Case Digest (A.C. No. 9919)
Facts:
Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. v. Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig, A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Tijam, J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment dated May 14, 2013, against respondent Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and/or the Lawyer's Oath arising from litigation over a parcel of land.
The underlying civil litigation began with an amended complaint filed in September 2012 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Vigan City, by Eleuterio Lamorena, Higinio Rene Lamorena, Oscar Lamorena and Eloisa Lamorena, represented by Marissa L. Pena, against Robert R. Alicias and Urvillo A. Paa; Atty. Baclig acted as counsel for the Lamorena parties in that RTC action. The Lamorena complainants alleged entitlement to possession as heirs of spouses Vicente and Catalina Lamorena; the Alicias side (including the administrative complainant) answered that the property was acquired by virtue of a contract of sale from Catalina as paraphernal property.
Earlier, in February 2010, Lamorena, et al. had filed an amended complaint for reconveyance, annulment of deeds and quieting of title against the same respondents in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Vigan City; that MTCC case was dismissed with prejudice by Order dated November 9, 2012. Despite that pendency, Lamorena, et al. filed the similar RTC complaint in September 2012, with Atty. Baclig as counsel in the RTC case.
In his administrative complaint, complainant charged that Atty. Baclig (1) consented to false assertions in the RTC amended complaint (e.g., mischaracterizing the property as hereditary rather than paraphernal and misstating inheritance dates), (2) filed or consented to actions barred by res judicata and laches and in a court lacking jurisdiction, and (3) consented to a second action while a similar case was pending before the MTCC (forum shopping). Atty. Baclig submitted a Comment asserting that the pleadings were absolutely privileged and that factual and jurisdictional disputes remained to be adjudicated in the RTC, thus insulating him from disciplinary liability.
The Supreme Court Third Division resolved the administrative complaint, finding that while the allegations of false assertions, res judicata, laches...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the complainant prove by substantial evidence that Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig violated the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Lawyer's Oath?
- Were Atty. Baclig's pleadings in the RTC absolutely privileged and therefore immune from disciplinary sanction for alleged false assertions?
- Did Atty. Baclig commit forum shopping by consenting to the filing of a RTC action ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)