’3. That complainant is the ‘3. Complainant is counsel for Helen
President of the Landless Farmers Tribal Balani, President of the Landless
Development, Inc., a duly organized Farmers Tribal Development, Inc., a
and registered non-stock corporation duly organized and registered non-stock
under the laws of the Republic of the corporation under the laws of the
Philippines, whose members are Republic of the Philippines, whose
farmers of the national cultural members and farmers of the national
minorities, who have occupied and cultural minorities, who have occupied,
cultivated a public land, Lot 3047 cultivated and planted a public land, Lot
covering an area of two hundred (200) 3047, covering an area of 200 hundred
hectares, more or less, since early hectares, more or less, since early
1950s, pursuant to Section 44 of the 1950s, pursuant to Section 44 of the
Public Land Act; Public Land Act;
’4. That on July 22, 1981, a ‘4. On July 22, 1981, a certain
certain TIMOTEO QUIMPO without the TIMOTEO QUIMPO, without the
knowledge of the occupants in Lot knowledge of the occupants on said
3047, secured the decree of registration public land, Lot 3047, secured the
on same, for which OCT No. 0-792 was decree of registration on same, for
issued and registered with the Register which the Register of Deeds, Cagayan
of Deeds, Cagayan de Oro City, copy of de Oro City, issued OCT No. 0-792,
which is attached hereto as ANNEX ‘A;’ copy of which is attached, hereto as
ANNEX ‘A’ on its application for
Registration of Title is attached hereto
as ANNEX ‘B:’
’5. That on May 11, 1982, ‘5. On May 11, 1982, Helen Balani,
respondent Atty. Erasto Salcedo, as counsel head and leader of the cultural minority
for occupants in Lot 3047, seasonably farmers, hired Atty. Erasto Salcedo to
caused the annotation of the notice of cause the annotation of the notice of lis
lis pendens, Petition for Review on the pendens, Entry No. 98909, Petition for
decree of registration of OCT No. Review on the decree of registration of
0-792, pursuant to Section 332, PD OCT No. 0-792, pursuant to Sec. 32,
1529, which appear encircled on PD 1529, which appear encircled as
ANNEX ‘A’ as ANNEX ‘A-1;’ ANNEX ‘A-1;’
’6. That pursuant to an alleged ‘6. Despite the ‘notice of lis pendens’
Barter-Agreement Xavier University, Xavier University, Inc. acquired the
Inc. and TIMOTEO QUIMPO, TCT property, Lot 3047, from Timoteo
No. T-51944 was issued by the Register Quimpo, for which on March 25, 1988
of Deeds, Cagayan de Oro City on TCT No. T-51944 and TCT No.
March 25, 1988, copy of which is ‘B,’ T-51945 was issued by the Register of
and the lis pendens carried over, appear Deeds, Cagayan de Oro City, copy of
on ANNEX ‘B’ as ANNEX ‘b-1;’ TCT No. T-51944 is attached hereto as
ANNEX ‘C;’
’7. That respondent Atty. Erasto ‘7. On February 27, 1992, Helen
Salcedo was discharged as counsel for Balani, Et Al., discontented and
occupants in Lot 3047, by HELEN suspicious of Atty. Erasto Salcedo, filed
BALANI (Complainant) on February with the Court of Appeals a Motion to
27, 1992; Discharge him, which the Court of
Appeals granted pursuant to Resolution
dated 18 March 1992, copy of which is
attached hereto as ANNEX ‘D;’
’8. That on April 27, 1992, Xavier ‘8. On April 27, 1992, Atty. Jesus
University, Agana filed in Regional Agana, as counsel for Xavier
Trial Court, Br. 23, Cagayan de Oro University, Inc., filed in Regional Trial
City, a Petition for Cancellation of Court, Br. 23, Cagayan Oro City, a
Notice of Lis Pendens annotated on PETITION for cancellation of the
TCT No. T-51944, supported by a notice of lis pendens annotated on
‘PETITION’ executed by praying that Xavier University, Inc. TCT No.
said annotation on OCT No. 0-792 and T-51944 and TCT No. 51945,
subsequent TCT No. 51944 and TCT supported by a PETITION, executed by
No. 51945 be canceled, copy of which Atty. Erasto Salcedo without the
is attached hereto as ANNEX ‘C,’ knowledge of Helen Balani, Abundio
Caballero, Et. Al. and not verified by
them who cause(d) the annotation of the
notice of lis pendens on May 11, 1982.
Copy of PETITION for cancellation is
attached hereto as ANNEX ‘E,’
unverified PETITION executed by
Atty. Salcedo, as ANNEX ‘F’
’9. That as a result, on the strength ‘9. On the strength of the unverified
said ‘PETITION,’ Regional Trial Court, ‘PETITION,’ it is strange that the
Br. 23 issued Order dated June 11, Regional Trial Court, Br. 23, granted
1992, copy of which is attached hereto the cancellation of the notice of lis
as ANNEX ‘D,’ quoted hereunder: pendens, EX-PARTE, manifest in the
Order dated June 11, 1992, copy of
which is attached hereto as ANNEX ‘G;’
‘. . . Hence, the entry of notice of lis
pendens on OCT No. 0-792, under
Entry No. 98909, which was carried
over to Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-51944 and T-51945, with latter
titles being the products from the
old title, Original Certificate of Title
No. 0-792, the same are hereby
ordered cancelled . . .’
’10. That on August 28, 1992, [Note: This could not be re-alleged as
Complainants through counsel filed a said Petition for Certiorari was
Petition for Certiorari, docketed (as) dismissed on August 14, 1994. A
CA-G.R. SP No. 28776, which motion for reconsideration of said
presently is still pending resolution with decision dismissing the petition was
the COURT OF APPEALS, Ninth denied on February 24, 1995 as it was
Division; filed 33 days late. (Footnote No. 3, page
2, OCA Memorandum, Rollo, A.M. No.
RTJ-95-13120]
’11. That under the foregoing ‘10. Based on the foregoing
paragraphs 5 and 8, Complainant paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9,
charges Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty. Complainant charges: —
Erasto Salcedo of wanton falsehood,
(and that they) connived, schemed and ‘ Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty. Erasto
confederated to secure by deceitful Salcedo connived, schemed and
means the cancellation of the notice of collaborated to engage in dishonest and
lis pendens on OCT 0-792, TCT No. deceitful conduct, did not observe the
T-51944 and TCT No. T-51945, in rules of procedure and misuse them to
absolute violation of the Code of defeat the ends of justice, for corrupt
Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.01, motive or interest encourage the suit or
Rule 1.03, Rule 10.01, Rule 10.03, Rule proceeding, in violation of Rule 1.01,
10.01, Rule 10.03, and, their Oath of Rule 1.03, Rule 10.01, Rule 10.03 of
Office as attorney and member of the the Code of Professional Responsibility
Bar, under the following facts and and their oath of office as attorney and
circumstances: member of the BAR, committed under
the following facts and circumstances:
’11a. That Atty. Agana filed the ‘10a. That Atty. Jesus Agana filed the
Petition for Cancellation of Notice of Petition for cancellation of Notice of lis
Lis Pendens, fully aware that Xavier pendens, fully aware the Xavier
University, Inc. has absolutely no legal University, Inc. has no legal capacity to
capacity to sue, knowing fully well the sue, knowing the well-known Sec. 24 of
applicable Sec. 24 of Rule 14 and Sec. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, and Sec.
77 of PD 1529, on the matter of 77 of PD 1529, on the matter of
cancellation of lis pendens, to wit: cancellation of notice of lis pendens:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
[sections copied verbatim] [sections copied verbatim]
‘11l. (first part) That Atty. Erasto
Salcedo deceived and mislead the Court
that the Petition was in conformity with
Sec. 24, Rule 14 and Sec. 77, PD 1529;
knowingly did not observed and (did)
misuse the rules . . .
‘11b. That Atty. Jesus Agana knew ‘10b. Atty. Agana knew that the
that the adverse party contemplated in adverse party contemplated in Sec. 24
said Sec. 24 and Sec. 77 is TIMOTEO and Sec. 77 is TIMOTEO QUIMPO,
QUIMPO, who has the legal capacity to who has the legal capacity to use (sic)
sue and file the Petition for Cancellation and file the Petition for Cancellation of
of Lis Pendens; the notice of lis pendens annotated on
its OCT 0-792;
‘11c. That Atty. Jesus Agana knew 10c. Atty. Jesus Agana knew the
that Xavier University, Inc. who well-known jurisprudence, that Xavier
acquired the property aware of the University, Inc., who acquired the
notice of lis pendens annotated on OCT property aware of the notice of lis
No. 0-792, subjects its acquisition to the pendens annotated on OCT No. 0-792,
outcome of the lis pendens; a mere purchaser pendente lite, subjects
its acquisition to the eventuality of the
Petition for Review (lis pendens),
Xavier University, Inc. is not only
estopped to file the petition but also has
no legal capacity to file the PETITION;
‘11d. That Atty. Jesus Agana served ‘10d. Atty. Jesus Agana
copy of the Petition for Cancellation on served copy of the petition for cancellation on
Atty. Erasto Salcedo, who, he very well Atty. Erasto Salcedo, who he very well knew
knew was no longer counsel for Abundio was no longer counsel for Helen Balani,
Caballero, Et Al., occupants of Lot 3047, Abundio Caballero, et al, based on the
having been discharged by Complainant, Motion to Discharge filed with the
the leader and president of the Court of Appeals and granted pursuant
Association; to Resolution, copy of which is attached
hereto as ANNEX ‘D;
‘11e. That Atty. Jesus Agana Jesus ‘10e. Atty. Jesus Agana knew
Agana knew that the undersigned that Complainant substituted Atty. Erasto
substituted Atty. Erasto Salcedo; Salcedo as counsel for Helen Balani,
Abundio Caballero, Et. Al. (Pls. see
ANNEX ‘E’) Regional Trial Court, Br.
23;
‘11f. That Atty. Jesus Agana, knowing ‘10f. Atty. Agana knew
fully well that the lis pendens was on fully well that the petition for review (lis pendens)
trial in Regional Trial court, Br. 18, was on trial in Regional Trial Court, Br. 18,
filed surreptitiously the Petition for yet surreptitiously filed the Petition in
Cancellation in Regional Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Br. 23, which he
Br. 23, which he knew has no knew has no jurisdiction over the case,
jurisdiction over the case; in violation of Sec. 108 PD 1529, i e.,
the petition should be filed in the
original case in which the decree of
registration was entered;
‘11g. That Atty. Jesus Agana, with ‘10g. Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty.
corrupt motive, deceitfully saw to it that Erasto Salcedo with corrupt motive
the undersigned was not furnished with connived, schemed and collaborated to
copy of the Petition for Cancellation; see to it that the herein Complainant
would not be served copy of this
PETITION (ANNEX ‘E’);
‘11h. That Atty. Jesus Agana and ‘10h. Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty.
Atty. Erasto Salcedo deceived and Erasto Salcedo deceived and mislead
mislead the Regional Trial Court, Br. the Regional Trial Court, Br. 23, to
23, to issue Order, ANNEX ‘D,’ on the issue Order (ANNEX ‘G’), on the
strength of the unverified PETITION; strength of the null and void unverified
PETITION (ANNEX ‘F’);
‘11i. That Atty. Erasto Salcedo’s ‘10i. Atty. Erasto Salcedo, by
knowing fully well that he was already executing the PETITION (ANNEX ‘G’)
discharged by Complainant on February misrepresented that he was the counsel
27, 1992 and no longer counsel for for Helen Balani, Et Al., knowing fully
Abundio Caballero Et. Al., executed the well that he was already discharged as
PETITION, ANNEX ‘D’ on June 1, 1992 counsel;
‘11j. That Atty. Erasto Salcedo’s ‘10j. The allegations in the
allegation in the said PETITION is PETITION is (sic) wanton falsehood, knowing
wanton falsehood, without factual and for a fact that the Petition of Review Helen
legal basis, knowing for a fact, that, the Balani, Abundio Caballero, Et. Al. caused
lis pendens, he caused to be registered to be registered in May 11, 1982 was on
on May 11, 1982 was on trial in trial in Regional Trial Court, Br. 18,
Regional Trial Court, Br. 18. which copy of pleadings and order are
attached hereto as ANNEXES ‘H,’ ‘H-1,’
‘H-2,’ (and) ‘G-3’ (sic);
‘11k. That Atty. Erasto Salcedo in ‘10l. Atty. Erasto Salcedo,
executing the PETITION misrepresented discharged by Helen Balani, Abundio Caballero,
that he was still the counsel for Abundio Et. Al. in retaliation, connived, schemed and
Caballero, Et. Al.; confederated with Atty. Jesus Agana
that he execute the PETITION
(ANNEX ‘F’) unverified by Helen
Balani, Et. Al. and submit the same to
him (Atty. Agana) as supporting
document to his PETITION (ANNEX
‘E’) — when in good fidelity and loyalty
to his former clients he should have
refrained;
‘11l. (second part) That Atty. Erasto ‘10k. (first part) . . . Atty.
Salcedo . . . submitt(ed) the Petition ErastoSalcedo, as counsel for Helen Balani,
unverified by Abundio Caballero, Et Al., Abundio Caballero, Et. Al. (who)
the party who caused the lis pendens to seasonably cause(d) the annotation of
be registered; the notice of lis pendens . . .
‘11m. That Atty. Salcedo’s Petition, in ‘10m. It is underscored,
its entirety, is a wanton falsehood, the Order (ANNEX ‘G’) granting the cancel-
deceitful and mislead the Court to admit lation was anchored on Atty. E. Salcedo’s null
it as its key evidence in issuing the and void petition, ANNEX ‘F;’
Order, ANNEX ‘E,’ to cancel the notice
of lis pendens;
‘11n. That Atty. Erasto Salcedo, for ‘10k. (second part) On
corrupt motive forestalled and delayed May 11, 1992 Atty. Erasto Salcedo . . . for
the enforcement of the lis pendens corrupt motive delayed and forestalled its
(Petition for Review) for the duration of prosecution for the duration of ten (10)
almost ten (10) years;" years, and, instead on June 1, 1992
executed the PETITION for its
cancellation."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the case of Nabus v. Court of Appeals (193 SCRA 732, 739 [1991]) we have succinctly defined "bar by former judgment", to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . (T)here is ‘bar by former judgment’ when, between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case where such judgment is invoked, there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. When the three identities are present, the judgment on the merits rendered in the first constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action. It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy, including the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
There is no question that the instant complaint presents the same subject matter regarding the alleged misconduct of the respondent judge when he was a practicing lawyer which We already dismissed in 1995. The fact that the present complaint is filed by Atty. Concepcion, not Helen Balani, does not remove it from the ambit of the legal concept "bar by former judgment" inasmuch as the requirement of identity of parties is satisfied even if the parties are not physically identical as long as they are substantially the same, i.e., there is privity between the parties (see Sunflower Umbrella Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. De Leon, 237 SCRA 153, 165 [1994]). Neither does the fact that the mode of the complaint now seeks a dismissal rather than disbarment of the respondent judge preclude the application of the said rule inasmuch as "the test of identity of causes of action is not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the present causes of action." (see Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 437, 446 [1991] citing Sangalang v. Caparas, 151 SCRA 53 [1987]). Considering that in A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312 and in this complaint, there is identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, it is clear that our dismissal of the former case for utter lack of merit in 1995 bars another adjudication as regards the instant complaint. The complainant, being a lawyer, ought to remember that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"x x x
The general rule precluding the relitigation of material facts or questions which were in issue and adjudicated in former action are commonly applied to all matters essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation. Thus, it extends to questions ‘necessarily involved in an issue, and necessarily adjudicated, or necessarily implied in the final judgment, although no specific finding may have been made in reference thereto, and although such matters were directly referred to in the pleadings and were not actually or formally presented. Under this rule, if the record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties, and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself . Reasons for the rule are that a judgment is an adjudication on all the matters which are essential to support it, and that every proposition assumed or decide by the court leading up to the final conclusion and upon which such conclusion is based is as effectually passed upon as the ultimate question which is finally solved.’ (Lopez v. Reyes, 76 SCRA 179, 186-187 [1977]) (Citations omitted) (Emphasis supplied)." (Smith Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 201, 210 [1991]).chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for LACK OF MERIT and Atty. Manuel F. Concepcion is advised to be more solicitous in filing complaints of this nature to avoid a waste of this Court’s time and effort.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.