Concepcion v. Agana

 

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-96-217. February 17, 1997.]

ATTY. MANUEL F. CONCEPCION, petitioner, vs. ATTY. JESUS V. AGANA and HON. JUDGE ERASTO SALCEDO RTC Branch 31, Tagum, Davao del Norte (Atty. Salcedo), respondents.

SYLLABUS

REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS; PRINCIPLE OF "BAR BY FORMER JUDGMENT"; APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — 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 complaints 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. vs. 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 vs. 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.

D E C I S I O N

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J p:

The complaint, filed on August 5, 1996, seeks the dismissal from the service of respondent judge on account of his dishonest and deceitful conduct when he was a practicing lawyer.

The complainant alleged, among others, that the respondent judge, then Atty. Salcedo, connived with his co-respondent, Atty. Agana, to cause the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens to the prejudice of his clients who had discharged him by then and replaced him with the complainant.

In its report dated September 6, 1996, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), made the observation that the instant complaint is a mere rehash of the complaint for disbarment docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312 entitled, "Landless Farmers Tribal Development, Inc. represented by Helen Balani vs. Atty. Jesus Agana and Atty. Erasto Salcedo, now a Judge (of) RTC, Branch 31, Tagum Davao del Norte," which We resolved to dismiss for utter lack of merit on May 15, 1995. A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312, when endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant by OCA, was recommended for dismissal on the ground of res judicata, with respect to Atty. Agana, considering that it involved the same subject matter, issues, and parties in Administrative Case No. 4040 which We already dismissed in our resolution dated October 13, 1993. As regards Atty. Salcedo, he had ceased to be under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Bar Confidant upon his appointment as Presiding Judge of RTC, Tagum, Davao del Norte, Branch 31. After OCA submitted its Memorandum relative to the complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Agana and Judge Salcedo, We dismissed A.M. RTJ-95-1312 as aforementioned.

For a clearer picture, We restate the pertinent antecedents.

Administrative Case No. 4040 captioned "Helen C. Balani, et al. vs. Atty. Jesus V. Agana" was dismissed after respondent lawyer filed his comment since this Court found no prima facie case against him. Administrative Matter No. RTJ-95-1312, filed against Atty. Agana anew, with the respondent judge included as co-respondent, was dismissed in 1995 for utter lack of merit. Before us now is a complaint basically echoing the allegations in A.M. No. RTJ-95-1312 and filed against the same parties. However, unlike in the previous cases, Atty. Manuel Concepcion, who is Helen Balani's counsel, appears to be the complainant in this case, not Helen Balani herself.

Applying the principle: "bar by former judgment", We rule, once again, to dismiss the instant complaint. Quoted hereunder is the comparative study presented by the Office of the Court Administrator anent the complaint in A.M. G.R. No. RTJ-95-1312 and the complaint under consideration:

"Complaint in A.M. No.	"Instant complaint.
RTJ-95-1312.
. . .		. . .
'2.	That Respondents Atty.	'2.	Respondent, Atty. Jesus Agana
	JESUS AGANA has his law office at R & T	has his law office at R & T Building,
	Building, Taal-Capistrano Sts., Cagayan	Taal-Capistrano Sts., Cagayan de Oro
	de Oro City; Atty. Erasto Salcedo, now a	City; Atty. Erasto Salcedo Hon. Judge
	Judge, has his office in the Regional	has his office in the Regional Trial
	Trial Court, Br. 31, Tagum, Davao del	Court, Br. 31, Tagum, Davao del Norte,
	Norte, where summons and processes	where summons and processes of the
	of the Court may be served;	Commission may be served;
'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 de 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:
	[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 served
	copy of the Petition for Cancellation on	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. Erasto
	Salcedo . . . submitt(ed) the Petition	Salcedo, 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."

In the case of Nabus v. Court of Appeals (193 SCRA 732, 739 [1991]) we have succinctly defined "bar by former judgment", to wit:

". . . (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 . . ."

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:

"xxx xxx xxx

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) (Emphases supplied)." (Smith Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 201, 210 [1991]).

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.