Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82708:56525&catid=1580&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:42:42+00:00

Document:
We now determine whether or not the petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, committed forum shopping.
The first case (Matilde S. Palicte v. Hon. Jose O. Ramolete, et al., No. L–55076, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 132) held that herein respondent Matilde S. Palicte (Matilde), one of four declared heirs of Filemon, had validly redeemed the four properties pursuant to the assailed deed of redemption, and was entitled to have the title over the four properties transferred to her name, subject to the right of the three other declared heirs to join her in the redemption of the four properties within a period of six months.
The second was the civil case filed by Pascuala against Matilde (Civil Case No. CEB–19338) to annul the former’s waiver of rights, and to restore her as a co–redemptioner of Matilde with respect to the four properties (G.R. No. 131722, February 4, 1998).
The third was an incident in Civil Case No. R–10027 (that is, the suit brought by the heirs of Carmen Rallos against the Estate of Sotto) wherein the heirs of Miguel belatedly filed in November 1998 a motion for reconsideration praying that the order issued on October 5, 1989 be set aside, and that they be still included as Matilde’s co–redemptioners. After the trial court denied their motion for reconsideration for its lack of merit, the heirs of Miguel elevated the denial to the CA on certiorari and prohibition, but the CA dismissed their petition and upheld the order issued on October 5, 1989. Thence, the heirs of Miguel came to the Court on certiorari (G.R. No. 154585), but the Court dismissed their petition for being filed out of time and for lack of merit on September 23, 2002.
The fourth was The Estate of Don Filemon Y. Sotto, represented by its duly designated Administrator, Sixto Sotto Pahang, Jr. v. Matilde S. Palicte, et al. (G.R. No. 158642, September 22, 2008, 566 SCRA 142), whereby the Court expressly affirmed the ruling rendered by the probate court in Cebu City in Special Proceedings No. 2706–R entitled Intestate Estate of the Deceased Don Filemon Sotto denying the administrator’s motion to require Matilde to turn over the four real properties to the Estate of Sotto.
The fifth is this case. It seems that the disposition by the Court of the previous cases did not yet satisfy herein petitioners despite their being the successors–in–interest of two of the declared heirs of Filemon who had been parties in the previous cases either directly or in privity. They now pray that the Court undo the decision promulgated on November 29, 2002, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) declared their action for the partition of the four properties as already barred by the judgments previously rendered, and the resolution promulgated on August 5, 2003 denying their motion for reconsideration.
The Court considers Atty. Mahinay’s explanations unsatisfactory.
First of all, Atty. Mahinay claims that he could not be deemed guilty of forum shopping because the previous cases did not involve the issues raised in Civil Case No. CEB–24293; hence, res judicata would not apply. He maintains that Civil Case No. CEB–24293 was based on the agreement between Palicte and Marcelo Sotto (as the then Administrator of the Estate) to the effect that Palicte would redeem the properties under her name using the funds of the Estate, and she would thereafter share the same properties equally with the Estate.
To establish the agreement between Palicte and Marcelo Sotto, Atty. Mahinay cites Palicte’s filing of a motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. CEB–24293 on the ground, among others, of the complaint failing to state a cause of action whereby Palicte hypothetically admitted the complaint’s averment of the agreement. He submits that a constructive trust between Palicte and the Estate was thereby created; and argues that the issues in Civil Case No. CEB–24293 could not have been raised in the earlier cases because the plaintiffs’ cause of action in Civil Case No. CEB–24293 arose only after Palicte violated her agreement with Marcelo Sotto.
Should the trial court find that the statement of the cause of action in the complaint cannot support a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, the motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed. But if the motion to dismiss is denied, the defending party who has moved to dismiss is then called upon to file an answer or other proper responsive pleading allowed by the rules of procedure, and through such responsive pleading join issues by either admitting or denying the factual averments of the complaint or initiatory pleading. The case then proceeds upon the issues thus raised and joined by the exchange of pleadings.
To stress, the admission of the veracity of the facts alleged in the complaint, being only hypothetical, does not extend beyond the resolution of the motion to dismiss, because a defending party may effectively traverse the factual averments of the complaint or other initiatory pleading only through the authorized responsive pleadings like the answer. Clearly, Atty. Mahinay cannot bind Palicte to her hypothetical admission of the agreement between her and Marcelo Sotto as the Administrator of the Estate.
Secondly, Atty. Mahinay asserts good faith in the filing Civil Case No. CEB–24293. He points out that an associate lawyer in his law office prepared and filed the complaint without his law firm being yet familiar with the incidents in the intestate proceedings involving the Estate, or with those of the previous three cases mentioned in the decision of June 13, 2013.11 He posits that such lack of knowledge of the previous cases shows his good faith, and rules out deliberate forum shopping on his part and on the part of his law firm.
Rather than prove good faith, the filing of the complaint, “simply guided by the facts as narrated and the documentary evidence submitted by petitioners,”12 smacked of professional irresponsibility. It is axiomatic that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.13 He is expected to make a thorough study and an independent assessment of the case he is about to commence. As such, his claim of good faith was utterly baseless and unfounded.
Moreover, laying the blame on the associate lawyer is not plausible. Any client who employs a law firm undeniably engages the entire law firm,14 not a particular member of it. Consequently, it was not only the associate lawyer but the entire law firm, Atty. Mahinay included, who had presumably prepared the complaint. For Atty. Mahinay to insist the contrary is the height of professional irresponsibility.
Even assuming that Atty. Mahinay did not himself prepare the complaint, it remains that he subsequently personally handled the case. In so doing, he had sufficient time to still become fully acquainted with the previous cases and their incidents, and thereby learn in the due course of his professional service to the petitioners that the complaint in Civil Case No. CEB–24293 was nothing but a replication of the other cases. Under the circumstances, the Rules of Court and the canons of professional ethics bound him to have his clients desist from pursuing the case. Instead, he opted to re–litigate the same issues all the way up to this Court.
Thirdly, Atty. Mahinay states that his filing of the Motion To Refer Or Consolidate The Instant Case With The Proceedings In The Intestate Estate Of Filemon Sotto Before RTC Branch XVI In SP Proc. No. 2706–R15 disproved deliberate forum shopping on his part.
The Court disagrees. Atty. Mahinay’s filing of the Motion To Refer Or Consolidate The Instant Case With The Proceedings In The Intestate Estate Of Filemon Sotto Before RTC Branch XVI In SP Proc. No. 2706–R indicated that he relentlessly pursued the goal of taking away the properties from Palicte in disregard of the rulings in the earlier cases. We note that the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. CEB–24293 on November 15, 199916 prompted Atty. Mahinay to file a motion for reconsideration on December 3, 1999.17 But he did not await the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, and instead filed the Motion To Refer Or Consolidate The Instant Case With The Proceedings In The Intestate Estate Of Filemon Sotto Before RTC Branch XVI In SP Proc. No. 2706–R on May 9, 2000 obviously to pre–empt the trial court’s denial of the motion.18 His actuations did not manifest good faith on his part. Instead, they indicated an obsession to transfer the case to another court to enable his clients to have another chance to obtain a favorable resolution, and still constituted deliberate forum shopping.
And, lastly, Atty. Mahinay argues that his assisting the Administrator of the Estate in filing the Motion to Require Matilde Palicte To Turn Over And/or Account Properties Owned by the Estate in Her Possession, wherein he disclosed the commencement of Civil Case No. CEB–24293, and extensively quoted the allegations of the complaint, disproved any forum shopping. He insists that his disclosure of the pendency of Civil Case No. CEB–24293 proved that forum shopping was not in his mind at all.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES ATTY. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY guilty of forum shopping; and ORDERS him to pay to this Court, through the Office of the Clerk of Court, a FINE of P2,000.00 within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo–De Castro, Villarama, Jr., and Mendoza,* JJ., concur.
* Vice Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, who penned the decision under review, pursuant to the raffle of May 8, 2013.
1Chua v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 524, 535.
2Executive Secretary v. Gordon, G.R. No. 134171, November 18, 1998, 298 SCRA 736, 741.
3Foronda v. Guerrero, A.C. No. 5469, August 10, 2004, 436 SCRA 9, 23.
7Tan v. Director of Forestry, No. L–24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302, 315.
9 G.R. No. L–45837, October 28, 1977, 80 SCRA 217.
13 Canon 18, Rule 18.02.
14Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo and Africa v. Eastern Telecommunication Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 104600, July 2, 1999, 309 SCRA 566, 574.
18 Id. at 251; the Order denying the motion for reconsideration was issued on June 6, 2000 (Id. at 124).
19 G.R. No. 158642, September 22, 2008, 566 SCRA 142.
20 Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court.
21Ao–as v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128464, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 339, 354–355.
22Additional Requisites For Petitions Filed With The Supreme Court And The Court Of Appeals To Prevent Forum Shopping Or Appeals To Prevent Forum Shopping Or Multiple Filing Of Petitions And Complaints (February 8, 1994).
23 Section 1, Rule 71.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.