Title
Adao vs. Docena
Case
A.C. No. 5073
Decision Date
Dec 10, 2007
Edesio Adao, proclaimed barangay captain, faced election protest and injunction by Nerio Naputo. Adao accused Naputo's lawyers of forum shopping, harassment, and false certification. Supreme Court dismissed disbarment complaint, finding no violations.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 5073)

Facts:

Election Protest and Motion to Dismiss

  • On May 13, 1997, Edesio Adao (complainant) was proclaimed the duly elected captain of Barangay Mabuhay, Taft, Eastern Samar, in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections.
  • On May 22, 1997, Nerio Naputo (Naputo), the losing candidate, filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Taft, Eastern Samar.
  • On June 13, 1997, complainant filed a motion to dismiss the election protest, arguing that the MTC had not acquired jurisdiction over his person.

Petition for Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

  • On the same day (June 13, 1997), Naputo, through his counsels, Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr. (respondents), filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Borongan, Samar.
  • The petition sought to prevent complainant from participating in the June 14, 1997 election for president of the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) in Taft, Eastern Samar.
  • The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the same day, effectively preventing complainant from participating in the ABC election.

Subsequent Proceedings

  • On June 23, 1997, complainant filed his answer to the petition for injunction.
  • Respondent Atty. Docena filed a notice to dismiss the petition for injunction, arguing that it had become moot since the ABC election was over.
  • Complainant objected to the dismissal of the petition, but the issue remained unresolved.

Administrative Complaint for Disbarment

  • On January 8, 1999, complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondents, alleging that their actions constituted political harassment and violated Rules 1.02, 1.03, and 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • Complainant also alleged that respondents filed a false certification on non-forum shopping, violating the rule against forum shopping.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Forum Shopping: Forum shopping exists when there is an identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for in multiple suits, such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata or litis pendentia in the other. In this case, the election protest and the petition for injunction involved different causes of action and reliefs, so there was no forum shopping.
  2. Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found no evidence that respondents violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The filing of the election protest and the petition for injunction was not shown to be malicious or baseless.
  3. False Certification on Non-Forum Shopping: Complainant failed to prove that respondents submitted a false certification on non-forum shopping. Since there was no forum shopping, the certification was not false.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for disbarment against Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr., finding no violation of the rules on forum shopping or the Code of Professional Responsibility.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.