600 Phil. 55
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
To merit disciplinary action, forum shopping must be willful and deliberate. Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires that, should there be any pending action or claim before any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, a complete statement of its status should be given.The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in a Resolution dated February 6, 2008.
In the present case, respondent explained his actions in this wise:In the second complaint the respondent called the attention of the Court that there was a pending (sic) between the parties, Civil Case No. 2005-178. Hence, the purpose is not to obtain favorable decision, but to have the issue resolved in Civil Case No. 2005-178. To bring home his point, the respondent attached as Annex "E" the first complaint.In sum, respondent acted in good faith in filing the second complaint since it was established that it was his immediate reaction upon finding out that a second application for extrajudicial foreclosure was filed. If, indeed, there was intent to commit forum-shopping, he would not have alleged in the second complaint the fact of filing of the first complaint and attached a copy of the same.
The respondent should not be blamed for the institution of the second complaint. He was misled by the very act of the complainant. Complainant had filed the application for foreclosure on December 20, 2004. This was the subject of Civil Case No. 178. All that he had to do was request the sheriff with whom he had filed the application to proceed with the foreclosure. There is absolutely no need for complainant to make a second application. In making the second application, it was impressed upon the mind of the respondent that it was another foreclosure.
The objective of the rule against forum-shopping was cited in Municipality of Taguig, et al vs. Court of Appeals. Said the Supreme Court -What is truly important to consider 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 causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.In this case, no undue vexation was caused to the Court and petitioner as the fact of filing of the first case was alleged in the second complaint and secondly, soon thereafter, inasmuch as both cases were raffled to the same branch, the first case was dismissed by the said Court. Hence, there was no danger of different courts ruling on the same issues.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended that the Complaint against respondent ATTY. FELICIANO C. BAUTISTA be dismissed for lack of merit. (Citations omitted)
ATTY. DECANO:Thus, since respondent's act of allegedly resurrecting Jovita de Macasieb from the dead and for allowing an impostor to impersonate the dead was never raised as an issue before this Court or the IBP, then complainant could not raise the same in this late stage of the proceedings. Moreover, we note that complainant, in his Comment on the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors with Motion for Reinvestigation filed before this Court, failed to assail the findings and resolution of the IBP with regard to the issue on forum shopping. As such, we find no reason to disturb the same.The proceeding before this Honorable Commissioner is whether there was a forum shopping.
COMM. QUISUMBING:Yes, the issue so will determine the relevance of that if you have any objection.
ATTY. DECANO:There is therefore a relevant because it appears thru a representation...
COMM. QUISUMBING:Yes, will be noted. State your objection.
ATTY. DECANO:It is irrelevant, immaterial and is being of ....
ATTY. MANIPUD:Your Honor, I would like to mark as Exhibit "D" is the National Statistics Office showing that the plaintiff which was the counsel...respondent is already dead in October 16, 1968 to prove that the first complaint and the second complaint is tainted with fraud, Your Honor, and in violation of this attorney's oath of office.
ATTY. DECANO:We object vigorously because that is not an issue before this Honorable Commission.
COMM. QUISUMBING:That is why pañero we are here for admissions, stipulation of facts, and definition of issues.
ATTY. MANIPUD:Yes, but, Your Honor, ...
COMM. QUISUMBING:We have to start first with the admissions and then we can proceed with the stipulations and issues. We can stipulate ultimately on what issue is before this Commission. It is not for the Commission to rule on those matters that you are presenting pañero.
ATTY. MANIPUD:But it will had include this, Your Honor, in order to avoid nor filing of multiplicity of suit because if its that taken in this forum then another case will be filed.
COMM. QUISUMBING:It is not the proper forum, pañero. We are only limited on the issues that pertains to the conduct of among selves as a lawyer so we may proceed with the admissions and stipulations of facts and issues.
ATTY. MANIPUD:I think the 2 complaints and the Motion to Dismiss are documentary evidence to support forum shopping that I have marked.[1]x x x x
ATTY. DECANO:The other allegations in this proposed stipulation of facts for being immaterial and irrelevant.
COMM. QUISUMBING:You're not stipulating that respondent and plaintiff Jovita de Macasieb...
ATTY. DECANO:Because this is a new issue and the Supreme Court delegated the Commissioner to subscribe only on the issues.
COMM. QUISUMBING:Okay, that is the rule pañero. You have already submitted your stipulation of facts let's now go to the issues.
ATTY. MANIPUD:Whether or not respondent violated the rule on forum shopping.
COMM. QUISUMBING:How about number 2?
ATTY. MANIPUD:Whether or not he violated Rule 1, Section 1 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ATTY. DECANO:We have deny that because that is a ....
ATTY. MANIPUD:Whether or not respondent violated his attorney's oath?
ATTY. DECANO:We deny that.
ATTY. MANIPUD:Whether or not respondent shall be disbarred or administratively...
COMM. QUISUMBING:Let's now proceed with the respondent.[2]x x x x
COMM. QUISUMBING:You can discuss that later on in the position paper, we are here for stipulation. How about the issues pañero?
ATTY. DECANO:The issue is, whether there is a forum shopping.
COMM. QUISUMBING:Okay, so there is only one issue that to be resolved here, pañero, whether the respondent committed forum shopping.
ATTY. DECANO:The other issue that we would like to maintain is whether the settlement of the case I think complainant and the respondent has put an end to this case.
ATTY. MANIPUD:With respect to the mortgagor, Your Honor, it is settled, Your Honor, but with respect to this case, Your Honor, it's not yet settled.
COMM. QUISUMBING:So, let us reiterate the 2 issues now. Counsel whether there is forum shopping and number 2?
ATTY. DECANO:Whether the settlement of the Civil Case No. 2005-0107 between Jovita Macasieb and Godofredo C. Manipud has put an end to any controversy about whether there is forum shopping already.
ATTY. MANIPUD:No, the forum shopping is beside the issue, Your Honor, as far as the indebtedness is concern it is a third.
COMM. QUISUMBING:That is on record so there is only one issue to be resolve here. Well, that concludes with the admissions, stipulation of facts and definition of issues. x x x[3]