THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9093. March 20, 2019.]
ERLINDA T. VILLALON, petitioner,vs. ATTY. FRANCIS U. VILLANUEVA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 20, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9093 (Formerly CBD No. 04-1263) (Erlinda T. Villalon v. Atty. Francis U. Villanueva). — Before Us is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Erlinda Villalon against respondent Atty. Francis U. Villanueva for forum shopping in violation of Section 4, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court and Rules 10.01 and 12.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant alleges that Atty. Villanueva, as counsel for Benito Yao Chua and Wilson Go, filed a complaint for Specific Performance, Accounting, Reimbursement, and Damages with Application for the Creation of a Management Committee against her, among others, which case was docketed as SEC Case No. 03-22.
Subsequently, a Motion for Leave to Admit Supplemental Complaint was filed by Atty. Villanueva for and on behalf of his clients, denominated as Annulment of Delinquency Sale of Shares of Stock and Damages."
The trial court, however, denied the admission of the supplemental complaint. The court found that the supplemental complaint constitutes a new cause of action that cannot supplement the original complaint.
Hence, Atty. Villanueva filed a separate complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Delinquency Sale of shares of Stock and Damages docketed as SEC Case No. 04-34. A Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was included in the said complaint.
Complainant contends that Atty. Villanueva had committed the proscription against filing multiple complaints involving the same causes of action and the consequent filing of a false certification of non-forum shopping.
In addition, complainant argues that Atty. Villanueva deliberately failed to comply with the condition precedent in filing SEC Case No. 04-34. Complainant pointed out that Atty. Villanueva had violated Section 20 (c), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by wilfully filing and/or allowing the filing of the complaint in SEC Case No. 04-34 knowing fully well that the condition precedent for its filing have not been previously complied with.
To bolster her claims, complainant alleged that Atty. Villanueva filed a letter-request to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) to place complainant in the BID Watchlist in order to harass complainant. An Order was issued by the BID ordering the inclusion of complainant in the said Watchlist.
In his defense, Atty. Villanueva averred that while the Supplemental Complaint and SEC Case No. 04-34 involve the same parties, the former was never filed. A Supplemental Complaint is deemed filed only upon order of the court admitting the same. Hence, there is no forum shopping. Further, he averred that the same were dissimilar as regards the causes of action and relief sought. As to the filing of the letter-request for the inclusion of complainant in the BID's Watchlist, Atty. Villanueva explained that the same is a legitimate exercise of legal remedy sanctioned by the existing rules of the BID in order to protect his clients' rights.
The Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the instant case for lack of merit. He found that respondent is not guilty of forum shopping. The supplemental complaint was not commenced by the filing of the motion for leave to admit attached supplemental complaint. Thus, there was no filing of the supplemental complaint to speak of to bar the filing of the complaint in SEC Case No. 04-34. Since there is no forum shopping, it follows that Atty. Villanueva did not attach a false verification and certification. It pointed out that since the trial court hearing SEC Case No. 04-34 found Atty. Villanueva not guilty of forum shopping, then the Commission cannot say otherwise.
As regards the alleged violation of Section 20 (c), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Commissioner found that Atty. Villanueva had complied with the condition precedent prior to the filing of a complaint in SEC Case No. 04-34. Hence, complainant's allegation is baseless.
The Commissioner further opined that the letter request for the inclusion of complainant in the BID's Watchlist was neither unethical nor a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It noted that it was a legitimate exercise of a legal remedy sanctioned by existing rules and regulations of the BID in pursuit of a client's valid cause.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) Board of Governors dismissed the case for lack of merit. It resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules. The motion for reconsideration filed by complainant was subsequently denied.
After a careful review of the records of the case, We resolve to adopt the findings of the IBP-CBD Board of Governors and dismiss the instant administrative case for complainant's failure to show that respondent is unfit to practice law and be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
As aptly found by the IBP Investigating Commissioner and the Board of Governors, the Court finds that Atty. Villanueva had acted in accordance with the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The elements of the alleged forum shopping are wanting in this case. Further, when Atty. Villanueva filed the letter-request for the inclusion of complainant in the BID's Watchlist, he was merely exercising a legal remedy sanctioned by the rules of the BID. Absent any showing that Atty. Villanueva overstepped the bounds of propriety as a member of the Bar, the Court deems it proper to dismiss the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS Resolution No. XVIII-2009-185 dated April 17, 2009 of the IBP-CBD Board of Governors in A.C. No. 9093 and DISMISSES the instant administrative case against Atty. Francis U. Villanueva.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court