TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Eliseo Magno C. Salva is found GUILTY of violating Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Eliseo Magno C. Salva is found GUILTY of violating Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. [13] In a Resolution [14] dated April 20, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors denied the MR. Hence, this case before the Court. The Court's Ruling The Court disagrees with the IBP. The disbarment complaint should be dismissed in view of the ruling in A.C. No. 9809. At the outset, the Court notes that in the instant disbarment complaint filed by Pabalan in CBD Case No. 11-3282, she manifested that she had been a witness in the disbarment complaint filed by Benito against Salva in CBD Case No. 09-2382: 3. When CBD Case No. 09-2382 was filed by Mr. Benito against the Respondent herein, Complainant and her "SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY" was integrated therein as one of the witnesses (WITNESS L) and her information therein were marked as Annex-A thru Annex-H[.] Complainant could have remained only as a witness had it not been for Ms[.] CHERRY REYES-ABASTILLAS who filed a Disbarment Case (CBD Case No. 11-3098) against this same Respondent for the maltreatment and mental anguish she suffered from him; that this Complainant had come to realize how she was gravely abused by Respondent that it is only warranted that she file her Claims and Complaint directly herself like her other co-victims . [15] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Court also notes that Pabalan issued an "Appointment Paper" [16] where she designated Benito as her attorney-in-fact to represent her in the cases she filed before the IBP, RTC, and MTC against Salva, which include the instant disbarment complaint. In his Answer in the instant case, Salva raised forum shopping as an affirmative defense. This, along with Pabalan's manifestation, should have been enough to alert the IBP. Indeed, the IBP should have already dismissed the instant disbarment complaint because the same grounds raised by Pabalan were already contained in her Sinumpaang Salaysay [17] as a witness in CBD Case No. 09-2382. The instant complaint even contains the same annexes as those attached to her Sinumpaang Salaysay . While Pabalan's allegations were only part of the many other allegations raised by Benito in CBD Case No. 09-2382, Salva was able to address Pabalan's allegations in his Answer [18] therein. In fact, he even devoted the last few pages of said Answer as a Reply to Pabalan's Sinumpaang Salaysay . [19] Further, before the Investigating Commissioner issued his Report and Recommendation on November 20, 2012, Salva filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 17, 2012 where he informed the IBP that a Report and Recommendation [20] on CBD Case No. 09-2382 was already issued on April 11, 2011, which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors on June 28, 2012. [21] The relevant portions of the IBP Report in CBD Case No. 0