CAROLINA BAUTISTA-PANGILINAN, REPRESENTED BY MIRIAM B. BUSTAMANTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ENGRACIO M. ICASIANO, RESPONDENT.

Bautista-Pangilinan versus Icasiano

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Carolina Bautista-Pangilinan, represented by her attorney-in-fact Miriam Bautista Bustamante, against Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano. The complainant accuses the respondent of forum shopping and of engaging in illegal land grabbing, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The case matters because it is a clean, recent application of the prohibition against forum shopping under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, and it shows how the Court calibrates the penalty when aggravating circumstances are present and no mitigating circumstance is shown.

Procedural History

The administrative case began as a complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. The Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal for lack of merit, finding that the land grabbing allegation was unsupported, that the complaint was filed without a special power of attorney, and that there was no forum shopping because the Metropolitan Trial Court decision was a void judgment. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors reversed the recommendation and recommended suspension from the practice of law for three months, then issued an Extended Resolution finding the respondent guilty of forum shopping. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter for final action on the Board of Governors' recommendation, and the Court rendered its own ruling.

Facts

The dispute traces back to an ejectment case involving a property registered in the name of Carolina Bautista-Pangilinan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Number 125621. The adverse party, Vivian Sanchez, was assisted by Atty. Icasiano. On May 8, 2013, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of Pangilinan and ordered Sanchez to vacate the property. A writ of execution was issued on November 21, 2013.

On February 14, 2014, Sanchez, through Atty. Icasiano, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Regional Trial Court, raffled to Branch 84. The respondent then filed a motion for inhibition against the presiding judge, which was granted, and the case was re-raffled to Branch 93. That petition was dismissed. Meanwhile, on January 28, 2015, while the first petition was pending, Pangilinan filed a motion to implement the writ of execution, which the Metropolitan Trial Court granted on May 5, 2015.

Pangilinan later discovered that Sanchez, again through Atty. Icasiano, had filed a second petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, raffled to Branch 88 and then re-raffled to Branch 105. That second petition was dismissed on November 17, 2016, and the Regional Trial Court itself declared Sanchez guilty of forum shopping. The records do not show that this decision was appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent committed forum shopping in filing the second petition while the first petition was pending.
• Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and the Revised Lawyer's Oath.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension from the practice of law is proper, and for how long.

Applicable Provisions

Canon II, Section 23 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 23. Instituting multiple cases; forum shopping. – A lawyer shall not knowingly engage or through gross negligence in forum shopping, which offends against the administration of justice, and is a falsehood foisted upon the court, tribunal, or other government agency. A lawyer shall not institute or advise the client to institute multiple cases to gain leverage in a case, to harass a party, to delay the proceedings, or to increase the cost of litigation.

This is the core provision violated, because the respondent filed a second petition seeking substantially the same reliefs as the first.

Canon III, Section 7 of the same Code provides:

SECTION 7. Prohibition against frivolous suits and abuse of court processes. – A lawyer shall not: (a) file or encourage the filing of any suit or proceeding not authorized by law or jurisprudence and without any evidentiary support; (b) unduly impede the execution of an order or judgment which is warranted; or (c) abuse court processes.

This provision bears on the case because the second petition effectively delayed the execution of a judgment that was already warranted.

The Revised Lawyer's Oath states:

I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice. I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion.

The respondent's conduct transgressed this oath, particularly the pledge to do no falsehood and to faithfully discharge his duties.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent committed forum shopping. Forum shopping is the repetitive availment of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. The ultimate standard is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. The Court found that although the respondent questioned two separate orders, he and his client still sought the same relief in the second petition: to maintain the status quo of the client's possession, to prohibit the implementation of the writs of execution, and to declare the judge as having acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court also noted that the Regional Trial Court itself had declared Sanchez guilty of forum shopping, and that this finding stood because it was not appealed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent violated Canon II, Section 23; Canon I, Section 1; Canon III, Sections 2 and 7; and the Revised Lawyer's Oath. The Court emphasized that the respondent showed no remorse and remained adamant that he did not commit forum shopping.

On the third issue, the Court held that suspension was proper. The Code classifies willful and deliberate forum shopping as a serious offense, punishable by disbarment, suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six months, or a fine exceeding 100,000 pesos. The Court noted that this was not the first time the respondent was found guilty of violating the Code, having been reprimanded in a prior case. Because there were two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension for one year.

Doctrine

A lawyer shall not knowingly engage or through gross negligence in forum shopping, which offends against the administration of justice and is a falsehood foisted upon the court, tribunal, or other government agency. Forum shopping is the repetitive availment of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. The test is whether the party asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. Willful and deliberate forum shopping is a serious offense. Where there are aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the Court may impose suspension or a fine not exceeding double the maximum prescribed.

Disposition

The Court found Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano guilty of violating Canon II, Section 23; Canon I, Section 1; Canon III, Sections 2 and 7; and the Revised Lawyer's Oath, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that forum shopping is the repetitive availment of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. Examiners like to use this case to test the definition of forum shopping, the distinction between questioning separate orders while seeking the same relief, and the proper penalty under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability when aggravating circumstances are present.