequent complaint was
prepared, verified and filed by Atty. Enriquez. Also, Spouses Williams
notified the Court that they previously filed an administrative case against
Atty. Enriquez for intentionally giving false statements in the first civil case
and that the IBP suspended him for one year. However, the Court set aside
the IBP Resolution and dismissed the administrative case.
Atty. Enriquez argued that he was simply representing the heirs of
Aurea Ventolero who were protecting their title over the lot in dispute.
The IBP-CBD found Atty. Enriquez guilty of forum shopping and
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law and as a
member of the Bar for six months.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Enriquez is liable for violating the rule on
forum-shopping.
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. There is forum shopping when, as a result of an
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than
by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one
or the other court would make a favorable disposition. The vexation caused
to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim
substantially the same reliefs is an important factor in determining the
existence of forum shopping.
There was no denial from Atty. Enriquez that he engaged in forumshopping. Atty. Enriquez knew that in the first forcible entry case, the
MCTC decision was reversed, set aside and dismissed on appeal. However,
he again drafted another complaint for forcible entry involving the same lot
and urged Paciano to file the case. Even if Atty. Enriquez did not sign the
subsequent complaint, he is still held administratively liable because he
apparently wrote the subsequent complaint. There was similarity of the
words and phrases used in the two complaints. Furthermore, Atty. Enriquez
prepared and verified the answer to the counterclaim in the second case.
This undoubtedly violated his oath as a member of the Bar and contravened

virtues and values the legal profession requires from its members. As a
retired judge, Atty. Enriquez should have known that a lawyers primary
duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice.
In engaging in such malpractice, Atty. Enriquez violated Canon 12
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which directs lawyers to obey
the laws of the land and to promote respect for the law and the legal
processes. He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice, and the prohibition against unduly
delaying a case by misusing court processes.
Hence,
the
Court
suspended Atty. Enriquez from the practice of law for six months.