A.C. No. 8037 - RE: DECISION DATED AUGUST 19, 2008, 3RD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 79904 [HON. DIONISIO DONATO T. GARCIANO, ET AL. V. HON. PATERNO G. TIAMSON, ETC., ET AL.], VS. ATTY. JOSE DE G. FERRER.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is summarily Dismissed with prejudice . Petitioners and Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer are hereby found guilty of direct contempt of court for which a maximum fine of P2,000.00 is imposed upon them, payable within 5 days from receipt of this decision. Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation and appropriate disciplinary action against Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer. [45] (Emphasis in the original) In the Indorsement dated September 1, 2008, Alicia A. Risos-Vidal, Director for Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, forwarded the Notice of Judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR S.P. No. 79904 to the Office of the Bar Confidant. [46] On November 19, 2008, this court resolved to note the Indorsement and treat the Notice of Judgment as an administrative complaint against Atty. Ferrer. [47] Atty. Ferrer was ordered to comment on the administrative complaint. [48] In his Comment, he states that he acted in good faith in the simultaneous filing of the Second Petition and the urgent ex-parte Motion to withdraw Garciano, et al.'s First Petition [49] He alleges that he withdrew the First Petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 79752 on October 16, 2003, the same day he filed the Second Petition docketed as CA-GR. S.P No. 79904. [50] Atty. Ferrer states that there was an urgent need to file the Second Petition as the First Petition was verified by only one petitioner instead of four. [51] He also claims that the technical defect may have hampered the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order. [52] Thus, he deems that it was "more realistic and expedient" to file the Second Petition and simultaneously withdraw the First Petition rather than amend the First Petition. [53] He states that amending the First Petition would have required a hearing before it could be admitted as basis for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. [54] Atty. Ferrer adds that by filing the Motion to withdraw the First Petition on the same day as the filing of the Second Petition, he substantially complied with the rule against forum shopping. [55] He asserts that he was acting in the best interest of his clients, whose "liberty [were] then at stake and time was of the essence." [56] As the withdrawal of the First Petition and the filing of the Second Petition were made simultaneously and not one day after another, Atty. Ferrer claims that it was unlikely to have conflicting decisions rendered by different courts on the same issue. [57] Finally, Atty. Ferrer states that there was no violation of the rule against forum shopping because the First and Second Petitions were not filed before different tribunals, although the Eleventh and Third Divisions of the Court of Appeals are technically separate from each other. [58] He states that forum shopping takes place when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than appeal or certiorari) in an