JOHN SIY LIM, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CARMELITO A. MONTANO, RESPONDENT.

Siy Lim versus Montano

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or suspension brought by John Siy Lim against Attorney Carmelito A. Montano, charging the lawyer with gross misconduct for filing a second lawsuit on the same subject matter after a final and executory judgment had already settled the parties' rights. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement that a lawyer who files a repetitious suit in the face of a final judgment is guilty of forum shopping, and that such conduct violates Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants discipline. It is a professional responsibility case, not a civil case, and it teaches the boundary between fidelity to a client and fidelity to the courts.

Procedural History

The underlying civil dispute began in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 131, in a case for reformation of contract and quieting of title. The trial court first ruled for the defendant, John Siy Lim, upholding the deed of sale, but on motion for reconsideration it reversed itself and declared the sale an equitable mortgage. Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's order and reinstated the original decision, with a modification ordering the plaintiff to pay monthly rental. The losing party elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court of Appeals and denied the petition. Entry of judgment was made of record.

Thereafter, John Siy Lim filed the present administrative complaint against Attorney Montano before the Supreme Court. The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of misconduct and recommended a two months' suspension. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar adopted the report but modified the penalty to six months. The case then came back to the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

John Siy Lim was the defendant in a civil case before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 131, involving a 650 square meter conjugal lot covered by a transfer certificate of title. After trial, the court ruled that the deed of sale executed on July 15, 1987 was an absolute and unconditional conveyance in favor of Lim. On reconsideration, however, the court reversed itself and declared the sale an equitable mortgage, ordering the cancellation of the new title and the reinstatement of the previous one.

Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and reinstated the original decision, adding an order for the plaintiff to pay reasonable monthly rental. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and denied the petition, and entry of judgment was made of record. The decision thus became final and executory.

On January 4, 2002, Attorney Montano entered his appearance as counsel for Tomas See Tuazon, the losing party. Three days later, he filed on his client's behalf a motion to comply with the decision without a writ, offering to pay the money judgment and to deposit monthly rent. On the same date, he filed a new complaint for nullity of title, reconveyance, and maintenance of physical possession, which was raffled to Branch 121. The trial court in the original case granted the motion for execution and denied the motion to comply without a writ. Lim then filed the disbarment complaint, alleging that the second case involved the same parties, causes of action, and relief as the first, and that it was a recycled case filed to harass him.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Montano is guilty of forum shopping in filing the second civil case despite the final and executory judgment in the first.
• Whether or not the filing of the second case, involving substantially the same parties and subject matter, violates the doctrine of res judicata and Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether or not the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for his conduct.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

This Canon is the core duty the respondent violated by filing a repetitious suit that delayed the execution of a final judgment.

Rule 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

This Rule directly prohibits the very act of filing the second case on the same cause of action.

Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.

This Rule is violated because the second case tended to impede the execution of the final judgment in the first.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is guilty of forum shopping. By his own admission, he knew that the first civil case was already final and executory when he filed the second. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The Court laid down the requisites:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

The Court added that mere substantial identity of parties, or a community of interests, is sufficient, and that a party cannot escape the principle by varying the form of action. The respondent's claim that the second case was for a different cause of action did not persuade the Court, because the final judgment had already determined with finality the rights and obligations of the parties under the questioned deed of sale.

On the second issue, the Court held that the filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12, and violates Rules 12.02 and 12.04, as well as the lawyer's mandate to delay no man for money or malice. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice.

On the third issue, the Court held that while the respondent should be sanctioned, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and imposed only in a clear case of misconduct. Disbarment should never be decreed where a lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. The Court thus imposed suspension rather than disbarment.

Doctrine

A lawyer commits forum shopping when he files multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment, or when, after an adverse opinion in one forum, he seeks a favorable opinion in another. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The requisites are identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for founded on the same facts, and a judgment that will amount to res judicata in the other action. Mere substantial identity of parties or community of interests suffices, and a party cannot escape the principle by varying the form of action. A lawyer who files a repetitious suit in violation of res judicata violates Canon 12 and Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is subject to disciplinary action. The power to disbar is exercised with great caution, and suspension is proper where a lesser penalty suffices.

Disposition

The Supreme Court found Attorney Montano administratively liable and suspended him from the practice of law for six months, with a stern warning that any future violation will be dealt with more severely, and directed him to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of the decision.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that a lawyer who files a second suit on the same subject matter after a final judgment is guilty of forum shopping and violates Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Examiners like to use this case in legal ethics and remedial law questions on forum shopping, res judicata, and the lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice.