16. In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP Administrative Case No.

MDD-1) Facts:

Formatted: Justified

The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted a resolution recommending to the Supreme Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the latter's constitution notwithstanding due notice.

The respondent argues that his membership to the IBP constitutes an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonisti c, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes, the provisions of the Court Rule (Section1 - Organization, Section 10-NonPayment of Dues) and of the IBP By-Laws relating to integration, membership and payment of dues are void and of no legal force and effect.

Issues: 1. Whether the Supreme Court is without power to compel him to become a member of the IBP thereby making the Court Rule on Organization unconstitutional for it impinges on his constitutional right to associate. 2. Whether the Court Rule provision on the requirement payment of membership fee is void. 3. Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to strike out the name of a lawyer in the Rolls of Attorney. Held: 1. No. The SC ruled that to compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a member. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of

professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers. 2. No. The SC declared that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) which power the respondent acknowledges from requiring members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration.

3. Yes. The SC has the jurisdiction to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys. Because the matters of admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are legion.
Formatted: Justified

14. ROMINA M. SUAREZVS. THE COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

Petitioner Romina M. Suarez was criminally charged in a number of cases for the violation of the Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. She was represented by her counsel de parte Atty. Vicente San Luis. At the trial of the cases, Atty. San Luis appeared in behalf of the petitioner during the time the prosecution was presenting its evidence. However, when it was the turn of the defense to present its case another lawyer, Atty. Buen Zamar entered his appearance for Atty. San Luis and from that date on Atty. San Luis did not appear in court as he had left for the United States.

The hearing of the cases against the herein petitioner proceded with Atty. Zamar representing said petitioner. Atty. Zamar have repeatedly asked for the deferment of the hearings as he was not able to prepare as he was not conversant with the facts of the case. The court eventually decided the case against Petitioner Suarez ordering for her arrest. Hence, this appeal by the petitioner.

Issue:
Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline

Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, After: 12 pt

Whether counsel de parte Atty. Vicente San Luis was negligent of his duties to Petitioner Suarez thereby depriving her of her day in court and having the decision rendered against her.
Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

Held:

Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt

Yes. The legal difficulty of the petitioner is imputable to the negligence of her de parte counsel, Atty. San Luis, in abandoning the conduct of the case without formally withdrawing or at least informing petitioner that he would be permanently staying in the U.S.A. so that petitioner could appoint another counsel. A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. He owes his client full devotion to his genuine interests, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. Atty. San Luis was unquestionably negligent in the performance of his duties to his client. His negligence consisted in his failure to attend to the hearings of the case, his failure to advise petitioner that he was going to stay abroad so that the petitioner could have secured the services of another counsel, and his failure to withdraw properly as counsel for petitioner. Though as a general rule, a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence, and mistakes in handling the case during the trial the rule admits exceptions. A new trial may be granted where the incompetency of counsel is so great that the defendant is prejudiced and prevented from fairly pres enting his defense. Atty. San Luis failed to discharge his duties as counsel for petitioner. Thus, the Court ordered that cases against petitioner be re-opened for the reception of evidence by the defense.

3. JOHN SIY LIM VS.ATTY. CARMELITO A. MONTANO

Formatted: Font: Arial, Bold

Facts:

Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline Formatted: Normal (Web), Justified, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Pattern: Clear Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear

Respondent Atty. Carmelito Montano was the counsel of Sps. Tomas See Tuazon and Natividad See Deecho Respondent Atty. Carmelito A. Montano stands charged with gross misconduct relative to his filing of Civil Case against herein complainant John Siy Lim. Iin a civil case against Complainant John Siy Lim earlier filed against herein complainant where the subject of the dispute was a 650-square meter conjugal lot, the RTC ruled in favor of . Said civil case was decided by the Supreme Court in favor of the herein complainant. Notwithstanding the decision of the

Court, the respondent filed Complaint for nullity of TCT and other documents, reconveyance, maintenance of physical possession before the RTC.
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Pattern: Clear

The complainant then filed the complaint for disbarment against respondent. In his Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged that respondent filed the subsequent complaint out of malice, pointing out that it involves "the same parties, the same causes of action and relief prayed for." Thus, the complainant prayed that the respondent be "disbarred and/or suspended from the practice of law for his gross misconduct," on the allegation that he has been harassed in the filing of the respondent of a recycled case.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

Complainant alleged that respondent is guilty in abetting the conduct of his clients. He has clearly violated his lawyers oath not to promote or sue groundless, false or unlawful suits among others. Instead of counseling his clients to abide and obey the decision of our Supreme Court, the final arbiter of all controversies and disputes, he showed disrespect to a final and executory decision of the Court. He stressed that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping for the subject Civil Case was nothing but a revival of the old complaint. Issue: Whether Respondent Atty. Carmelito Montano is guilty of forum shopping. Held: Yes. In this case, it is clear that respondent is guilty of forum shopping being aware that the first civil case was already final and executory when he filed the second case. His allegation that he "was not the original counsel of his clients" and that "when he filed the subsequent case, his motive was to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed were not properly addressed in the prior case" deserves scant consideration. As a responsible member of the bar, he should have explained the effect of such final and executory decision on his clients rights, instead of encouraging them to file another case involving the same property and asserting the same rights.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold, Underline, Font color: Auto Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Justified, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Pattern: Clear Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold, Underline, Font color: Auto Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Justified, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Pattern: Clear Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

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, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. Thus, the following requisites should concur: (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

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

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 filing of another action concerning the same subject matter runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate "to delay no man for money or malice." Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. The Court has warned not to resort to forum shopping for this practice clogs the court dockets. herein complainant and declared that the deed of sale the parties was an absolute and unconditional conveyance of subject property by the plaintiff in favor of herein complainant. However, on motion for reconsideration, the RTC reversed itself thus ordered the cancellation of the title and the reinstatement of the previous title on the subject property.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear

The complainant appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 40167. In its Decision dated March 31, 1995, the appellate court reversed the ruling of the RTC, to wit: WHEREFORE, the appealed Order dated November 16, 1992, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the original Decision of the trial court, dated December 2, 1991, hereby REINSTATED, with the modification that plaintiff-appellee is ordered to pay defendant-appellant the sum of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos a month as reasonable rental for the use and occupation of Apartment No. 161 from July 15, 1988 until the premises shall have been vacated and possession thereof peacefully turned over to defendant-appellant. The counterclaim for attorneys fees of defendant-appellant is DENIED. There is no clear showing that the action taken by plaintiff-appellee was done in bad faith. There should be no penalty on the right to litigate.3 The aggrieved party elevated the matter to this Court, and the petition was docketed as G.R. No. 119794. On October 3, 2000, the Court affirmed the ruling of the CA and denied the petition.4 Entry of judgment was made of record on October 3, 2000.5 the trial court reversed itself and declared that the sale was in fact an equitable mortgage. It thus ordered the cancellation of title and the reinstatement of the previous title on the subject property. The civil case The counterclaim for attorneys fees of defendant-appellant is DENIED. There is no clear showing that the action taken by plaintiff-appellee was done in bad faith. There should be no penalty on the right to litigate.3 The aggrieved party elevated the matter to this Court, and the petition was docketed as G.R. No. 119794. On October 3, 2000, the Court affirmed the ruling of the CA and denied the petition.4 Entry of judgment was made of record on October 3, 2000.5 On January4, 2002, respondent filed a Notice of Appearance6 as counsel of Tomas See Tuazon (the losing party) in the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 131 in Civil Case No. C-14542. On January 7, 2002, he filed, in behalf of his client, a "Motion to Comply to [sic] Decision without Writ,"7 worded as follows:

Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

1. Plaintiff is aware that pursuant to the decision of the court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the decision on the present case had already become final and executory. 2. In order to avoid undue inconvenience on the part of herein defendant, plaintiff shall voluntarily settle the money judgment as stated in the decision sought to be enforced. 3. The plaintiff will be filing Eight Hundred Ten Thousand (P810,000.00) Pesos, equivalent to 162 months of rent as per decision and the same to be covered by supersedeas bond issued by a reliable insurance company to answer for said obligation. 4. Every month starting February 15, 2002, plaintiff shall deposit to the court the amount of P5,000.00 as monthly rent.8 On the same date, respondent, in behalf of his clients (the spouses Tomas See Tuazon) filed the Complaint9 for nullity of TCT and other documents, reconveyance, maintenance of physical possession before the RTC of Caloocan City, eventually raffled to Branch 121 thereof (Civil Case No. C-19928). Meantime, on February 19, 2002, Judge Luisito C. Sardillo of Branch 12610 issued an Order11 in Civil Case No. C-14542 granting the Motion for Execution with Manifestation earlier filed by the prevailing party (complainant herein), and denying for lack of merit, the "Motion to Comply to [sic] Decision without Writ" filed by respondent counsel.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Auto

WHEREFORE, the appealed Order dated November 16, 1992, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the original Decision of the trial court, dated December 2, 1991, hereby REINSTATED, with the modification that plaintiff-appellee is ordered to pay defendant-appellant the sum of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos a month as reasonable rental for the use and occupation of Apartment No. 161 from July 15, 1988 until the premises shall have been vacated and possession thereof peacefully turned over to defendant-appellant.