SECOND DIVISION
RUDECON
MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION
AND ATTY. RUDEGELIO
D. TACORDA,
Complainants,
A.
C. No. 6403
(CBD 00-779)
August 31, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
MANUEL N.
CAMACHO,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
On November 23, 2000, Rudecon
Management Corporation and Atty. Rudegelio D. Tacorda filed with the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a verified complaint for disbarment or
suspension
from the practice of law against Atty. Manuel N. Camacho for knowingly
committing forum-shopping, in violation of Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 in relation to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 7,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Canons of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility.
The factual antecedents
leading to the instant complaint are as follows:
On September 3, 1998,
Sisenando Singson, represented by herein respondent Atty. Manuel N.
Camacho,
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a complaint
against
herein complainant Rudecon Management Corporation for damages and
reconveyance,
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-35444.[1]
The case was originally raffled to Branch 79, RTC, Quezon City (Branch
79 for brevity) but was eventually re-raffled to Branch 85 of the same
court.chanrobles virtual law library
On September 21, 1998,
Singson, again represented by Atty. Camacho, filed with Branch 78, RTC,
Quezon City (Branch 78 for brevity) a “Motion for Intervention (With
Attached
Answer in Intervention With Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory
Counterclaim)”
in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326, entitled, “Rudecon Management
Corporation,
plaintiff-appellee vs. Ramon M. Veluz, defendant-appellant,” a case for
unlawful detainer on appeal before said court.[2]
On October 1, 1998,
Rudecon filed a motion before Branch 78 seeking to cite Singson and his
counsel, Atty. Camacho, for contempt for having allegedly violated the
rule against forum shopping. Rudecon contends that the
answer-in-intervention
filed before Branch 78 involves the same issues already raised in the
complaint
filed with Branch 79.cralaw:red
On November 6, 1998,
Branch 78, issued an order, with the following dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE,
finding appellee’s herein Motion to be well taken, this Court finds
would-be-intervenor,
Sisenando Singson and his counsel, Atty. Manuel N. Camacho to have
violated
the rule on forum-shopping and holds them liable for contempt of Court
under Circular No. 04-94 and Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court in
relation
to Rule 71 and hereby reprimands both of them without prejudice to any
administrative and appropriate action against would-be-intervenor’s
counsel.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.[3]
Singson and Camacho did
not appeal the order.
On the basis of the
above-cited order, Rudecon and Tacorda filed the instant complaint for
disbarment or suspension against Atty. Camacho. Complainants
submit
that aside from disregarding the rule against forum shopping, contained
in Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 and Section 5, Rule
7 of the 1997 Rules of Court, respondent is also guilty of
violating
Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional
Responsibility.[4]
Respondent filed his
Answer to the instant complaint. He denies the allegations of
complainant
and contends that he is not guilty of forum shopping. He claims
that
the Answer in Intervention filed with Branch 78 in Civil Case No.
Q-98-35326
and the Complaint filed with Branch 79 in Civil Case No. Q-98-35444 do
not involve the same issues and reliefs prayed for and that he did not
resort to the filing of both actions in order to increase the chances
of
his client obtaining a favorable decision.[5]
The case was docketed
by IBP as CBD Case No. 00-779 and was referred by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP to an Investigating Commissioner for
investigation,
report and recommendation.chanrobles virtual law library
On October 24, 2003,
Investigating Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo submitted his report to
the
IBP Board of Governors with the following findings and recommendation:
Two court cases gave
rise to the present complaint. The first is Sisenando Singson vs.
Rudecon
Management Corp., Civil Case No. Q-98-35444 before Quezon City, RTC
Branch
79 and the other case is Rudecon Management Corp. vs. Ramon M. Veluz,
Civil
Case No. Q-98-35326 before Quezon City, RTC Branch 78.cralaw:red
The respondent does
not deny the existence of an Order dated November 6, 1998 issued by RTC
Branch 78 of Quezon City in the case entitled Rudecon Management Corp.
vs. Ramon M. Veluz, Civil Case No. Q-98-35326. Respondent does
not
deny also that this Order has become final and executory. What
the
respondent asserts is that he is not guilty of forum shopping because
the
cause of action and the reliefs prayed for in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326
are different from the cause of action and reliefs prayed for in Civil
Case No. Q-98-35444 are different.cralaw:red
When respondent failed
to contest the Order dated November 6, 1998, the same was rendered
final
and executory. This office is therefore devoid of any
jurisdiction
to review the factual finding of the trial court which give rise to
said
order finding the respondent guilty of forum shopping. This
office
has no other option but to recognize the validity of said order.chanrobles virtual law library
Accordingly, it is respectfully
recommended that the penalty of warning be meted out against the
respondent
for violating the prohibition against forum shopping, specifically,
Supreme
Court Adm. No. 04-94, paragraph 2 and Section 5, Rule 7, paragraph 2 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[6]
On February 27, 2004,
the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2004-43 adopting
and
approving the report and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner
Elamparo.[7]
We do not entirely agree
with the IBP Resolution.cralaw:red
Based on the records,
there are two issues to be resolved: (1) whether respondent is guilty
of
forum shopping; and (2) whether respondent may be held administratively
liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
As to the first issue, we rule in the affirmative. As to the
second
issue, we rule in the negative.chanrobles virtual law library
Anent the first
issue.
Respondent maintains
that he is not guilty of forum shopping. However, it is not
disputed
that the RTC found respondent and his client guilty of forum shopping,
on the basis of which it held both of them in contempt. This
order
has become final and executory for failure of respondent to appeal the
same. The general rule is that once an issue has been adjudicated
in a valid final judgment of a competent court, it can no longer be
controverted
anew and should be finally laid to rest.[8]
When a final judgment becomes executory, it becomes immutable and
unalterable.
The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, directly or
indirectly,
even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the
modification
is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by this Court.[9]
The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or
the making of so called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice
to any party, and, of course where the judgment is void.[10]
The instant case does not fall under any of these exceptions.
Indeed,
it has been held that controlling and irresistible reasons of public
policy
and of sound practice in the courts demand that at the risk of
occasional
error, judgments of courts determining controversies submitted to them
should become final at some definite time fixed by law, or by a rule of
practice recognized by law, so as to be thereafter beyond the control
even
of the court which rendered them for the purpose of correcting error of
fact or of law, into which, in the opinion of the court it may have
fallen.[11]
In the present case, since the order of the trial court dated November
6, 1998 has already attained finality, we are now precluded from
seeking
otherwise.cralaw:red
Anent the second
issue.
After a perusal of the
records before us, we agree with respondent that there was no intention
on his part to mislead the court by concealing the pendency of Civil
Case
No. Q-98-35444 in Branch 79 when they filed the Motion for Intervention
and Answer in Intervention in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326 in Branch
78.
Indeed, the first paragraph of the said Answer in Intervention shows
that
respondent and his client called the trial court’s attention with
respect
to the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-35444. Herein complainant,
which is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326, does not dispute
respondent’s
allegation that the latter and his client attached to their Answer in
Intervention
a copy of their complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-35444.cralaw:red
Rules 1.01, 1.02, Canon
1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provide
as follows:
CANON 1 – A
lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A
lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 – A
lawyer
shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 10 – A
lawyer
owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.chanrobles virtual law library
Rule 10.01 – A
lawyer
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Complainants seek the
disbarment
or suspension of respondent from the practice of law for his having
allegedly
violated the above-quoted provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
in relation to Supreme Court Administrative Circular 04-94 and Section
5, Rule 7[12]
of the 1997 Rules of Court.
In administrative cases
for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof
required
is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant.[13]
Moreover, an administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious
character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof.[14]
In the present case, complainant failed to present clear and
preponderant
evidence to show that respondent willfully and deliberately resorted to
falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct in violation of the
standards
of honesty as provided for by the Code of Professional Responsibility
which
would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanction against
him.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, Resolution
No. XVI-2004-43 dated February 27, 2004 of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
is SET ASIDE and the instant administrative case filed against Atty.
Manuel
N. Camacho is DISMISSED for lack of merit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Austria-Martinez, J.,
Acting Chairman; Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 10.
[2]
Id., p. 30.
[3]
Id., p. 8.
[4]
Id., pp. 1-4.
[5]
Id., pp. 22-28.
[6]
Id., pp. 110-111.
[7]
Id., p. 99.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 371 SCRA 413, 416 (2001).
[9]
Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Hon. Santiago G. Estrella & Solid
Homes,
Inc., 405 SCRA168, 172 (2003).
[10]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Celendro vs. Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 835, 845 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff
or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such
other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint
or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure
to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause
for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided,
upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification
or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute
indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative
and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground
for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt,
as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sardido, 401 SCRA 583, 591
(2003);
Berbano vs. Barcelona, A.C. No. 6084, September 3, 2003.
[14]
Manubay vs. Garcia, 330 SCRA 236, 240 (2000). |