TL;DR — Ruling
We find that penalty of one (1) year suspension imposed by the BOG, is proper.
Accordingly, forum shopping may be committed in three ways: (1) through litis pendentia - filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolve yet; (2) through res judicata - filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved; and (3) splitting of causes of action - filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers - the ground to dismiss being either litis pendentia or res judicata . Common in these is the identity of causes of action defined as "the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another." [15] Here, Kare filed two (2) complaints against Tumaliuan. First , she filed the instant complaint for disbarment dealing with the proper administrative liability, if any, incurred by Tumaliuan for her acts prejudicial to the legal profession and in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, she alleged that Tumaliuan purchased her house and lot in exchange for a vehicle that turned out to be encumbered. Second , Kare filed a criminal complaint for estafa before the City Prosecutor for violation of Article 315, par. 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code dealing as it does her alleged inducement of Kare, by means of deceit, to enter into the sale of the motor vehicle previously mortgaged in BDO's favor. Evidently, the rule on forum shopping finds no proper application for while the two cases are based on the same essential facts and circumstances, they do not raise identical causes of action and issues. Well settled is the rule that a single act may offend against two or more distinct and related provisions of law, or that the same act may give rise to criminal as well as administrative liability. As such, they may be prosecuted simultaneously or one after another, so long as they do not place the accused in double jeopardy of being punished for the same offense. [16] Being entirely different proceedings, moreover, the dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily foreclose the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts which were the subject of the administrative complaint. [17] As for the accusations of dishonesty against Tumaliuan, We find that penalty of one (1) year suspension imposed by the BOG, is proper. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide: CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In the present case, Tumaliuan purchased a house and lot in 2009 owned by Kare for P7,100,000.00 and as part of her payment, she gave the latter a motor vehicle they agreed to value at P900,000.00. It turns out, however, that said vehicle was actually mortgaged in favor of BDO for a loan obtained by Tumaliuan in 2007 in the
A.C. No. 9115 - REBECCA MARIE UY YUPANGCO-NAKPIL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.C. No. 9115
CaseA.C. No. 7676 - AMADO T. DIZON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NORLITA DE TAZA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.C. No. 7676
CaseA.C. No. 11583 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2878] - PILAR C. PROSPERO AND CLARINDA P. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JOAQUIN L. DELOS SANTOS AND ATTY. ROBERTO A. SAN JOSE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.C. No. 11583