A.C. No. 12161 - Villanueva vs. Alentajan

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12161)

Procedural History (Civil, Criminal, and Disciplinary Matters)

The heirs initiated Civil Case No. Q-05-5629 (annulment of foreclosure proceedings, certificate of sale, and transfer certificate of title) on September 6, 2005; the RTC (Branch 77) dismissed the complaint (Order dated January 28, 2008), the Court of Appeals affirmed (Decision dated November 6, 2009), and the Supreme Court denied review (Resolution dated July 26, 2010) with Entry of Judgment on September 22, 2010. Despite finality, the heirs filed Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV (reconveyance and annulment of title) on July 26, 2013; the RTC (Branch 90) dismissed it (Order dated November 12, 2013). Multiple criminal complaints and a contempt petition initiated by the heirs (with Atty. Alentajan’s assistance) against COCOLIFE officers were likewise dismissed by the respective prosecutors and courts for insufficiency of evidence or lack of merit between 2013 and 2014. COCOLIFE, through Villanueva, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Alentajan on October 2, 2014. The IBP Investigating Commissioner reported on June 30, 2015 recommending suspension; the IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation (Resolution No. XXII-2017-1170, June 17, 2017) and suspended Atty. Alentajan for three months. The IBP forwarded the case to the Supreme Court under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, and the Supreme Court rendered its decision.

IBP Report and Recommendation

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Alentajan violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10, and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and recommended a three-month suspension from the practice of law with a warning against repetition. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and imposed a three-month suspension.

Issues Presented to the Court

Whether Atty. Alentajan committed the acts charged (principally forum shopping and related professional misconduct).
Whether the complainant (Villanueva/COCOLIFE) had authority to file the disbarment case.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Forum Shopping and Res Judicata

The Court applied established principles: forum shopping exists where, after an adverse decision or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum by means other than appeal or certiorari. The Court restated the elements of res judicata (identity of parties, identity of rights or causes of action, and identity of reliefs sought) as the test for litis pendencia/forum shopping. Applying this test, the Court found: (a) identity of parties — the same heirs initiated both Civil Case No. Q-05-5629 and Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV against COCOLIFE; (b) identity of causes of action — the evidence required to sustain the later reconveyance claim was essentially the same as that presented in the earlier annulment-of-foreclosure case, and a mere change in form of action does not avoid res judicata; and (c) identity of reliefs — both cases sought nullification of the foreclosure/transfer and restoration of title. Because the earlier decision (Civil Case No. Q-05-5629) had become final and executory (Entry of Judgment dated September 22, 2010), the subsequent filing was barred. The filing of Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV without disclosing the prior final judgment constituted forum shopping.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Professional Duty and Misuse of Court Processes

The Court emphasized a lawyer’s primary duty to assist courts in the administration of justice and to obey laws and legal processes (Canon 1). It held that the willful filing of multiple actions concerning the same subject matter, thereby misusing judicial processes to delay or obstruct justice, contravenes Canon 1 and the specific procedural and ethical rules cited (Rule 10.03, Rule 12.02, and Rule 12.04 of the CPR). The Court considered that Atty. Alentajan not only filed the barred civil action but also assisted in filing parallel criminal complaints and a contempt petition, all of which were dismissed — conduct that evidenced an abuse of court processes and deliberate forum shopping.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Proper Initiators of Disbarment Proceedings

Addressing the contention that Villanueva lacked authority to represent COCOLIFE in initiating the disbarment action, the Court reiterated the well-established rule that anyone interested or the Court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar. Disbarment and disciplinary proceedings are sui generis and concern public interest; the “complainant” functions effectively as a witness or informant rather than as a party with proprietary rights to the proceeding. Consequently, the question of Villanueva’s authority to act for COCOLIFE was immaterial to the propriety of the disciplinary proceedings.

Disposition and Sanction

The Court agreed with the IBP findings and found Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 10.3 of Canon 10, and Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for three months, effective upon receipt of the decision, and given a stern warning that repetition would be d

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 12161)

Procedural History

On September 6, 2005, Erlinda Marquez, in her personal capacity and as attorney-in-fact of Bienvenido O. Marquez IV, Anna Corina Gisela O. Marquez, and Paz Louella Erica Beatriz O. Marquez, filed a complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings, certificate of sale, and transfer certificate of title against United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corporation (COCOLIFE), the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Quezon City; docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-5629. [Rollo citations provided in source]
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77, dismissed that complaint in an Order dated January 28, 2008. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a Decision dated November 6, 2009. A petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied in a Resolution dated July 26, 2010, which became final and executory upon Entry of Judgment on September 22, 2010.
On July 26, 2013, the heirs of Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr. (Erlinda, Paz, Anna, and Bienvenido IV), with the assistance of Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan, filed a new complaint for reconveyance and annulment of title with application for preliminary injunction and prayer for temporary restraining order before RTC Branch 90 of Quezon City; docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV. That complaint was dismissed by the RTC in an Order dated November 12, 2013.
Erlinda, assisted by Atty. Alentajan, filed a criminal complaint for violation of Sections 1 and 36 of R.A. No. 7653 in relation to Sections 4 and 6 of R.A. No. 3765 against officers of COCOLIFE-Insurance; this complaint was dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Makati City in a Resolution dated July 2, 2014 for lack of merit. Her motion for reconsideration was denied by the OCP in an Order dated September 16, 2014.
Another criminal complaint for violation of Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code (robbery in an uninhabited place or private building) was filed against officers of COCOLIFE-Insurance; the OCP of Quezon City dismissed this complaint for insufficiency of evidence in a Resolution dated January 17, 2014.
A Petition for Contempt against officers of COCOLIFE-Insurance, filed by the heirs through Erlinda and Atty. Alentajan, was dismissed by RTC Branch 92 of Quezon City in an Order dated March 24, 2014 in view of the dismissal of the reconveyance complaint before RTC Branch 90 and denial of the TRO application.
On October 2, 2014, COCOLIFE, represented by Guillermo Villanueva, filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Alentajan before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging forum shopping and related misconduct in multiple filings and false certifications.
Atty. Alentajan filed an Answer averring, among other things, that the sworn statement of Amado E. Tayag was falsified and that the COCOLIFE board Resolution dated April 26, 2011 did not authorize Villanueva to file the disbarment case and referred to a different legal action.
The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP issued a Report and Recommendation dated June 30, 2015 finding Atty. Alentajan guilty of violating specified provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule of Court provisions, and recommending suspension for three months with warning.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation in Resolution No. XXII-2017-1170 passed on June 17, 2017 and suspended Atty. Alentajan for three months. The IBP forwarded the case to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

Factual Background and Parties

The dispute centers on a real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 79724 registered in the name of Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr. and Erlinda O. Marquez.
The initiating parties in the civil actions were the heirs of Bienvenido O. Marquez, Jr.: Erlinda, Paz, Anna, and Bienvenido IV, who claimed to be legitimate heirs and co-owners of the subject property.
COCOLIFE was the transferee-owner of the real property and the sole private respondent in the civil cases referenced.
Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan acted as counsel and assisted the heirs in filing multiple civil and criminal actions related to the same property and in pursuit of similar reliefs.

Allegations Against Atty. Alentajan

COCOLIFE alleged that Atty. Alentajan engaged in forum shopping by filing Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV despite an existing final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. Q-05-5629 concerning the same subject property and issues.
The disbarment complaint asserted that the verification/certification of the RTC Branch 90 complaint failed to state that a prior action involving the same property between the same parties and issues had already been commenced, and that a subsequent false certification was filed for the Petition for Contempt before RTC Branch 92.
Atty. Alentajan was charged with unlawful conduct as an officer of the court, violation of his oath, breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
The complaint characterized Atty. Alentajan’s conduct as filing multiple actions in different courts with the same subject matter, thereby abusing court processes.

Atty. Alentajan’s Defense

Atty. Alentajan asserted that the sworn statement of Amado E. Tayag was falsified and fabricated, arguing that the COCOLIFE board Resolution dated April 26, 2011 did not authorize Tayag or Villanueva to file the disbarment case.
He contended that the April 26, 2011 resolution referred to a different legal action t