Alicias V Baclig

18) DR. EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR. COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIVENCIO S.
BACLIG, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9919 | July 19, 2017 | TIJAM, J.:
FACTS
The case stemmed from the amended complaint for declaration of nullity of void
documents, recovery of ownership and possession, accounting of the natural,
industrial fruits derived from the illegal occupation of the subject property, exercise
of the right of legal redemption with damages, and application for a writ of
preliminary injuction
Said complaint was filed in September 2012 and Atty. Baclig was hired by
Lamorena, et. al. as their counsel.
In said amended complaint, Lamorena, et. al. questioned the occupancy of
complainant and his co-defendants of a certain parcel of land. Lamorena, et.
al. claimed that they are entitled to possession of the same, being the surviving heirs
of the lawful owners of the subject property, spouses Vicente and Catalina
Lamorena.
Complainant and his co-defendants filed their Answer, stressing that they legally
acquired the subject property by virtue of a contract of sale from its lawful owner,
Catalina, as the same is her paraphernal property.
It appears, however, that in February 2010, an amended complaint for
reconveyance, annulment of deeds and quieting of title was filed by Lamorena, et.
al. against herein complainant and Urvillo Paa before the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC) in Vigan City. However, it was not Atty. Baclig who acted as counsel in
this case.
On May 14, 2013, the complainant filed an administrative case for disbarment
against Atty. Baclig.
In said administrative complaint, the complainant averred that Atty. Baclig
consented to false assertions when his clients allegedly made false statements in
their amended complaint. Complainant also stated that Atty. Baclig knowingly filed
an action which was: (1) already barred by res judicata and laches; and (2) without
the jurisdiction of the RTC where such complaint was filed. Lastly, complainant
claimed that Atty. Baclig consented to the filing of a complaint, which asserted
similar relief, when a similar case was filed before the MTCC.
Atty. Baclig contended that the allegations in the subject complaint contained
absolutely privileged communication, which insulates him from liability. Also, the
issues as to whether or not the assertions in the subject complaint are false
statements and whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action are yet to be decided; hence, the complaint against him holds no water.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Baclig is administratively liable
RULING
YES. The issue in the amended complaint is who between Lamorena, et. al. and
complainant herein has the right of possession over the subject property. Hence,
Atty. Baclig cannot be faulted for consenting to his clients' act of asserting such
statements. At any rate, it must be considered that Atty. Baclig's pleadings were
privileged and would not occasion any action against him as an attorney.
However, as to the matter of forum shopping, We find that Atty. Baclig resorted to
thesame.
In forum shopping, 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 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.
In this case, it must be noted that an amended complaint was filed by Lamorena, et.
al. against herein complainant and Paa before the MTCC in February 2010. In sum,
such amended complaint sought for the nullification of the mortgage contract and
deed of sale which transferred the property to herein complainant and his codefendants and the
declaration of Lamorena, et. al. as the absolute owners of the
subject property. Eventually, the case before the MTCC was dismissed with
prejudice in an Order dated November 9, 2012.
However, on September 19, 2012, another amended complaint was filed by
Lamorena, et. al. against complainants, Robert and Paa, but this time, before the
RTC. A cursory reading of the complaint reveals that the reliefs sought pertain to the
nullification of any and all the documents in the form of a written agreement which
may be executed without the consent of Lamorena, et. al. In esse, such complaint
before the RTC prayed for similar reliefs as those which were sought for in the
complaint before the MTCC.
DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
349
On this note, We rule that there was forum shopping in this case, for while the case
before the MTCC was pending, Atty. Baclig consented to the filing of another
complaint before another forum, i.e., RTC. Such cases deal with the same parties and
same reliefs. Thus, a ruling in one case would resolve the other, and vice versa.
Moreover, regardless of the fact that Atty. Baclig did not act as counsel in the case
before the MTC, it would not exempt him from culpability. Atty. Baclig did not
categorically deny the allegations of complainant regarding the commission of
forum shopping. Moreover, it is surprising that he was able to answer the 10 causes
of action raised by complainant, except the issue on forum shopping. Hence, he is
deemed to have admitted that he has knowledge of the pendency of a similar
complaint before the MTC when a complaint before the RTC was filed.
In this regard, the filing of another action concerning the same subject matter runs
contrary to Canon 1 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the CPR. Canon 1 of the CPR
requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 prohibits
the undue delay of a case by misusing court processes.

We reiterate that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the
expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions
constitutes abuse of the court's processes and improper conduct that tends to
impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as
contempt of court.
A former member of the judiciary need not be reminded of the fact that forum
shopping wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial process and clogs the courts' dockets.
As a former judge, Atty. Baclig must be mindful not only of the tenets of the legal
profession but also of the proper observance of the same.
CANONS VIOLATED
Canon 1 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 1
A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 12.04 of Canon 12:
A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes.

Alicias V Baclig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alicias V Baclig

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alicias V Baclig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18) DR. EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR. COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIVENCIO S.

A.C. No. 9919 | July 19, 2017 | TIJAM, J.:

documents, recovery of ownership and possession, accounting of the natural,

Lamorena, et. al. as their counsel.

In said amended complaint, Lamorena, et. al. questioned the occupancy of

complainant and his co-defendants of a certain parcel of land. Lamorena, et.

Catalina, as the same is her paraphernal property.

It appears, however, that in February 2010, an amended complaint for

against Atty. Baclig.

In said administrative complaint, the complainant averred that Atty. Baclig

Whether or not Atty. Baclig is administratively liable

judicata in the action under consideration.

prejudice in an Order dated November 9, 2012.

However, on September 19, 2012, another amended complaint was filed by

complaint before the MTCC.

DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

categorically deny the allegations of complainant regarding the commission of

of action raised by complainant, except the issue on forum shopping. Hence, he is

deemed to have admitted that he has knowledge of the pendency of a similar

the undue delay of a case by misusing court processes.

profession but also of the proper observance of the same.

Canon 1 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 12.04 of Canon 12:

misuse court processes.

You might also like