Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 6377 March 12, 2007
RUFA C. SUAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RICARDO D. GONZALEZ, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The instant administrative complaint filed by Rufa C. Suan charges respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, perjury and forum shopping, and prays for his suspension or disbarment. Complainant is a Director and Vice President of Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc., a rural banking corporation with principal place of business at Montilla Blvd., Butuan City, while respondent is one of its stockholders.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On February 11, 2004, respondent filed a case for Mandamus, Computation of Interests, Enforcement of Inspection, Dividend and Appraisal Rights, Damages and Attorney’s Fees against the Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 33, praying, inter alia, that a temporary restraining order be issued enjoining the conduct of the annual stockholders’ meeting and the holding of the election of the Board of Directors.
On February 14, 2004, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) conditioned upon respondent’s posting of a bond. Thereafter, respondent submitted JCL Bond No. 01626 issued by Stronghold Insurance Company, Incorporated (SICI) together with a Certification issued by then Court Administrator, now Associate Justice, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. that, according to the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Butuan City, SICI has no pending obligation and/or liability to the government insofar as confiscated bonds in civil and criminal cases are concerned.
Based on the foregoing, Suan filed this complaint alleging that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct when he submitted the certification to the RTC despite knowing that the same is applicable only for transactions before the MTCC; and that the bond was defective because it was released by SICI despite respondent’s failure to put up the required ₱100,000.00 collateral.
Suan also claimed that in the complaint filed by respondent, together with Eduardo, Purisima, Ruben, and Manuel, all surnamed Tan, before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) against Ismael E. Andaya and the members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc. for alleged gross violation of the principles of good corporate governance, they represented themselves as the bank’s minority stockholders with a total holdings amounting to more or less ₱5 million while the controlling stockholders own approximately 80% of the authorized capital stock.
Suan averred that respondent committed perjury because the above allegations were allegedly inconsistent with respondent’s averments in the complaint pending before the RTC where he claimed that the majority stockholders own 70% ( and not 80%) of the outstanding capital stock of the Rural Green Bank of Caraga, Inc. while the minority stockholders’ stake amounted to ₱6 million (and not ₱5 million).
Complainant finally claimed that respondent is guilty of forum shopping because the causes of action of the cases he filed before the RTC and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas are the same.
Respondent denied the allegations against him. He alleged that it was the bonding company which inadvertently attached the certification pertaining to the MTCC; that when he discovered the inadvertence, he immediately filed with the RTC an ex-parte motion to replace the certification with the one pertaining to the RTC; that he had satisfactorily complied with the requirements of SICI as shown in the letter of Ms. Evelyn R. Ramirez, SICI’s Officer-in-Charge, dated March 19, 2004; that there is no inconsistency in the allegations contained in the complaints pending before the RTC and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas thus he could not be held liable for perjury; that there is no forum shopping because the causes of action and the reliefs prayed for in the cases pending before the trial court and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas are different; and that it is complainant who is guilty of forum shopping since this is the second disbarment suit that she filed against him.
In her Reply, complainant insisted that she is not guilty of forum shopping; that she only filed one disbarment suit against respondent while the other two suits were filed by Joseph Omar Andaya and Dr. Arturo Cruz based on different acts committed by the respondent.
On December 1, 2004, the instant administrative complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. After the mandatory conference, the parties were directed to submit their respective position papers. In a Report and Recommendation dated September 20, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the administrative complaint be dismissed because complainant failed to prove by strong and substantial evidence the imputations of dishonesty against the respondent.
In its Resolution dated December 17, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP approved the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant is now before us on appeal praying for the reversal and setting aside of the assailed Resolution arguing that it failed to state clearly the facts and the reasons on which it is based and that the evidence she presented were ignored and not considered.
Complainant maintains that contrary to the findings of the IBP, respondent’s act of submitting a wrong certification to the RTC, relative to SICI’s capacity to issue bonds, was deliberate and with intent to mislead, thereby constituting a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She claims that respondent who is interested in the issuance of a temporary restraining order is expected to examine all the documents as well as the attachments, hence there is no reason why he would "inadvertently" attach the certification intended for the MTCC.
We are not persuaded.
Complainant’s insistence that respondent deliberately attached the MTCC certification instead of the RTC certification lacks merit. We are inclined to believe the findings of the IBP that the MTCC certification was inadvertently attached and that it was not deliberate. Indeed, respondent as well as every litigant is expected to examine all the documents he files in court. However, not every mistake or oversight he commits should be deemed dishonest, deceitful or deliberate so as to mislead the court. Respondent has nothing to gain by submitting the wrong certification. On the contrary, he runs the risk that his complaint be dismissed or denied outright.
There is no reason for respondent, or even the bonding company, to attach the wrong certification as the latter was equally qualified to issue bonds in civil or criminal cases pending before the RTC. Further, what militates against complainant’s insistence that the filing of the wrong certification was deliberate and with intent to deceive was the fact that after respondent knew of the inadvertence he immediately filed a manifestation with motion that the same be replaced with the certification applicable to the RTC.
It is well-settled that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.1 In the instant case, complainant Suan failed to show that respondent willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct. She failed to show not only the dubious character of the act done but the motivation as well.2
Complainant next claims that the injunction bond was wrongfully released to respondent by SICI as the latter failed to put up the required collateral, as shown in the February 28, 2004 letter of Evelyn R. Ramirez which the IBP allegedly ignored. She also insists that protesting the propriety of the bond before the trial court is not a pre-requisite to the filing of the instant administrative complaint. Besides, she argues that it would have been futile to file a protest before the trial court considering that she knew of the defects in the issuance of the injunction bond long after the bond has expired.
The argument is without merit.
The IBP correctly disregarded the February 28, 2004 letter of Ramirez considering that on March 19, 2004, Ramirez wrote another letter to the trial court informing the latter of respondent’s compliance with the required collateral.
Anent the allegation of perjury, the same is likewise bereft of merit. In the case of Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice,3 the Court held that a mere assertion of a false, objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough to warrant a finding of perjury, thus:
There are two essential elements of proof for perjury: (1) the statement made by the defendants must be proven false; and (2) it must be proven that the defendant did not believe those statements to be true.
x x x x
A conviction for perjury cannot be sustained merely upon the contradictory sworn statements of the accused. The prosecution must prove which of the two statements is false and must show the statement to be false by other evidence than the contradicting statement.4 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, it is necessary that there must be contradictory statements for perjury to exist. In the instant case, we find that respondent made no contradicting statements. Indeed, he alleged in the complaint before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas that the minority stockholders own more or less ₱5 million while the controlling stockholders own approximately 80% of the authorized capital stock. These figures are mere estimates and in no way contradict respondent’s allegations in the complaint pending before the RTC that the minority’s stake is ₱6 million while the majority’s stockholdings is 70% of the outstanding capital stock.
Besides, for perjury to prosper it is necessary that complainant prove the falsity of the statements and that respondent did not believe any of the statements to be true. We find that complainant failed to meet the required standard of proof to sustain the charge of perjury. The IBP correctly noted that no malice was shown when respondent made the foregoing allegations and that respondent’s failure to allege the exact shareholdings was due to the bank’s refusal to allow respondent to inspect the books.
We agree with the findings of the IBP that there is no forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.5 There is forum shopping when, between an action pending before this Court and another one, there exist: a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; and said requisites also constitutive of lis pendens.6
The filing of the intra-corporate case before the RTC does not amount to forum-shopping. It is a formal demand of respondent’s legal rights in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law with respect to the controversy involved.7 The relief sought in the case is primarily to compel the bank to disclose its stockholdings, to allow them the inspection of corporate books and records, and the payment of damages. It was also prayed that a TRO be issued to enjoin the holding of the annual stockholder’s meeting and the election of the members of the Board, which, only courts of justice can issue.
On the other hand, the complaint filed with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas was an invocation of the BSP’s supervisory powers over banking operations which does not amount to a judicial proceeding. It brought to the attention of the BSP the alleged questionable actions of the bank’s Board of Directors in violation of the principles of good corporate governance. It prayed for the conduct of an investigation over the alleged unsafe and unsound business practices of the bank and to make necessary corrective measures to prevent the collapse of the bank.
As such, the two proceedings are of different nature praying for different relief. Likewise, a ruling by the BSP concerning the soundness of the bank operations will not adversely or directly affect the resolution of the intra-corporate controversies pending before the trial court.
Furthermore, to merit disciplinary action, forum shopping must be willful and deliberate.8 Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires that, should there be any pending action or claim before any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, a complete statement of its status should be given. The Certification of Non-Forum-shopping attached by respondent substantially complied with this requirement by providing therein that he has also filed a Complaint before the BSP. Likewise, such disclosure negates the allegation that he willfully and deliberately committed forum-shopping.
It bears stressing that disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest, undertaken for public welfare and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of the persons unfit to practice them.9 However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in a clear case of misconduct which seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar.10
ACCORDINGLY, we AFFIRM the Resolution dated December 17, 1005, of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommending the dismissal of the instant complaint for disbarment/suspension against respondent ATTY. RICARDO D. GONZALEZ for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Asscociate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Footnotes
1 Concepion v. Fandiño, Jr., 389 Phil. 474, 481 (2000).
2 Rudecon Management Corporation v. Camacho, Adm. Case No. 6403, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 202, 208.
3 G.R. No. 162187, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 495.
4 Id. at 514.
5 Tiboli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. v. Solilapsi, 442 Phil. 499, 507 (2002).
6 Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 131247, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 74, 83-84.
7 Supena v. De La Rosa, 334 Phil. 671, 677 (1997).
8 SECTION 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
9 Urban Bank, Inc. v. Peña, 417 Phil. 70, 77 (2001).
10 Resurreccion v. Sayson, 360 Phil. 313, 321 (1998).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
