SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12364. June 10, 2019.]
DELBERTO A. CAMPOSAGRADO, complainant, vs.ATTY. RICARDO A. CASTILLO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12364 (Delberto A. Camposagrado v. Atty. Ricardo A. Castillo)
After a judicious examination of complainant Delberto A. Camposagrado's (complainant) allegations, the Court resolves to DISMISS his administrative complaint 1 against respondent Atty. Ricardo A. Castillo (respondent).
In Pena v. Aparicio, 2 the Court ruled against the necessity of attaching a certification against forum shopping to a disbarment complaint. The rationale for the requirement of a certification against forum shopping is to apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim involving the same issues in another court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation. It would seem that the scenario sought to be avoided, i.e., the filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions, rarely happens in complaints for disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys, considering that said proceedings are either taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. 3 Thus, if the complainant in a disbarment case fails to attach a certification against forum shopping, the pendency of another disciplinary action against the same respondent may still be ascertained with ease. 4 In this light, the Court takes exception to the report and recommendation 5 of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline dated November 25, 2016 to dismiss the complaint for lack of a certification against forum shopping. HTcADC
Nonetheless, the Court finds that the complaint is dismissible for failure to show a prima facie case against respondent. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event, the attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case. 6 Records show that in the Order 7 dated August 24, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 where complainant's case is pending, Atty. Iluminada Libatique had already entered her appearance for herein complainant, who is a defendant thereat, and that respondent had been relieved as his counsel as of June 27, 2016, months before the filing of the present complaint. 8 Accordingly, the present complaint should be dismissed absent any showing of a prima facie case against respondent. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 2.
2. 552 Phil. 512 (2007).
3. See Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
4.Pena v. Aparicio, supra note 2, at 522.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6.Venterez v. Cosme, 561 Phil. 479, 487 (2007), citing De Juan v. Baria III, 473 Phil. 161, 169 (2004).
7.Rollo, p. 12. Penned by Judge Elisa R. Sarmiento-Flores.
8. See id.