Case Digest (A.C. No. 6125)
Facts:
Simon D. Paz v. Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez, A.C. No. 6125, September 19, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Simon D. Paz, alleged in a complaint dated 23 July 2003 that he and his partners engaged Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez to assist them in acquiring several parcels of land in Pampanga beginning in 1995 and to defend their title claims against a third party, George Lizares. Paz contends that Sanchez continued to represent tenant-farmers, including Isidro Dizon, and that after the termination of Sanchez’s services he (Sanchez) filed a complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) on 15 May 1997 seeking annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 420127-R in the names of Paz and his partners — a title that Paz alleges had been among those purchased with Sanchez’s assistance.
Paz further alleged that Sanchez procured service of process at Paz’s then-address so as to obtain a default judgment in favor of Dizon, and that on 23 June 2003 Sanchez filed a civil action in the Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga (Civil Case No. 12722) for annulment of TCT No. 483629-R against Paz and Sycamore Venture Corporation, which Paz presided over. Paz charged Sanchez with representing conflicting interests, forum shopping, preparing a false certification against forum shopping, and violating the lawyer’s oath by filing groundless suits.
In his comment (2 October 2003) Sanchez explained he had represented tenant-farmers, including Dizon, since 1978 and that he also represented Paz and partners in suits involving Lizares because they did not secure separate counsel. Sanchez maintained the DARAB complaint was filed on 15 May 1997 (not after May 2000), that he used Paz’s address as it was Paz’s address at the time, and that service was in fact effected; he denied malicious machination and denied forum shopping, asserting the DARAB and RTC actions sought different reliefs and were meritorious.
Pursuant to the Court’s referral, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint. Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan conducted a mandatory conference (4 March 2004) and issued a report recommending a three-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVI-2005-78 (12 March 2005), adopted the report with modification and recommended a one-year suspension. Under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court the IBP forwarded its findings and recommendation to the Supreme Court for final action.
The Supreme Court (Third Division) resolved the case by holding that there was insuffi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent violate the rules against forum shopping?
- Did respondent violate the lawyer’s oath by filing groundless or false suits?
- Did respondent violate the prohibition against representing conflicti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)