8/18/2019 Anastacio n. Teodoro III vs. Atty. Romeo s. Gonzales the Issue

1/2

The Issue

The case directly poses to us the question of whether Atty. Gonzales committed forum shopping and thereby

violated the Code of Professional esponsibility.

The Courts uling

!e agree with the findings of the commissioner and accordingly reverse the resolution of the I"P "oard of

Governors# but we modify the commissioners recommended penalty to censure and a warning that another

violation would merit a more severe penalty.

$orum shopping e%ists when# as a result of an adverse decision in one forum# or in anticipation thereof# a

party see&s a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari.'(r(l)

There is forum shopping when the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final *udgment in one

case will amount to res *udicata in another. They are as follows+ ,a- identity of parties# or at least such

parties that represent the same interests in both actions# ,b- identity of rights or causes of action# and ,c-

identity of relief sought.(r(l)

/nder this test# we find that Atty. Gonzales committed forum shopping when he filed Civil Case 0o. 112314 while 5pecial Proceeding 0o. 266'4 was pending.

Identity of Parties

An identity of parties e%ists in 5pecial Proceeding 0o. 266'4 and Civil Case 0o. 112314. In both cases#

the initiating parties are the same# to wit+ Carmen# 7onato# Teodoro28arcial# 9orge I. Teodoro# owena

Teodoro# Abigail Teodoro and 9orge T. Teodoro. They represented the same interest in both cases. All claimed

to be the legitimate heirs of 8anuela and co2owners of the land that she held in trust for them.

8eanwhile# Anastacio# the oppositor in 5pecial Proceeding 0o. 266'4# is also the sole defendant in Civil

Case 0o. 112314. In both cases# he espoused the same interest# as transferee2owner of the lot allegedly

held in trust by 8anuela.

Identity of causes of action

The test of identity of causes of action does not depend on the form of an action ta&en# but on whether the

same evidence would support and establish the former and the present causes of action.)1 The heirs of

8anuela cannot avoid the application of res *udicata by simply varying the form of their action or by

adopting a different method of presenting it.))(r(l)

In 5pecial Proceeding 0o. 266'4# the trial court held that it had no *urisdiction over the case# as 8anuela

left no properties at the time of her death. The lot in 8alate# 8anila# which was the sole property that the

heirs of 8anuela claim should be included in her estate# has been sold to ogelio and Anastacio when

8anuela was still alive. The trial court did not give credence to their claim that 8anuela held the property in

trust for them.

8eanwhile# in Civil Case 0o. 112314# the trial court issued an order granting Anastacios 8otion for

7emurrer to :vidence. It held that the heirs of 8anuela had been unable to prove their claim that 8anuela

held the lot in trust for their benefit. 0either were they able to prove that the sale of a portion of the lot to

Anastacio was void.

In both cases# the issue of whether 8anuela held the lot in 8alate# 8anila in trust had to be decided by the

trial court. The initiating parties claim in the two cases depended on the e%istence of the trust 8anuela

allegedly held in their favor. Thus# the evidence necessary to prove their claim was the same.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=115#fnt8

8/18/2019 Anastacio n. Teodoro III vs. Atty. Romeo s. Gonzales the Issue

2/2

Identity of relief sought

In 5pecial Proceeding 0o. 266'4# the heirs of 8anuela prayed for the issuance of letters of

administration# the liquidation of 8anuelas estate# and its distribution among her legal heirs.

8eanwhile# in Civil Case 0o. 112314# the heirs of 8anuela as&ed for the annulment of the deed of

absolute sale 8anuela e%ecuted in favor of Anastacio. They li&ewise as&ed the court to cancel the resultingTransfer Certificate of Title issued in favor of the latter# and to issue a new one in their names.

!hile the reliefs prayed for in the initiatory pleadings of the two cases are different in form# a ruling in one

case would have resolved the other# and vice versa. To illustrate# had the lot been declared as part of the

estate of 8anuela in 5pecial Proceeding 0o. 266'4# there would have been no need for a decision

annulling the sale in Civil Case 0o. 112314. Conversely# had the sale in Civil Case 0o. 112314 been

annulled# then the property would go bac& to the hands of the heirs of 8anuela. Placing the property under

administration# as prayed for in 5pecial Proceeding 0o. 266'4# would have been unnecessary.

Thus# the relief prayed for# the facts upon which it is based# and the parties are substantially similar in the

two cases. 5ince the elements of litis pendentia and res *udicata are present# Atty. Gonzales committed

forum shopping when he filed Civil Case 0o. 112314 without indicating that 5pecial Proceeding 0o. 2

66'4 was still pending.