A.C. No. 11121 - Lim vs. Mejica

Complainant Delia Lim filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Aquilino Mejica for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.03 of Canon 1, Rule 12.02 of Canon 12, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7.
The grievance centers on allegations of forum shopping and failure to observe ethical standards in the handling of criminal complaints.

On July 16, 2008, Atty. Mejica filed a criminal action for grave oral defamation against Lim (then Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar) before the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor (OAPP) of Oras, Eastern Samar.
In the complaint, Atty. Mejica alleged that during a session at the Sangguniang Bayan, Lim uttered slanderous words implying that a case had been filed against him before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and that he had been suspended from practice for six months.

On February 19, 2009, the acting Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. A Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was later filed and was denied on May 20, 2009.
Notwithstanding the pending MR before the OAPP, on March 31, 2009, Atty. Mejica filed a similar complaint before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Oras.
The MCTC dismissed his second complaint on July 6, 2009, on the ground that the complaint had already prescribed, and a subsequent MR was denied on September 14, 2009.

Complainant Lim alleged that Atty. Mejica deliberately committed forum shopping by filing two identical complaints—with the same attachments—in different forums simultaneously (OAPP and MCTC).
Atty. Mejica asserted that his filing before the MCTC was in good faith. He maintained that he was unaware that an oral defamation case could be filed directly with the MCTC, and explained that he had sought advice from his friend, Atty. Emmanuel C. Apelado, based on the handling of the matter by Lim’s counsel.

On November 16, 2009, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP issued an order directing Atty. Mejica to submit his answer to Lim’s complaint within 15 days.
During a mandatory conference on August 31, 2010, only Lim and her counsel appeared, with Atty. Mejica absent.
Subsequently, on January 10, 2011, the IBP-CBD terminated the mandatory conference and directed both parties to submit their respective position papers within 30 days.

On November 17, 2011, the IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Mejica liable for violating Rule 12.02 of Canon 12 and recommended a suspension of six months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation in a Resolution dated June 20, 2013, albeit modifying the penalty to a three-month suspension.
After Atty. Mejica’s Motion for Reconsideration filed on October 23, 2013 was denied (Resolution dated September 27, 2014), the IBP Board increased his suspension to five years, taking into account his prior disciplinary infractions.

The record reflects previous disciplinary sanctions against Atty. Mejica, including a three-month suspension in Baldado v. Atty. Mejica for negligence and a two-year suspension in Caspe v. Mejica for a corrupt motive in filing cases against a complainant.
These prior cases were considered in assessing the overall misconduct in the present administrative proceeding.

Whether the filing of a complaint in two different forums (OAPP and MCTC) during the pendency of the Motion for Reconsideration constitutes forum shopping.
Whether the dual filing, despite differences in the relief sought in each forum, undermines the ethical requirement of candor and fairness as imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether such actions justify the imposition of a severe disciplinary penalty, particularly a suspension from practicing law—initially recommended for five years but ultimately modified.