A.C. No. 11119 - Go vs. Teruel

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11119)

Key Dates

Principal filings and developments set out in the record include: Atty. Go’s initial administrative complaint dated April 4, 2011 (IBP‑CBD Case No. 11‑2989); Atty. Teruel’s Answer (May 13, 2011) and Atty. Go’s Reply (June 3, 2011); Fr. Reyes’ complaint (docketed as IBP‑CBD Case No. 11‑3105) filed June 21, 2011 and prepared by Atty. Teruel; Atty. Teruel’s Rejoinder and Counter‑Complaint (June 22, 2011); Atty. Go’s subsequent verified complaint dated October 13, 2011 (IBP‑CBD No. 11‑3225); Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (July 6, 2013); IBP‑BOG Resolution adopting that report (September 27, 2014) and denial of reconsideration (June 5, 2015); referral to the OBC (June 20, 2016); OBC Report and Recommendation (October 11, 2018); Supreme Court decision adopting the OBC recommendation and imposing discipline (November 4, 2020). The 1987 Constitution is the applicable constitutional framework.

Nature of the Complaint

Atty. Go filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Teruel alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rules 12.02 and 12.04 and Canon 8 (initially). The gravamen of the administrative charge is that Atty. Teruel engaged in forum shopping and filed multiple substantially identical administrative actions against Atty. Go — including preparing and filing a complaint for grave professional misconduct by Fr. Reyes and filing his own counter‑complaint a day later — thereby abusing judicial and quasi‑judicial processes and breaching professional duties.

Procedural Background Before the IBP

After Atty. Go’s April 2011 complaint (CBD Case No. 11‑2989), Atty. Teruel answered and later filed a Rejoinder to Reply and Counter‑Complaint (June 22, 2011). On June 21, 2011, Fr. Reyes filed a complaint prepared by Atty. Teruel (CBD Case No. 11‑3105). Atty. Go moved to cite Atty. Teruel and Fr. Reyes for contempt and to dismiss the counter‑complaint and Fr. Reyes’ complaint for forum shopping; he later filed another verified complaint (IBP‑CBD No. 11‑3225). The Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of Atty. Go’s complaint but found forum shopping not willful due to disclosure in Atty. Teruel’s pleadings; the IBP‑BOG adopted this recommendation and dismissed the complaint with a warning. Atty. Go sought reconsideration, which was denied. He then petitioned the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the OBC for report and recommendation.

IBP Investigating Commissioner and IBP‑BOG Findings

The Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (July 6, 2013) concluded that Atty. Teruel had committed forum shopping but that Atty. Go had not proven willful and deliberate misconduct because Atty. Teruel disclosed in the Verification and Certification of his Counter‑Complaint that Fr. Reyes had also filed a complaint. The IBP‑BOG adopted that recommendation in Resolution No. XXI‑2014‑579 (September 27, 2014), dismissing Atty. Go’s complaint for lack of merit while admonishing Atty. Teruel to exercise greater prudence in drafting pleadings. The IBP‑BOG subsequently denied Atty. Go’s motion for reconsideration.

OBC Report and Recommendation

The OBC (Report and Recommendation dated October 11, 2018) reached a contrary conclusion and recommended a six‑month suspension. The OBC found that Atty. Teruel had actively participated in preparing and filing Fr. Reyes’ complaint and then filed a separate but substantially identical counter‑complaint the next day with full knowledge of the prior complaint. The OBC emphasized that substantial identity of parties or a community of interests, together with identical issues and reliefs, suffices to establish forum shopping. It held that the disclosure in Atty. Teruel’s verification did not excuse the filing of multiple identical actions and that such conduct contravened Canon 12 and Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the Lawyer’s Oath.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Forum Shopping

The Supreme Court adopted the OBC’s findings. It focused on whether Atty. Teruel committed forum shopping by preparing/filing Fr. Reyes’ complaint and then instituting his own counter‑complaint a day later, both against Atty. Go and containing essentially identical allegations. The Court reiterated the doctrinal definition of forum shopping: filing multiple suits involving the same parties and cause of action to obtain a favorable ruling or to increase chances of favorable disposition, and noted that forum shopping is present where litis pendentia exists or where a judgment in one case would operate as res judicata in another. The Court emphasized that the act of filing multiple actions — not mere docketing or acceptance by the tribunal — constitutes forum shopping, citing Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court on the required certification against forum shopping and its sanctions.

Factual Findings Supporting Willful Forum Shopping

The Court found dispositive that Atty. Teruel admitted preparing both pleadings and that the substantive portions of both complaints were almost completely the same except for complainant‑specific particulars. The Court agreed with Atty. Go’s contention that Atty. Teruel’s certification implying absence of other complaints was misleading because the counter‑complaint raised identical facts, issues and reliefs as the already filed complaint by Fr. Reyes and because there was no showing that Atty. Teruel or Fr. Reyes informed the IBP commissioner of the pending related complaint as required. Given these circumstances, the Court concluded that Atty. Teruel’s acts amounted to willful and deliberate forum shopping.

Professional Rules and Ethical Violations Found

Based on the foregoing, the Court held that Atty. Teruel violated the Lawyer’s Oath and multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, the Court found violations of Rules 12.02 (“a lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause”) and 12.04 (“a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court proces

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11119)

Case Title, Citation and Forum

Supreme Court Decision reported at 889 Phil. 1, Third Division, A.C. No. 11119, dated November 04, 2020.
Parties: Atty. Joseph Vincent T. Go (complainant) v. Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel (respondent).
Nature of case: Administrative complaint for disbarment / disciplinary proceeding for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer’s Oath; specifically alleged violations of Rules 12.02 and 12.04 and Canon 8 of the CPR (as initially alleged by complainant).

Antecedent Civil Litigation and Origins of the Administrative Complaints

The administrative complaints arose from Civil Case Nos. 1172 and 1176 for Forcible Entry with Damages pending before Branch 68, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumangas, Iloilo.
Atty. Go and Atty. Teruel were opposing counsels in the aforementioned civil cases before Branch 68, RTC Dumangas, Iloilo (source: Rollo, Vol. I, p. 157).
Atty. Go alleged, in earlier pleadings, that Atty. Teruel accused Atty. Go’s law office associate of misrepresenting the date of receipt of a Notice of Appealed Case in Civil Case No. 1176 to mislead Branch 68 that the law office’s Memorandum of Appeal was timely filed (Rollo, Vol. I, p. 24).

Administrative Complaints, Pleadings and Chronology (IBP-CBD and related filings)

April 4, 2011: Atty. Go filed an administrative Complaint (docketed IBP-CBD Case No. 11-2989) for falsification and perjury and for alleged violations of Canons 8, 10, and 11 of the CPR against Atty. Teruel (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 20–27).
May 13, 2011: Atty. Teruel filed an Answer to CBD Case No. 11-2989 (document not attached in records; see Rollo, Vol. I, p. 157 for date reference).
June 3, 2011: Atty. Go filed a Reply to the Answer in CBD Case No. 11-2989 (Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 490–526).
June 21, 2011: Rev. Fr. Antonio P. Reyes (Fr. Reyes), client of Atty. Teruel, filed a Complaint for grave professional misconduct against Atty. Go, docketed as IBP-CBD Case No. 11-3105; the Complaint was prepared by Atty. Teruel (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 132–138).
June 22, 2011: Atty. Teruel filed a Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint in CBD Case No. 11-2989 charging Atty. Go with violations of Section 20(b) and (f), Rule 138, Rules of Court, and of Canon 11 and Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of the CPR (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 78–86).
July 14, 2011: Atty. Go filed a Sur-Rejoinder and Motion for Severance in response (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 125–130).
July 29, 2011: The IBP-CBD directed Atty. Go to submit an answer in CBD Case No. 11-3105 (order not attached in records).
Atty. Go filed motions in both CBD Case Nos. 11-2989 and 11-3105 praying that Atty. Teruel and Fr. Reyes be cited for contempt and that Atty. Teruel’s Counter-Complaint and Fr. Reyes’ Complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping (Rollo, Vol. I, p. 16).
October 13, 2011: Atty. Go filed another verified Complaint against Atty. Teruel, docketed IBP-CBD No. 11-3225, alleging that Atty. Teruel’s Counter-Complaint and Fr. Reyes’ Complaint were substantially the same and both prepared by Atty. Teruel; alleged violation of Rules 12.02 and 12.04 and Canon 8 for filing multiple actions from same cause (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 2–19).
November 4, 2011: Atty. Teruel filed an Answer to the October 13 complaint (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 156–162).
November 18, 2011: Atty. Go filed a Reply reiterating that the filing of multiple actions involving the same issues is the relevant act constituting forum shopping (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 190–195).

Parties’ Principal Contentions and Arguments

Atty. Go’s contentions:
- Atty. Teruel prepared and filed two substantially identical administrative complaints (Fr. Reyes’ Complaint and Atty. Teruel’s Counter-Complaint) against Atty. Go.
- The two pleadings were substantially the same except for complainant names and personal circumstances and thus amounted to forum shopping and harassment.
- Forum shopping occurs upon the filing of multiple actions involving the same or identical causes and the submission of more than one action is the wrongful act to be penalized (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 192; 323–325).
- If Atty. Teruel were a real party-in-interest he could have joined Fr. Reyes rather than filing a separate but identical Counter-Complaint; filing multiple administrative complaints constituted harassing tactics (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 310; 318–319).
Atty. Teruel’s defenses:
- He contended he did not commit forum shopping because his Counter-Complaint was undocketed and had not been acted upon and therefore could not be treated as a complaint in applying the forum shopping rule (Rollo, Vol. I, p. 159).
- He asserted Fr. Reyes filed his Complaint in his personal capacity and Fr. Reyes was not a party in CBD Case No. 11-2989, hence no identity of parties for forum shopping.
- He asserted he disclosed, in the Verification and Certification portion of his Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint, the existence of Fr. Reyes’ Complaint against Atty. Go (Rollo, Vol. I, p. 160).

Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (IBP-CBD)

Investigating Commissioner: Peter Irving C. Corvera (identified in source).
Report and Recommendation dated July 6, 2013: found that Atty. Teruel committed forum shopping, but that Atty. Go failed to prove the forum shopping was willful and deliberate.
Rationale: Atty. Teruel’s disclosure in the Verification and Certification portion of his Counter-Complaint that Fr. Reyes had filed a Complaint indicated good faith; thus misconduct warranted dismissal of Atty. Go’s complaint against Atty. Teruel but with a warning that Atty. Teruel exercise greater prudence in drafting and filing pleadings (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 302–307; p. 306).

IBP-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) Action

Resolution No. XXI-2014-579 dated September 27, 2014: the IBP-BOG adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, dismissing Atty. Go’s Complaint for lack of merit but reminding Atty. Teruel to be more cautious in preparing pleadings and attachments (Rollo, Vol. I, p. 300).
March 30, 2015: Atty. Go filed a Motion for Reconsideration clarifying that the central issues included whether Atty. Teruel violated Rules 12.02 and 12.04 and Canon 8 and whether filing two identical complaints constituted harassment and forum shopping (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 308–327; pp. 310; 318–319).
Resolution No. XXI-2015-359 dated June 5, 2015: the IBP-BOG denied Atty. Go’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed dismissal of the complaint (Rollo, Vol. I, p. 357).

Petition to the Supreme Court and Referral to Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)

Aggrieved, Atty. Go filed a Petition assailing the IBP-BOG resolutions (under Section 12(c), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court) (Rollo, Vol. II, p. 913–914).
Supreme Court Resolution dated June 20, 2016: the Court referred the administrative case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for report and recommendation (Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 913–914).

OBC Report and Recommendation

OBC Report dated October 11, 2018: recommended that Atty. Teruel be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months (Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 915–917).
OBC findings:
- Atty. Teruel committed forum shopping because he prepared Fr. Reyes’ Complaint and, a day later, filed his own Counter-Complaint of essentially the same tenor against Atty. Go (Rollo, Vol. II, p. 916).
- Atty. Teruel was counsel of Fr. Reyes, underscoring active participation in drafting the Complaint (Rollo, Vol. II, p. 916).
- Both pleadings contained the same allegations; the OBC stated that “mere substantial identity of parties, or a community of interests between a party in the first case and a party in the subsequent case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the firs
...continue reading