SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 8319 [FORMERLY CBD CASE NO. 11-2887], September 16, 2015
DAVID WILLIAMS, Complainant, v. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8329 [FORMERLY CBD CASE NO. 11-2888]
SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS, Complainants, v. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8366 [FORMERLY CBD CASE NO. 11-2889]
SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS, Complainants, v. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court are three (3) administrative cases - A.C. No. 8319, A.C. No. 8329 and A.C. No. 8366 - filed by Spouses David and Marisa Williams (Spouses Williams) against Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez (Atty. Enriquez) which were ordered consolidated by the Court on March 1, 20101 and referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on November 15, 2010 for investigation, report and recommendation.2
In the separate Report and Recommendation,3 both dated August 4, 2011, the IBP- CBD recommended the dismissal of A.C. No. 8319 and A.C. No. 8366 for lack of merit. Concurring with the recommendations, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed both complaints, first in its September 20, 2012 Resolution,4 and second, in its February 13, 2013 Resolution.5 As no motion for reconsideration on petition for review was filed, the Court, in its November 26, 2014 Resolution,6 declared these cases, A.C. No. 8319 and A.C. No. 8366, closed and terminated.
Hence, the Court shall limit its discussion on A.C. No. 8329.
The Factual Antecedents
Spouses Williams filed a Complaint-Affidavit7 for disbarment, dated June 26, 2009, against Atty. Enriquez for 1] violation of the rule on forum shopping; and 2] purposely filing a groundless, false and unlawful suit.
Spouses Williams alleged that in December 2002, a complaint for forcible entry, docketed as Civil Case No. 390,8 was filed against them before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valencia-Bacong, Negros Oriental (MCTC), by Desiderio Briones Ventolero, Francisco Briones Ventolero, Ramon Verar, Martin Umbac, and Lucia Briones (plaintiffs), where Atty. Enriquez acted as their counsel. The case involved a parcel of land, Lot No. 2920, situated in San Miguel, Bacong, Negros Oriental. The MCTC resolved the case in favor of the plaintiffs, and on appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 44, in Dumaguete City (RTC-Br.44) affirmed the decision.9 While the case was under reconsideration, Judge Candelario V. Gonzales of RTC-Br. 44 inhibited himself and the case was re-raffled and assigned to RTC, Branch 32 (RTC-Br. 32), presided by Judge Roderick A. Maxino (Judge Maxino). On November 8, 2006, RTC-Br. 32 reversed and set aside the MCTC decision and dismissed the complaint for forcible entry against Spouses Williams.10
Spouses Williams also alleged that during the pendency of Civil Case No. 390, Atty. Enriquez instructed Paciano Ventolero Umbac (Paciano) to use death threats to chase off their caretaker and then to illegally invade Lot 2920 and destroy an old house owned by their predecessor/vendor, Orlando Verar Rian, Jr. (Orlando); that as a result, Marisa Williams (Marisa) and Orlando filed Civil Case No. 502-B for forcible entry against Paciano where a decision was rendered in their favor and a writ of execution was issued ordering Paciano to vacate the property. According to Spouses Williams, Atty. Enriquez, who was representing himself as the counsel of the plaintiffs, was nothing more than the leader of a group of usurpers, squatters and would be extortionists who were trying to punish them because they refused an earlier demand for a cash payoff.
Spouses Williams further claimed that Atty. Enriquez subsequently drafted a new complaint for forcible entry, falsely alleging that Marisa and Orlando together with two hired goons forcibly entered Lot 2920 and ejected Paciano by throwing rocks at him and hitting various parts of his body; that the two goons wrecked the old house; and that Paciano was the owner of Lot 2920 by way of successional rights from his grandparents, Aurea and Ceriaco Ventolero. Spouses Williams added that Atty. Enriquez, in order to prevent another administrative case, instructed Paciano to file the case for forcible entry on his own and he would thereafter take over as counsel of record; and that Paciano, under the direction of Atty. Enriquez, filed the complaint for forcible entry, docketed as Civil Case No. 521-B.
On May 27, 2008, the MCTC dismissed the subsequent suit on the ground of litis pendentia. It found that in Civil Case No. 390 and Civil Case No. 521-B, there was an "almost word-for-word similarity" in the two complaints; that both involved the same subject matter; that the plaintiffs in the two suits shared the same cause of action as both claimed prior physical possession; and that the parties in the two cases shared a community of interest.11
Spouses Williams asserted that although Atty. Enriquez did not sign the complaint in Civil Case No. 521-B, there was proof that he drafted it and participated in the filing of the case considering that (1) Paciano was illiterate, spoke no English, and could not possibly draft the complaint without the help of Atty. Einriquez; (2) the complaints in Civil Case No. 390 and Civil Case No. 521-B were identical, (3) the person who marked the annexes in Civil Case No. 390 and Civil Case No. 521-B had identical handwriting with that of Atty. Enriquez; and (4) the Answer to Counterclaim in Civil Case No. 521-B was prepared, verified and filed by Atty. Enriquez.
Lastly, Spouses Williams informed the Court that they previously filed an administrative case, docketed as A.C. No. 7329, against Atty. Enriquez for knowingly making untruthM statements in the complaint in Civil Case No. 390 and that the IBP suspended him for a period of one (1) year. The Court, however, in its Resolution,12 dated November 27, 2013, set aside the IBP Resolution and dismissed the administrative case.
In his Comment,13 Atty. Enriquez countered that he was merely representing the heirs of Aurea Briones Ventolero who were defending their title over Lot 2920.
At the IBP Level
In its Report and Recommendation,14 dated August 4, 2011, the IBP-CBD found that Atty. Enriquez failed to squarely refute the charge of forum shopping and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law and as a member of the Bar for six (6) months.
In its Resolution,15 dated February 13, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD finding Atty. Enriquez liable for violation of the rule on forum-shopping.chanrobleslaw
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryWHEREFORE, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is guilty of violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 2191, dated September 16, 2015.
1 SC Resolution, dated 1 March 2010, consolidating the following cases:
a) A.C. No. 8366, Spouses David and Marisa Williams v. Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez,
b) A.C. No. 8319, David Williams v. Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez,
c) A.C. No. 8329, Spouses David and Marisa Williams v. Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez,
Rollo (A.C. No. 8329), p. 83.
2 SC Resolution, dated 15 November 2010; id. at 204.
3Rollo (A.C. No. 8319), pp. 199-202; rollo (A.C. No. 8366), pp. 425-427.
4Rollo (A.C. No. 8319), p. 198.
5Rollo (A.C. No. 8366), p. 424.
6Rollo (A.C. No. 8319), pp. 205 to 206.
7Rollo, (A.C. No. 8329), pp. 2-15.
8 Annex "A" of the Complaint-Affidavit, id. at 16-25.
9 Id. at 144-152.
10 Id. at 27-39.
11 Id. at 53-54.
12 710 SCRA 620.
13Rollo (A.C. No. 8329), pp. 88-107.
14 Id. at 209-211.
15 Id. at 208.
16Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, 350 Phil. 889, 898-899 (1998).
17Lim v. Montana, 518 Phil. 361, 369 (2006).
18 Id. at 371.
19 Id.
20 Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility.
21 Rule 12.04 of Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility.
22 366 Phil. 132, 154 (1999).