John Siy Lim vs. Atty. Carmelito A.
Montano final and executory decision on his clients‘ rights,
A.C. No. 5653, February 27, 2006
FACTS: Complainant John Siy Lim was the
defendant in a civil case for reformation of
contract, quieting of title. The subject of the
dispute was a 650-square meter conjugal lot.
RTC ruled in favor of Lim, and declared that the
deed of sale was an absolute and unconditional
conveyance of subject property by the plaintiff in
favor of such defendant. On motion for
reconsideration, however, the trial court reversed
itself and declared that the sale was in fact an
equitable mortgage.
Lim appealed the case to the Court of Appeals
which reversed the ruling of the RTC. The
aggrieved party elevated the matter to this Court
which affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Respondent Atty. Montano filed a Notice of
Appearanceas counsel of Tuazon (the losing party)
He filed, in behalf of his client, a "Motion to
Comply to Decision without Writ‖ and a
Complaintfor nullity of TCT and other documents,
reconveyance, maintenance of physical possession
which the trial court denied.
This prompted the Lim to file the instant
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Montano.
Lim alleged that Atty. Montano filed the complaint
in out of malice, pointing out that it involves "the
same parties, the same causes of action and relief
prayed for as that of first civil case.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Montano is guilty of forum
shopping and therefore administratively liable
HELD: Yes. By his own admission, he was aware
that first civil case was already final and
executory when he filed the second case. His
allegation that he "was not the original counsel of
his clients" and that "when he filed the subsequent
case for nullity of TCT, his motive was to protect
the rights of his clients whom he believed were
not properly addressed in the prior case for
reformation and quieting of title," deserves scant
consideration. As a responsible member of the
bar, he should have explained the effect of such
instead of encouraging them to file another case
involving the same property and asserting the
same rights.
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. An important factor in
determining its existence is the vexation caused to
the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of
similar cases to claim substantially the same
reliefs.
Atty. Montano should have realized that the
ruling of the Court in Tuazon v. Court of Appeals
effectively determined with finality the rights and
obligations of the parties under the questioned
deed of sale.
The filing of another action concerning the same
subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires a
lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. Lawyers should be
reminded that their primary duty is to assist the
courts in the administration of justice. Any
conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct
the administration of justice contravenes such
lawyer‘s duty.
Mario S. Mariveles vs. Atty. Odilon C. Mallari

A.C. No. 3294 February 17, 1993

FACTS: Mariveles (petitioner) engaged the

services of Atty. Mallari (respondent) to handle his
defense in the RTC where he was charged for
violating B.P. Blg. 22. After an adverse decision
was rendered therein, Mariveles instructed Atty.
Mallari to appeal said the decision to the CA,
which the latter did.

However, in the CA, despite numerous extensions

of time, totaling 245 days, Atty. Mallari failed to
file the appellant‘s brief, resulting in the dismissal
of the appeal. Mariveles discovered his lawyer‘s
desertion only when he was subpoenaed by the
trial court to appear before it for the execution of
the decision which had become final.

Through new counsel, Mariveles filed a petition to

reinstate his appeal, cancel the entry of judgment
and accept his brief, but it was denied. He sought
relief in the SC which granted his petition, ruling
that: ―the failure of petitioner‘s former counsel
to file the brief xxx amounted to deliberate
abandonment of his client‘s interest‖ which
justified the reinstatement of Mariveles‘ appeal
through a new counsel.

ISSUE/S: WON what Atty. Mallari committed (or

what he failed to do) is a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. He is guilty of abandonment and

dereliction of duty toward his client and is hereby
DISBARRED.

RATIO: Atty. Mallari demonstrated not only

appalling indifference and lack of responsibility to
the courts and his client but also a shameless
disregard to his duties as a lawyer.

A lawyer has no business practicing his profession

if in the course of that practice, he will eventually
wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his
client and thus disgrace the law profession.