TEODORO III v. ATTY.

GONZALES
A.C. No. 6760, January 30, 2013

FACTS:

Teodoro filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Gonzales for being counsel
for two (2) substantially the same cases, which constitutes an act of forum
shopping. The first case Special Proceeding No. 99-95587 involved the
settlement of the intestate estate of Manuela Teodoro, and the second case Civil
Case No. 00-99207 involved an Annulment of Document, Reconveyance and
Damages, without indicating the special proceeding pending in Court.
Commissioner Dulay found Atty. Gonzales guilty of forum shopping because
according to him, both cases are hinged on the same substantial issue, on
whether Manuela held the Malate property in trust for Carmen Teodoro-Reyes,
Donato T. Teodoro, Jorge I. Teodoro and Teodoro-Marcial. The commissioner
found that a ruling in either case would result in res judicata over the other.
Commissioner Dulay recommended that Atty. Gonzales be suspended for one
month from the practice of law, with a warning that a repetition of a similar
offense would merit a more severe penalty. However, the Board of Governors
dismissed the case for lack of merit.

ISSUES:

I. Whether or not Atty. Gonzales is guilty of committing forum shopping

II. Whether or not Atty. Gonzales should be disbarred

HELD:

I. Yes. There is forum shopping when the elements of litis pendencia are present
or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. They
are as follows: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties that represent the
same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights or causes of action, and (c)
identity of relief sought.

Under this test, the Court found that Atty. Gonzales committed forum shopping
when he filed Civil Case No. 00-99207 while Special Proceeding No. 99-95587
was pending. Firstly, in both cases, the initiating parties are the same. Secondly,
the identity of causes of action in both cases did not take the same form.
However, the test of identity of causes of action does not depend on the form of
an action taken, but on whether the same evidence would support and establish
the former and the present causes of action. The heirs of Manuela cannot avoid
the application of res judicata by simply varying the form of their action or by
adopting a different method of presenting it. The initiating parties claim in the two
cases depended on the existence of the trust Manuela allegedly held in their
favor. Thus, the evidence necessary to prove their claim was the same. And
finally, the relief sought was also identical although different in form. While the
reliefs prayed for in the initiatory pleadings of the two cases are different in form,
a ruling in one case would have resolved the other, and vice versa.

II. No. The Court finds the supreme penalty of disbarment very harsh in light of all
the circumstances of this case. Neither is the commissioners recommended
penalty of suspension consistent with prior rulings of the Court. In Guanzon, Vda.
de, etc. v. Judge Yrad, Jr., etc., et al. The Court severely censured Renecio
Espiritu, the counsel who filed a petition in the Court of Appeals thirty-three days
after a similar petition had been filed with the Supreme Court. The Court also
found him guilty of direct contempt. The present case finds favorable comparison
with Guanzon. Like Espiritu, Atty. Gonzales misused Court processes in
contravention of the express rule against forum shopping. The Court held then
that Espiritu should be penalized and they imposed the penalty of censure, the
penalty usually imposed for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature.

Lawyers are also censured for minor infractions. As earlier stated, Atty.
Gonzales’ act of forum shopping disregarded his duty to obey and promote
respect for the law and legal processes, as well as the prohibition against unduly
delaying a case by misusing court processes. It also violated his duty as an
officer of the court to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.