Case Digest (A.C. No. 4634)
Facts:
On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas, alleging violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from events that occurred on April 16, 1996, when Ramon B. Pascual, Jr. subscribed under oath before Marie Lourdes T. Sia Bernas, a notary public in Makati City and the wife of Atty. Bernas, a verification and certification of non-forum shopping. This document was attached to a complaint for reconveyance of property and damages, designated as Civil Case No. 65646, filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City. Cabarrus claimed that the verification falsely stated that Pascual had not commenced any other action involving the same issues in any court. He argued that the basis for the civil case was fraud facilitated by forgery, and that Bernas had instigated a criminal complaint for falsification of a public document j...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 4634)
Facts:
Background of the Complaint
- On August 30, 1996, Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas. The complaint alleged violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (falsification of public documents) and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Allegations in the Complaint
Falsification of Public Document:
- On April 16, 1996, Ramon B. Pascual, Jr. (respondent’s client) subscribed under oath before Marie Lourdes T. Sia Bernas (Atty. Bernas’ wife and a notary public) a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. This document was appended to a complaint for reconveyance of property and damages (Civil Case No. 65646) filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.
- The certification stated that Pascual had not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or agency.
Criminal Complaint for Falsification:
- On April 11, 1996 (three days before the civil case was filed), Atty. Bernas assisted Pascual in filing a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The complaint alleged forgery, the same issue raised in the civil case.
- Atty. Bernas had previously filed a written complaint with the NBI on August 14, 1995, reiterating the same cause of action.
Alleged Forum Shopping:
- Cabarrus accused Atty. Bernas of facilitating forum shopping by filing both a civil and criminal case involving the same issues. He argued that the certification of non-forum shopping in the civil case was falsified since a related criminal complaint had already been filed.
Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
- Cabarrus claimed that Atty. Bernas violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, Rule 3.01, and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in deceitful conduct, counseling defiance of the law, and failing to uphold candor and fairness to the court.
Respondent’s Defense
- Atty. Bernas denied the allegations, arguing that:
- The criminal complaint filed with the NBI was merely an investigatory request and not a formal action or proceeding.
- The NBI has no prosecutorial or quasi-judicial powers and cannot grant relief, so it does not fall under the scope of forums prohibited by Circular No. 28-91 on forum shopping.
- The civil and criminal cases can coexist without constituting forum shopping, as they involve different remedies and are not identical in nature.
Issue:
- Whether Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas violated Circular No. 28-91, Revised Circular No. 28-91, and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 on forum shopping by filing both a civil and criminal case involving the same issues.
- Whether Atty. Bernas violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by allegedly facilitating falsification and forum shopping.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Atty. Bernas did not engage in forum shopping or violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. The NBI’s investigatory role and the independence of civil and criminal actions justified the dismissal.