1.

Anastacio Teodoro v.
Atty. Romeo Gonzales AC No. 6760
January 30, 2013

Facts:

AnastacioTeodoro filed a complaint against Gonzales for allegedly intentionally committing

forum shopping. Gonzales is the counsel of Araceli in two civil cases filed against Anastacio.
The first involved the settlement of the estate of Manuela Teodoro and while the case was
pending, Gonzales assisted in filing the subsequent case for Annulment of Document,
Reconveyance and Damages without indicating the special proceeding earlier filed. According to
Anastacio, this was a deliberate act of forum shopping made by Gonzales.
Initially, the commissioner found that Gonzales was indeed guilty of forum shopping for the
ruling in either case would result in res judicata over the other and that he instituted the
subsequent case without indicating the pending case. The commissioner ruled that Gonzales
violated Canon 1 of the code for he disregarded the SC circular prohibiting forum
shopping.Hence, suspending him for 1 month.
However, the board of Governors of the IBP reversed the Commissioner’s recommendation and
dismissed the case.

Issue:

Whether Gonzales committed forum shopping and thereby violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Held:

Yes. The court held that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping. Lawyers should be
reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any
conduct that tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes this
obligation. The Court has repeatedly warned lawyers against resorting to forum shopping since
the practice clogs the Court dockets and can lead to conflicting rulings. Willful and deliberate
forum shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court. In
engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Gonzales violated Canon 1 of the CPR which directs lawyers
to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and 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.
Lawyers are also censured for minor infractions against the
lawyer’s duty to the Court or the client. 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.
2.
EUFROCINA T. CRISOSTOMO, ET AL., V. ATTY. PHILIP Z. NAZARENO, A.C. 6677, JUNE 10, 2014

FACTS: In 2001, the complainants purchased housing units from Rudex and due to some construction
defects in the housing units and the subdivision itself, complainants sought for rescission. The rescission
cases were filed by herein complainants Sioting, Crisostomo and Marquizo while the second batch of
rescission cases were filed by complainants Balatucan, Solis and Villanueva. Rudex was represented by
respondent Atty. Nazareno. Judgement of default was rendered against Rudex during the first batch of
rescission cases. In 2003, Rudex filed three (3) petitions for review before the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) assailing the same. Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced or has
knowledge of any similar action or proceeding involving the same issues pending before any court,
tribunal or agency despite the fact that they have previously filed an ejectment case on 2002 against
Sioting and her husband in the MTC of Cavite. In 2004, Rudex, again represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed
another complaint against Sps. Sioting before the HLURB for the rescission of their contract to sell and
the latter’s ejectment, with a certification that they had not commenced any action involving the same
issues before any court. It was notarized by Atty. Nazareno himself. In the same year, Atty. Nazareno
filed six (6) more complaints against complainants before the HLURB together with the same
certification against forum shopping.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable.

RULING: 1. YES. In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) which provides:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false
declarations in the certifications against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s pleadings, for which he
should be held administratively liable. Atty. Nazareno – as mandated by the Rules of Court and more
pertinently, the canons of the Code – should have truthfully declared the existence of the pending
related cases in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the pertinent pleadings. The Court
must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may
dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public
confidence on notarial documents diminished. In this case, respondent’s conduct amounted to a breach
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

3.
Buan v. Lopez G.R. NO. 75439, October 13, 1986

FACTS: On August 5, 1986 petitioners instituted a special civil action for prohibition against respondent who was the
acting Mayor of the City of Manila, and that he may be perpetually prohibited from arbitrarily, whimsically, and
capriciously revoking or cancelling their licenses or permits and threatening the physical demolition of their respective
business stalls. They also sought a TRO in view of the Acting Mayor’s actual threats of physical demolition of their stalls
on that same day, which the Court granted The special civil action, on the one hand, must be abated on the ground of
lis pendens or auter action pendant. Earlier, on July 7, 1986, there was a special civil action for prohibition with
 preliminary injunction filed before Manila RTC against the Acting Mayor which was filed by Samahang Kapatiran Sa
Hanapbuhay Ng Bagong Lipunan, Inc.

However, Petitioners came to the belated realization that in view of the pendency of the identical action filed by them in the
Regional Trial Court (Case No. 86–36563), they were vulnerable to the accusation of “forum shopping,” and thus amenable to
its dire consequences. This explains the filing in this Court by their lawyers of a “MANIFESTATION WITH AFFIDAVIT OF
WITHDRAWAL" on August 11, 1986, another “MANIFESTATION AND MOTION" on August 29, 1986, and an “URGENT
MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO STRIKE-OUT THE NAME ROSALINA BUAN AND LIZA OCAMPO" on September 13, 1986. In
these manifestations the claim is made that the five (5) petitioners in the action before this Court who are members of the
Samahan, “were forcibly brainwashed and guarded by * * (Atty. Reynaldo Aralar) and his associates to accede to the invitation
of the said counsel ** to appear for them and file the case before the Honorable Court knowingly (sic) that he was furnished
the status quo-order of the saine case pending before the Regional Trial Court Branch 45 of Manila,” and/or said Atty. Aralar
and his associates had perpetrated “piracy” of clients and “should be condemned and suspended for committing act of
‘shopping for courts.’

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Aralar should be held liable for violating the CPR.

RULING:

No. The SC held that The claim does not inspire belief. It is so out of the ordinary as to require clear and convincing evidence of
its actuality, which is lacking in this case. It is also belied by the fact that Rosalina Buan and Liza Ocampo themselves were
among those who verified the petition at bar before a notary public.18 And the claim is undermined by the misrepresentation
in Buan’s and Ocampo’s “Joint Affidavit of Withdrawar that the status quo order in RTC Case No. 86–36563 was still subsisting
and the case still pending trial19 when in truth, the case had already been dismissed and the restraining order lifted by Order of
July 27,1986. Not one of the petitioners or the “others similarly situated as” had a valid and subsisting license or permit as of
the date of the filing of their petition in this Court, August 5, 1986, all licenses and permits having expired prior thereto.

This is confirmed by the few receipts submitted by petitioners21 which all set out expiry dates before August 5, 1986. The
petitioners thus have no basis whatever to postulate a right to ply their trade in the Quiapo area or elsewhere. The argument
that the non-renewal by the municipal authorities of their licenses was in effect a cancellation or revocation thereof without
Finally, the action for prohibition has become moot and academic by the occurrence of the acts sought to be inhibited. The
petitioners’ permits and licenses have all expired; hence, there can be no occasion whatsoever to speak of the inhibition of any
revocation or cancellation thereof. And the “physical demolition of their respective business stalls” has already been
consummated. Petition id denied for lack of merit.

5. A.C. No. 5116 April 13, 2015

DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS vs. ATTY. JOHNNY LANDERO

FACTS:

In August 1997, Davao Import Distributors hired Atty. John Landero to represent them and file a
complaint against Angelita Lobrando and Juanito Du for the recovery of one split type air-conditioner
with replevin and damages.
Lobrando purchased on installment from Davao Import one-split type air-conditioner for her salon.
Eventually Lobrando failed to fulfill her obligations to Davao Import. When Davao Import sought to
retrieve the unit, it was revealed that Lobrando’s business had already closed down. The air-conditioner
was left at the business salon however, Davao Import failed to take hold of the unit because it was
allegedly retained by Juanito Du to whom Angelita Librando was also indebted for unpaid rentals. Thus,
Davao Imported to file a civil action against Du.

The administrative controversy arose when Atty. John Landero, failed to appear in the pre-trial. Davao
Import through its branch manager, Pandili, also failed to attend because Atty. Landero did not inform
them of the schedule. As a result the case against Du was dismissed and Du was allowed to present his
evidence ex-parte in support of his counterclaim. In effect, the MTCC issued a decision ordering
complainant to pay Du the amounts of P70,000.00 as moral damages, P15,000.00 as attorney's fees and
P5,000.00 as litigation expenses.

Atty Landero, in his defense, reasoned that he and Pandili, the branch manager of Davao Import agreed
to abandon the case.

Atty. Landero failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the RTC. Further, he also failed to file a
petition for review with the Court of Appeals despite payment by Davao Import to file such petition.
Although Landero’s motion for extension of time to file the petition for review was granted by the CA,
Landero still failed to file such petition.

It has to be noted that the motion for extension of time was granted because of Atty. Landero’s pity to
his client, so he resorted to mislead the court by alleging that he had just received the decision and that
the filing is within the reglementary period copy furnished the counsel of Juanito Du, when in truth, he
received the decision at an earlier time.

Davao Import then filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Landero asserting that Landero’s
actuations of (1) not appearing in the pre-trial of the case, (2) not availing of the legal remedies against
the dismissal of the Complaint due to non-suit, and (3) failing to file a petition for review, constitute
unprofessional behavior or misconduct and violations of Canon 12 of the CPR, which merit disciplinary
action, if not, disbarment.

In March 2008, the Investigating Commissioner, Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala (Commissioner Villanueva-Maala)
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months.

In July 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of Commissioner
Villanueva-Maala but modified the period of suspension by increasing it from three months to six
months.

The complaint was thus submitted to the Court for final action.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Landero displayed unprofessional behavior and misconduct and violated Canons
12 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Atty. Landero committed acts violative of Canons 12 and 18
of the CPR.

Atty. Landero displayed unprofessional behavior and misconduct and violated the CPR. His failure to
appear in the pre-trial is a violation of Canon 18 of the CPR which requires every lawyer to serve his
client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable.

Even assuming that there is truth to his allegation that he and Pandili already agreed to abandon the
case, he should have still attended the scheduled pre-trial to formally move for its withdrawal. His client
couldn’t have been prejudiced by paying for the damagesand other fees if a proper withdrawal of the
case was made in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.

As for the act of Atty. Landero in stating in his motion for extension that he received the RTC Decision at
a later date to make it appear that the filing of the said motion is well-within the period for filing an
appeal, it is a blatant violation of Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the CPR, which states:

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE
SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

xxxx

Thus, any act on his part which tends visibly to obstruct, pervert or impede and degrade the
administration of justice constitutes professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary
action against him.

With the violations of Atty. Landero, he was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.

5. Golangco vs. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 493, G.R. No. 124724 December 22, 1997
A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by private respondent Lucia Carlos Golangco against
petitioner Rene Uy Golangco before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 144.2 The couple had
two children, Justin Rene and Stefan Rafael. During the proceedings of the case, a hearing for custody
pendente lite of the two children was held. In an order dated July 21, 1994,3 the trial court awarded the
two children to Lucia while Rene was given visitation rights of at least one week in a month. Rene
questioned the said Order to the CA but was denied. He then appealed, but was also denied because of
Rene’s failure to show that grave abuse of discretion had been committed by the appellate court. Lucia
filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.4 She sought redress due to an alleged incident on July 5, 1995, in which her
estranged husband physically abused their son Justin, which was granted. Aggrieved, Rene filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 38866), alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in issuing the
October 4, 1995 order.

ISSUE:
WON RENE VIOLATED THE RULE ON FORUM SHOPPING
RULINBG:
No. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) from another. In assailing the October 4, 1995
order, petitioner was actually questioning the propriety of the issuance of the writ of injunction. He
alleged therein that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order since it
disregarded his right to procedural due process. Moreover the said order restrained him from seeing his
children. He, therefore, sought the reinstatement of the July 21, 1994 order wherein he was given
visitation rights of at least one week in a month. On the other hand, in the order dated July 21, 1994,
petitioner specifically questioned the award of custody of the children to his wife and prayed for more
time to spend with his children. Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that the issues raised in the two
petitions, that is, first questioning the order dated July 21, 1994 and second, the order dated October 4,
1995 are distinct and different from one another. In sum, two different orders were questioned, two
distinct causes of action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought; thus, forum-shopping
cannot be said to exist in the case at bar.

6. Quinsay vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 127058. August 31, 2000.*

FACTS:

Petitioner and private respondent were married on December 18, 1968. They have eight (8) children. During their cohabitation,
the spouses accumulated conjugal assets worth millions of pesos. Way back in 1994, after the parties had separated in fact,
private respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. At the
pre-trial, the court granted the spouses a 6-month cooling off period and within thirty (30) days to arrive at an agreement for
the dissolution of their conjugal regime. Pursuant to the trial court’s order, the parties entered into an “Agreement for the
Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property,” which, after hearing, was approved by the trial court on
September 30, 1994. However, on January 31, 1995, petitioner filed an omnibus motion including a motion to amend the said
agreement for the inclusion of other conjugal properties, which were allegedly concealed fraudulently by private respondent.
On May 31, 1995, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for annulment of the trial court’s order approving
their agreement on the same ground of alleged fraudulent concealment by private respondent and his misrepresentation of the
value of the conjugal assets. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground of forum-shopping. Thereafter, petitioner filed with
the CA several motions which were all denied by the appellate court because it failed to see any extrinsic fraud that private
respondent allegedly concealed the true worth of the family business (Success Unlimited Enterprise).

ISSUE:

WON the petition should be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping

RULING:

Yes. Forum-shopping concurs not only when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, but also where
the elements of litis pendentia are present. 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 amounts to forumshopping. Only
when the successive filing of suits as part of an appeal, or a special civil action, will there be no forum-shopping because the
party no longer availed of different fora but, rather, sought a review of a lower tribunal’s decision or order. The termination of
the case before a lower court and its elevation for review to a higher court does not constitute forum-shopping for the latter is
a recognized remedy under our procedural rules. For litis pendentia to be a ground for dismissal of an action, three elements
must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of
rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity, with respect to the two
preceding particulars in the two cases, is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which
party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. Petition is dismissed for lack of merit