8/9/2019 Alonso vs Relamida, Jr

1/2

Atty. Josabeth Alonso, et. al. vs. Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr.,

AC 8481, August 3, 2 1 !"CI#I$% &"RA'(A, J.)

Before us is a Complaint [1] dated October 13, 2005 for disciplinary action against respondent Atty !baro B "elamida, #r filed by Attys #osabet$ % Alonso and &$alimar '(a)atin, counsel of &er*ier '$ilippines, !ncorporated for *iolating t$e rules on forums$opping and res +udicata

$e antecedent facts of t$e case are as follo-s.

!n /arc$ 2001, #ennifer banen filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against &er*ier '$ilippines, !ncorporated &er*ier doc eted as 4("C 4C" Case 4o 30 03 01563 01,alleging constructi*e dismissal -it$ prayer for reinstatement or payment of separation pay, bac -ages, moral and e7emplary damages

On #uly 5, 2002, t$e (abor Arbiter ruled in fa*or of &er*ier [2] !t $eld t$at banen*oluntarily resigned from &er*ier and -as, t$erefore, not illegally dismissed

banen appealed at t$e 4ational (abor "elations Commission 4("C On /arc$ 31, 2003, t$e 4("C $ird 8i*ision affirmed t$e 8ecision of t$e (abor Arbiter [3]

$us, banen mo*ed for reconsideration 9o-e*er, t$e 4("C denied t$e same in a"esolution [:] dated /ay 5, 2003

;nsatisfied, banen filed a 'etition for Certiorari before t$e Court of Appeals -$ic$ -asdoc eted as CA < " &' 4o ==>?6 !n a 8ecision [5] dated #anuary 1?, 200:, t$e Court of Appeals CA affirmed t$e findings of t$e 4("C t$at banen *oluntarily resigned and t$at t$ere -as no constructi*e dismissal banen mo*ed ane- for reconsideration, but -as denied in a "esolution [?] dated April 30, 200:

;nrelenting, banen filed a 'etition for "e*ie- before t$e &upreme Court 9o-e*er, in a"esolution [=] dated August :, 200:, t$e Court found no re*ersible error on t$e part of t$eCA, t$us, denied said petition banen filed a motion for reconsideration, but -as denied -it$ finality in a "esolution [6] dated October 11, 200:

banen filed a /otion for (ea*e to Admit &econd /otion for "econsideration of t$e"esolutions dated August :, 200: and October 11, 200:, respecti*ely On #anuary 1>, 2005, t$e Court denied $er motion [>]

'ersistent, banen filed a /otion to Admit a $ird /otion for "econsideration of t$e"esolution dated #anuary 1>, 2005 On April 20, 2005, t$e Court denied $er motion for being a pro$ibited pleading and noted -it$out action banen@s t$ird motion for reconsideration [10]

On #uly 2=, 2005, t$e &econd 8i*ision of t$e &upreme Court noted -it$out actionbanen@s /otion for (ea*e to Admit &upplemental $ird /otion for "econsideration

dated #une 1, 2005, in *ie- of t$e entry of +udgment on ebruary 1=, 2005 [11]

On ebruary 1=, 2005, t$e Court@s "esolution dated August :, 200: $as already becomefinal and e7ecutory t$us, a corresponding ntry of #udgment [12] $as been issued

9o-e*er, despite said entry of +udgment, banen, t$ru $er counsel, Atty "elamida,filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on t$e samecause of action of constructi*e dismissal against &er*ier, no- doc eted as 4("C 4C"Case 4o 00 06 0=222 05

$us, on October 13, 2005, &er*ier, t$ru counsel, filed a letter complaint addressed to t$et$en C$ief #ustice 9ilario 8a*ide, #r , praying t$at respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for *iolation of t$e rules on forum s$opping and res +udicata

&ubse uently, in a "esolution [13] dated 4o*ember 15, 2005, t$e Court re uired bot$banen and Atty "elamida to comment on t$e letter complaint against t$em

On #anuary 1?, 200?, respondents filed t$eir Comments [1:] Bot$ respondents admitted t$e filing of t$e second complaint against &er*ier $ey claimed t$at t$e +udgment rendered by t$e (abor Arbiter -as null and *oid for -ant of due process, since t$e motionfor t$e issuance of subpoena duces tecum for t$e production of *ital documents filed by t$e complainant -as ignored by t$e (abor Arbiter $ey opined t$at t$e dismissal did not amount to res +udicata, since t$e decision -as null and *oid for lac of due process As aresult, t$ey claimed t$at t$ere -as also no *iolation of t$e rule on forum s$opping [15]

On ebruary =, 200?, t$e Court referred t$e instant bar matter to t$e !ntegrated Bar of t$e'$ilippines !B' for in*estigation, report and recommendation [1?]

On #anuary 22, 200=, t$e (abor Arbiter dismissed t$e second complaint on t$e groundsof res +udicata and forum s$opping !t furt$er reiterated t$at banen *oluntarily resigned from employment and -as not constructi*ely dismissed

On /arc$ 1:, 2006, during t$e mandatory conference before t$e !B', complainants failed to appear banen manifested t$at s$e is not a la-yer

Bot$ parties -ere re uired to submit t$eir respecti*e position papers

Atty "elamida reiterated t$at banen is not a la-yer and t$at s$e is t$e daug$ter of Atty(eonardo Aurelio Atty Aurelio , t$e senior partner of A / &ison #r and 'artners (a- Offices -$ere $e is employed as associate la-yer

9e narrated t$at on /arc$ 26, 2001, banen filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against &er*ier 9e claimed t$at in t$e beginning, Atty Aurelio -as t$e one -$o prepared and re*ie-ed all t$e pleadings and it -as Atty (apulapu Osoteo -$o stood as counsel for

banen in t$e said labor case Atty "elamida admitted, $o-e*er, t$at during t$e filing of t$e second complaint $e too o*er as counsel of banen, as re uested by Atty Aurelio [1=] 9e also admitted t$at during t$e pendency of t$e first complaint, $e occasionally e7amined pleadings and signed as counsel for banen [16]

Atty "elamida reasoned out t$at as a courtesy to Atty Aurelio and banen, $e $ad noc$oice but to represent t$e latter /oreo*er, $e stressed t$at $is client -as denied of $er rig$t to due process due to t$e denial of $er motion for t$e issuance of a subpoena ducestecum 9e t$en argued t$at t$e decision of t$e (abor Arbiter -as null and *oid t$us,t$ere -as no res +udicata [1>] 9e maintained t$at $e did not *iolate t$e la-yer@s oat$ by ser*ing t$e interest of $is client

&er*ier, on t$e ot$er $and, argued t$at t$e filing of t$e second complaint is a *iolation of t$e rig$ts of &er*ier, since t$e issue $as already attained finality !t contended t$at Atty"elamida *iolated t$e rules on forum s$opping for t$e same act of filing a second complaint As a conse uence, t$ey are being made to defend t$emsel*es in a case t$at $as been settled before t$e labor tribunals and courts (i e-ise, &er*ier insisted t$at t$efiling of t$e second complaint -as also a blatant *iolation of t$e rule on res +udicata 9ence, &er*ier prayed t$at Atty "elamida be disciplinary dealt -it$ due to $isabuse of t$e processes of t$e courts

On April 1>, 2006, t$e !B' Commission on Bar 8iscipline !B' CB8 recommended t$at respondent Atty "elamida be suspended from t$e practice of la- for si7 ?mont$s !t imposed no sanction on banen for being a non la-yer

!n its "eport, t$e !B' found t$at by filing t$e second complaint, Atty "elamida -asguilty of *iolating t$e rules on res +udicata and forum s$opping !t concluded t$at Atty"elamida abused $is rig$t of recourse to t$e courts by filing a complaint for a cause t$at $ad been pre*iously re+ected by t$e courts

On #une 5, 2006, t$e !B' Board of

8/9/2019 Alonso vs Relamida, Jr

2/2

A la-yer o-es fidelity to t$e cause of $is client, but not at t$e e7pense of trut$ and t$eadministration of +ustice $e filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of t$e court@s processes and improper conduct t$at tends to impede, obstruct and degrade t$eadministration of +ustice and -ill be punis$ed as contempt of court 4eedless to state, t$ela-yer -$o files suc$ multiple or repetitious petitions -$ic$ ob*iously delays t$ee7ecution of a final and e7ecutory +udgment sub+ects $imself to disciplinary action for incompetence for not no-ing any better or for -illful *iolation of $is duties as anattorney to act -it$ all good fidelity to t$e courts, and to maintain only suc$ actions asappear to $im to be +ust and are consistent -it$ trut$ and $onor [2:]

$e filing of anot$er action concerning t$e same sub+ect matter, in *iolation of t$edoctrine of res +udicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of t$e Code of 'rofessional "esponsibility, -$ic$ re uires a la-yer to e7ert e*ery effort and consider it $is duty toassist in t$e speedy and efficient administration of +ustice By $is actuations, respondent also *iolated "ule 12 02 and "ule 12 0: of t$e Code, as -ell as a la-yer@s mandate Etodelay no man for money or malice E [25]

$e Court $as, time and again, -arned la-yers not to resort to forum s$opping for t$is practice clogs t$e court doc ets $eir primary duty is to assist t$e courts in t$eadministration of +ustice Any conduct -$ic$ tends to delay, impede or obstruct t$eadministration of +ustice contra*enes suc$ la-yer@s duty [2?] $is -e -ill not tolerate

!n cases of similar nature, [2=] t$e penalty imposed by t$is Court -as si7 ? mont$ssuspension from t$e practice of la- $us, consistent -it$ t$e e7isting +urisprudence, -efind t$at, in t$is case, t$e suspension of si7 ? mont$s from practice of la- is proper

/"R"0$R", "esolution 4o F%!!! 2006 26?, dated #une 5, 2006, of t$e !B', -$ic$found respondent Atty !baro B "elamida, #r guilty of *iolating t$e "ules on "es #udicata and orum &$opping, is A00IR "! Atty "elaminda is$ereby # #&"%!"! for si7 ? mont$s from t$e practice of la-, effecti*e upon t$ereceipt of t$is 8ecision 9e is -arned t$at a repetition of t$e same or a similar act -ill bedealt -it$ more se*erely

(et a copy of t$is 8ecision be furnis$ed to t$e Office of t$e Bar Confidant, to beappended to t$e personal record of Atty "elamida as a member of t$e Bar t$e !ntegrated Bar of t$e '$ilippines and t$e Office of t$e Court Administrator, for circulation to all courtsin t$e country for t$eir information and guidance

$is 8ecision s$all be immediately e7ecutory

#$ $R!"R"!.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/8481.htm#_ftn27