RODOLFO MILLARE v Atty.

ESTAQUIO MONTERO
Disbarment, Role of Lawyers: Promoting Speedy Administration of Justice and Execution
A.C. No. 3283 July 13, 1995 Quison, J.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Pleadings and Practice; Judgment; Forum Shopping

Forum shopping exists when, by reason of an adverse decision in one forum, the defendant ventures to
another for a more favorable resolution of his case.

This is a disarmament case against Atty. Eustaquio Montero filed by Rodolfo Millare pursuant to
paragraph 2,Section 21, Rule139-B of the Revised Rule of Court Case was referred to IBP for investigation
and recommendation.

Pacifica Millare, mother of petitioner, obtained favorable judgment from Bangued MTC which ordered
Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case Co, through counsel Atty. Montero,
appealed to RTC. However, Co did not file supersede as bond or paid the rentals adjudged by MTC.

RTC denied the appeal, confirmed MTC decision.

Co appealed to CA but was dismissed.

CA ruled, Co should have filed a petition for review and not an ordinary appeal MTC decision became
final and executory on November 19, 1986.

On January 2, 1987, a Manifestation and Motion was filed by Atty. Montero argued MTC and RTC ruling
void due to 300% increase in rental being contrary to law, justice and equity.

Atty. Montero admitted his mistake in filing an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for review, prayed
that he be allowed to file an action for annulment.

February 23, 1987- CA approved of Manifestation and Motion but decided as is.

March 9, 1987 -Atty. Montero filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Decisions and/or
Reformation or Novation of Decisions of the MTC and the RTC. CA dismissed the petition.

January 15, 1988 -Atty. Montero filed Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Oral Argument
but was denied.

In November and December 1988, Atty. Montero filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari questioning the
decision of MTC and RTC. Petition was denied.

July 6, 1988 - Atty. Montero filed Motion for Issuance of Prohibition or Restraining Order because of
pending review of the case.

April 12, 1988 -Ms. Millare filed Motion of Execution, respondent opposed. August 23, 1988,MTC
ordered issuance of writ of execution. Respondent filed MOR. Writ of execution was issued Oct. 18,1988.

October 26, 1988 -respondent filed an appeal for annulment of the Execution .

October 28, 1988 -sheriff Romulo Paredes deferred the implementation of writ of execution until
certiorari is resolved. CA denied the appeal.
Whether or not the counsel was guilty of malpractice of the legal profession based on the Canons of
professional responsibility and deserves to be disbarred. Whether or not Montero violated Canon 12 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The rights of Co as Montero‘s client were fully protected and her defenses were properly ventilated
when Montero filed an appeal from the MTC to the RTC but Montero thereafter resorted to devious and
underhanded means to delay the execution of judgment by the MTC adverse to Co. Canon 12 of the CPR
provides that a lawyer is required to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial
process, like filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of
frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment.

On April 15, 1994, the IBP Board of Governors rendered a decision, finding the respondent guilty of
malpractice and recommending that Atty. Montero be suspended from the practice of law.

WHEREFORE, respondent is SUSPENDED for one year.

Canon II: Propriety, Section23. Instituting multiple cases; forum shopping.

A lawyer shall not knowingly engage or through gross negligence in forum shopping, which offends
against the administration of justice, and is a falsehood foisted upon the court, tribunal, or other
government agency. (12.02a)
A lawyer shall not institute or advise the client to institute multiple cases to gain leverage in a case, to
harass a party, to delay the proceedings, or to increase the cost of litigation. (n)

Canon II: Propriety, Section11. False representations or statements; duty to correct.

A lawyer shall correct false or inaccurate statements and information made in relation to an application
for admission to the bar, any pleading, or any other document required by or submitted to the court,
tribunal or agency, as soon as its falsity or inaccuracy is discovered or made known to him or her.