ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 5290.� September 21, 2005]
PAZ vs. NACINO
FIRST DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 21 2005.
A.C. No. 5290 (SIMON D. PAZ vs. ATTY. PROCESO M. NACINO)
In a verified complaint, Simon D. Paz alleged that respondent, Atty. Proceso M. Nacino, filed several cases with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) involving the same parcels of land against the same parties.
In his comment, respondent reasoned that these cases had different causes of action and involved different parties.
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. After due investigation, the IBP found that respondent filed several complaints for cancellation of emancipation patents and ejectment with the PARAB and for annulment of title with the RTC for each of the lots covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 3524, 3525, 3531, 3526, 3533, and 9191. The IBP held that there was no distinction between the various PARAB cases filed because these involved the annulment of emancipation patents over the same parcels of land and that the new respondents were the successors-in-interest of the respondents in the earlier cases. It also held that the PARAB cases and the cases filed with the RTC have the same causes of action since the TCTs sought to be annulled were based on the same emancipation patents.
The IBP recommended that respondent be severely reprimanded for violation of the rule against forum shopping. We agree with the recommendation of the IBP.1
Forum shopping ridicules the judicial process, plays havoc with the rules of orderly procedure, and is vexatious and unfair to the other parties of the case.2 As a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, respondent should have advised his client against it. While a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and the administration of justice.3 Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.4
ACCORDINGLY. Atty. Proceso M. Nacimo is hereby severely REPRIMANDED and warned that a commission of a similar offense shall be treated with more severity
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 See De Leon v. Third Division of the Supreme Court, G.R. No. 164046, 21 September 2004, where the Court reprimanded the petitioners and their counsel for violation of the rule against forum shopping.
2 Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp., G.R. No. 163597, 29 July 2005, p. 10.
3 Ramos v. Pallugna, A.C. No. 5908, 25 October 2004, 441 SCRA 220, 227.
4 CANON 12 - A Lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
