Facts:

This case revolves around a disbarment complaint filed by Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. against Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig. The crux of the matter lies in an earlier legal dispute which involved the Lamorena family, who filed a complaint against Robert R. Alicias (the complainant's co-defendant) and Urvillo A. Paa. The original action, dated September 2012, questioned the occupancy of a parcel of land, asserting that Lamorena et al. were rightful heirs to a property owned by their deceased parents, Vicente and Catalina Lamorena. Atty. Baclig was hired as their legal counsel. In February 2010, prior to this complaint, Lamorena, et al. also initiated a case for reconveyance and annulment of deeds before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Vigan City, wherein Atty. Baclig was not involved. On May 14, 2013, Dr. Alicias filed this administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Baclig, contending that he consented to false assertions made by his clients regarding the

...

Facts:

Background and Genesis of the Case

• The case involves a complaint for disbarment filed by Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. (complainant) against Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig (respondent) for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and/or Lawyer’s Oath.
• The disciplinary proceeding arose from disputes in a broader property litigation involving conflicting claims over a parcel of land.

Underlying Property Dispute

• An amended complaint was originally filed by Lamorena, et al. (including Eleuterio, Higinio, Oscar, and Eloisa Lamorena) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Vigan City concerning:
• Declaration of nullity of allegedly void documents;
• Recovery of ownership and possession of the subject property;
• Accounting of the property's natural and industrial fruits from its illegal occupation;
• Exercise of the right of legal redemption with damages; and
• Application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
• In the complaint, Lamorena, et al. challenged the occupancy of the subject property by Complainant and his co-defendants, asserting their rights as the surviving heirs of the lawful owners (the spouses Vicente and Catalina Lamorena).
• The complainant and his co-defendants countered that they acquired the property legally through a contract of sale from Catalina, identifying it as her paraphernal property rather than hereditary.

Subsequent and Parallel Litigation

• In February 2010, while the case was pending, an amended complaint for reconveyance, annulment of deeds, and quieting of title was filed by Lamorena, et al. against the complainant and Urvillo Paa before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Vigan City.
• Atty. Baclig was involved as counsel for Lamorena, et al. in the complaint filed with the RTC, though he did not act in the case before the MTCC.
• The two actions, though filed in different courts (MTCC and RTC), revolved around similar issues regarding the nature of the property, its registration status, and the rightful owner and possessor.

Allegations Against Atty. Baclig

• The complainant alleged that Atty. Baclig consented to the inclusion of false assertions in the amended complaint, such as:
• Misrepresenting the subject property as hereditary rather than paraphernal;
• Falsely asserting that the property was unregistered; and
• Erroneously stating that the property was inherited in 1952.
• It was further asserted that Atty. Baclig knowingly filed an action allegedly barred by res judicata and laches and was without the jurisdiction of the RTC.
• Complainant also claimed that Baclig consented to filing another complaint with similar reliefs before the MTCC while simultaneously facilitating a similar case before the RTC, thus engaging in forum shopping.
• In his defense, Atty. Baclig contended that the pleadings constituted absolutely privileged communication and that the issues regarding false assertions and jurisdiction were still pending resolution in the underlying case.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Baclig is administratively liable for the alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by:

• Consent to the filing of pleadings containing false assertions regarding material facts (i.e., the nature and status of the subject property).
• Engaging in forum shopping by consenting to similar reliefs in separate complaints filed in different courts.
• Whether the defenses raised by Atty. Baclig, including the assertion of privileged communication and the pending resolution of disputed issues, absolve him from administrative liability.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)