In the case of Atty. Godofredo C. Manipud v. Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, the Supreme Court addressed allegations of forum shopping against Atty. Bautista. The Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) dismissal of the complaint, finding no willful and deliberate intent by Atty. Bautista to commit forum shopping. This decision underscores the importance of proving malicious intent in forum shopping cases and highlights the lawyer’s duty to zealously represent their client, balanced with ethical obligations to the legal system.

Resurrecting Claims? The Ethical Quandary of Representing Dubious Parties

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Atty. Manipud against Atty. Bautista for allegedly engaging in forum shopping. Atty. Manipud claimed that Atty. Bautista filed two complaints for annulment of real estate mortgage on behalf of Jovita de Macasieb, involving the same allegations, parties, subject matter, and issues. This, according to Atty. Manipud, constituted forum shopping, violating Atty. Bautista’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Bautista countered that the second complaint was a desperate attempt to restrain the sale of his client’s property, arguing he disclosed the pendency of the first complaint in the second filing’s Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. The IBP investigated and found that Atty. Bautista did not act deliberately to commit forum shopping. Crucially, the Investigating Commissioner found no undue vexation to the court or petitioner, because the first case was mentioned in the second filing.

The complainant raised an additional issue, alleging that Atty. Bautista resurrected Jovita de Macasieb from the dead by representing her despite her demise in 1968. This allegation, however, was not raised during the Mandatory Conference before the IBP, where the issues were defined, limiting its consideration. Furthermore, the Court noted the complainant failed to assail the IBP’s findings on the forum shopping issue. Forum shopping occurs when a litigant institutes two or more suits in different courts to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision.

The Court emphasizes that for disciplinary action, forum shopping must be willful and deliberate, meaning there has to be clear intent to vex or cause trouble to the court and other parties. According to the Rules of Court, any pending action should be fully disclosed. As the IBP commissioner stated:

In the second complaint the respondent called the attention of the Court that there was a pending (sic) between the parties, Civil Case No. 2005-178. Hence, the purpose is not to obtain favorable decision, but to have the issue resolved in Civil Case No. 2005-178.

To underscore the relevance of willfulness to the matter of forum shopping, consider the concept of good faith. A lawyer is expected to act in good faith on behalf of their client, using legal means to advocate for their client’s interests. However, this duty is balanced against their duty to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and the judicial system. Thus, acting without malice or intent to deceive is often considered a mitigating factor.

The concept of forum shopping as an administrative violation can be subtle. Here’s how the filing of the two cases looks by way of a comparison:

Aspect	First Complaint	Second Complaint
Parties	Same	Same
Subject Matter	Same	Same
Allegations	Same	Same, with disclosure of first case
Disclosure	N/A	Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping disclosed prior filing

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s resolution, dismissing the complaint against Atty. Bautista, because of the fact he raised the matter of the first case when he filed the second. This case clarifies that a lawyer’s mistake or zealous representation does not automatically equate to ethical misconduct warranting disciplinary measures.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether Atty. Bautista engaged in forum shopping by filing two complaints for annulment of real estate mortgage with similar content.
What is forum shopping?	Forum shopping is when a litigant files multiple suits in different courts, seeking a favorable decision by presenting the same issues.
What did the IBP conclude?	The IBP found that Atty. Bautista did not deliberately commit forum shopping because he disclosed the first case in the second complaint.
Why was the allegation about representing a deceased person not considered?	This issue was raised late in the proceedings and was not part of the original issues defined during the Mandatory Conference.
What is the significance of “willful and deliberate” in forum shopping cases?	It means that for disciplinary action to be taken, the forum shopping must be intentional and aimed at gaining an unfair advantage.
What rule covers forum shopping according to the Rules of Court?	The rule against forum shopping and for disclosure, among other things, is Section 5, Rule 7.
Can a lawyer be sanctioned for a mistake?	Not necessarily; mistakes and zealous representation are evaluated in light of intent, good faith, and overall ethical conduct.
What was the ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s decision and dismissed the complaint against Atty. Bautista.

This case underscores the need for a careful evaluation of intent and context in allegations of forum shopping, balancing the lawyer’s duty to zealously represent their client with ethical obligations to the legal system. It also highlights that new issues must be raised in a timely fashion, else those will be regarded as waived.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Atty. Godofredo C. Manipud v. Atty. Feliciano M. Bautista, A.C. No. 6943, March 13, 2009