A.C. No. 3283 - Millare vs. Montero

Pacifica Millare obtained a favorable judgment from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bangued, Abra in Civil Case No. 844, ordering Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises and pay monthly rentals. Co neither filed a supersedeas bond nor paid the rentals as they fell due, rendering the MTC decision executory on November 19, 1986.
Respondent Montero, as counsel for Co, appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Bangued (Civil Case No. 344). The RTC affirmed in toto the MTC decision.

Co, through respondent, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 11404 instead of a petition for review, resulting in dismissal for failure to comply with B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 22 and Interim Rules, Sec. 22(b).
On January 2, 1987, respondent moved in CA-G.R. CV No. 11404 to treat the proceedings as an action for annulment of the MTC/RTC decisions. The CA gave due course on February 23, 1987, but on November 10, 1987 remanded the records to the RTC.
On March 9, 1987, respondent filed CA-G.R. SP No. 11690, an action for annulment or novation of the MTC/RTC decisions, alleging they were contrary to law and equity. On December 17, 1987, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of grounds (no allegation of lack of jurisdiction, due process, or fraud).

Respondent filed multiple motions for reconsideration and oral arguments before the CA, all of which were denied in resolutions dated February 12, 1988 and October 18, 1988.
A petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 86084) with the Supreme Court was denied as late filed in a January 4, 1989 Resolution.
On April 12, 1988, Pacifica Millare moved for execution of the MTC judgment. Respondent opposed, citing pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 11690. The MTC issued a writ of execution on August 23, 1988, affirmed by the RTC, and execution ensued on October 18, 1988.
Respondent instituted Special Civil Action SP CV No. 624 in RTC Branch I for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the writ of execution. The RTC and subsequently the CA (in CA-G.R. SP No. 17040) denied relief.

A complaint for disbarment against respondent was filed and, pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 1(2), the Supreme Court referred it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
On April 15, 1994, the IBP Board of Governors found respondent guilty of malpractice and recommended suspension from the practice of law.
On July 13, 1995, the Supreme Court rendered its decision adopting the IBP recommendation, suspending respondent for one year.

Whether respondent violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by knowingly advancing unwarranted or frivolous claims and defenses.
Whether respondent’s repeated filing of motions, petitions, and appeals constituted an abuse or misuse of court processes under Canon 12 (Rules 12.02 and 12.04).

Whether the multiplicity of actions filed by respondent to frustrate execution of a final judgment amounted to forum shopping.
Whether such conduct warrants disciplinary sanction, and if so, the appropriate penalty.