Facts

• On July 16, 2008 respondent Atty. Aquilino Mejica filed a criminal action for grave oral defamation against Delia Lim, then Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar, before the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, docketed I.S. No. 08-90-O, over words allegedly uttered at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan.
• On February 19, 2009 Acting Provincial Prosecutor Cornelio M. Umil II dismissed the complaint for want of probable cause. Atty. Mejica filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the OPP.
• On March 31, 2009 — while that MR was still pending — he filed, "for the second time, the same complaint," before the MCTC of Oras (Crim. Case No. (O)2009-03) — "the same complaint with the same attachments," as Delia Lim (complainant) put it. He told neither forum about the other.
• On May 20, 2009 the OPP denied his MR.
• On July 6, 2009 the MCTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription; reconsideration was denied September 14, 2009.
• Lim filed a disbarment complaint with the IBP, alleging deliberate forum shopping.
• Atty. Mejica answered pleading good faith, saying he had "consulted his friend, Atty. Emmanuel C. Apelado, a Public Attorney's Office lawyer," who told him oral defamation needs no preliminary investigation and may be filed directly with the MCTC. He failed to attend the mandatory conference.
• On September 27, 2014 the IBP Board of Governors denied his MR and raised the suspension to five (5) years, taking account of prior sanctions — three months in Baldado v. Atty. Mejica and two years in Caspe v. Mejica.
• On September 13, 2016 the Court En Banc reduced the penalty to six (6) months.

Issue

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution No. XXI-2014-595 dated September 27, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors is hereby SET ASIDE.

The Court, however, finds Atty. Aquilino Mejica to have violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby meted out the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS with WARNING that a similar offense by him will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be entered in the personal record of Atty. Aquilino Mejica as a member of the Philippine Bar and furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

• The Court began with the elements of forum shopping, which exists where litis pendentia is present or a judgment in one case would be res judicata in the other, requiring identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and such identity that a judgment in one "would amount to res judicata in the other."
• The requisite that fails is the second — identity of relief. Before the prosecutor "the complaint seeks for the finding by the prosecutor of probable cause"; before the MCTC it "seeks for the conviction of Lim." Recite this as the second requisite: the decision names it, and calling it the third is a common slip.
• The two determinations are of different kinds (Co v. Lim, et al.): the prosecutor's determination is made "pursuant to the powers and functions of the Department of Justice as provided for under the Revised Administrative Code," the court's "in accord to the judicial powers conferred by Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution," and the two "are two distinct actions which should be independently assailed." Hence "the prosecutor's resolution does not constitute as a valid and final judgment."
• And there was no vexation of the courts. What is "pivotal" is "the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts … to rule on the same or related cases," and here "there is no sufficient evidence to prove that Atty. Mejica deliberately filed the two complaints for such purpose."
• The Court then applied the two-track rule of Section 1. Preliminary investigation is required only where the penalty is at least four years, two months and one day; for all other offences the action is instituted "by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor."
• Grave oral defamation falls below the threshold. Preliminary investigation is required only "for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day," and grave oral defamation is "punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period," so "the complaint should clearly be filed directly with the MCTC" and "the OPP of Oras, Eastern Samar did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense charged."
• But the ethical breach stands independently. Under Canon 10 — "A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court" — Atty. Aquilino Mejica (respondent) "failed to exercise candor and courtesy to the court" and "failed to withdraw his MR before the OPP." "Although it is the MCTC that has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Atty. Mejica, he made a mockery of the judicial process and further eroded public confidence in lawyers when he ignored the proceedings he initiated in the OPP."
• On penalty the Court exercised discretion under Section 27, Rule 138, noting that "[t]hat the supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court," and that "the Court will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end." Prior sanctions were weighed — three months in Baldado v. Atty. Mejica and two years in Caspe v. Mejica — yet the penalty was reduced from the IBP's five years to six months.

Doctrine

• "(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required … by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation.
• (b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor.
• In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaints shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters."
• Executive versus judicial probable cause: the prosecutor's power is "only investigatory in character," so the prosecutor's resolution "does not constitute as a valid and final judgment" — his duty on finding probable cause "is to file the appropriate information before the proper court." That the finding is purely executive and inquisitorial, and places no one in jeopardy, is sound law from other cases; this decision does not use those words.
• No forum shopping across the two spheres: the prosecutor's determination and the court's are "two distinct actions which should be independently assailed," so the second requisite of forum shopping — identity of relief — is absent. The familiar formula that the rule reaches only tribunals of co-equal or coordinate jurisdiction is not in this ponencia; cite it elsewhere.
• Canon 10 nonetheless requires disclosure of the parallel proceeding.

• The absence of forum shopping did not save him — the two holdings are independent, and this is the point of the case for a Criminal Procedure syllabus: a procedurally correct filing can still be an ethical breach if the parallel proceeding is concealed.
• Disbarment is a last resort: where there is "no bad faith or malice" and the lapse is "merely a result of his wrong notion" about which body had jurisdiction, a lesser penalty suffices — here six months rather than the IBP's five years.
• Note that the underlying case died of prescription anyway — the MCTC dismissed on that ground, which is a reminder that the choice of forum under Section 1(b) has timing consequences (compare Corpus, Jr. v. People on tolling in summary-procedure offences).
• And note the jurisdictional premise is stated broadly: the Court says the OPP "did not acquire jurisdiction," although Section 1(b) on its face offers the prosecutor's office as an alternative route — read the holding against its facts, where the complainant had already been dismissed there and moved on.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• July 16, 2008: Respondent Atty. Mejica initiated the dispute by filing a criminal action for grave oral defamation against complainant Delia Lim, then the incumbent Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar, before the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor (OAPP) of Oras, Eastern Samar, which was docketed as I.S. No. 08-90-O. Atty. Mejica alleged that Lim uttered the following slanderous words against him at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan of Oras: "HI AGUS BALDADO NAG KIHA KAN ATTY. AKI MEJICA HA IBP UG YANA HI ATTY. MEJ[I]CA SUSPENDIDO HIT IYA KA ABOGADO SAKOP HIN UNOM KA BULAN, IPAN NUMAT NIYO".
• February 19, 2009: Acting Provincial Prosecutor Cornelio M. Umil II issued a Resolution dismissing the grave oral defamation complaint of Atty. Mejica for lack of probable cause.
• After February 19, 2009 (exact date not stated in the decision): Atty. Aquilino Mejica (respondent) filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) before the OPP assailing the dismissal of his complaint.
• March 31, 2009: While his MR was still pending unresolved before the OPP, Atty. Mejica filed, for the second time, the exact same criminal complaint with identical attachments before the MCTC of Oras, Eastern Samar, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. (O)2009-03.
• May 20, 2009: Acting Provincial Prosecutor Umil II issued a Resolution officially denying Atty. Mejica's pending MR before the OPP.
• July 6, 2009: The MCTC issued an Order dismissing the criminal complaint filed by Atty. Mejica against Lim on the ground that the action had already prescribed.
• After July 6, 2009 (exact date not stated in the decision): Atty. Aquilino Mejica (respondent) filed an MR before the MCTC challenging the dismissal.
• September 14, 2009: The MCTC issued an Order denying Atty. Mejica's MR.
• After September 14, 2009 (exact date not stated in the decision): Delia Lim (complainant) filed this administrative disbarment case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging that Atty. Aquilino Mejica (respondent) deliberately committed forum shopping when he filed the same complaint with the same attachments before the MCTC while his MR was pending before the OPP.
• November 16, 2009: The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued an Order directing Atty. Mejica to submit his Answer to the disbarment complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt.
• After November 16, 2009 (exact date not stated in the decision): Atty. Aquilino Mejica (respondent) filed his Answer, arguing good faith and asserting that he had consulted his friend Atty. Emmanuel C. Apelado, a Public Attorney's Office lawyer, who advised him that an oral defamation case is not subject to preliminary investigation and could be filed directly with the MCTC.
• August 31, 2010: The IBP-CBD issued a Notice directing both parties to appear for a mandatory conference; however, only Lim and her counsel appeared, while Atty. Mejica failed to attend.
• January 10, 2011: The IBP-CBD issued an Order terminating the mandatory conference and directing both parties to submit their respective position papers within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days.
• November 17, 2011: The IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Aquilino Mejica (respondent) liable for violating Rule 12.02 of Canon 12 of the CPR, and recommended suspension for six (6) months.
• June 20, 2013: The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved that Report and Recommendation, but modified the penalty by reducing the suspension to three (3) months.
• October 23, 2013: Atty. Mejica filed an MR before the IBP Board of Governors.
• September 27, 2014: The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution denying Atty. Mejica's MR and increasing his suspension to five (5) years, taking into consideration his previous administrative sanctions (a 3-month suspension in Baldado v. Atty. Mejica and a 2-year suspension in Caspe v. Mejica).
• September 13, 2016: The Supreme Court En Banc promulgated its Decision reducing the penalty and suspending Atty. Mejica from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Arguments of the Parties

• Deliberate Forum Shopping: Complainant Lim argued that Atty. Mejica committed willful forum shopping when he filed the second, identical complaint with the same attachments before the MCTC during the pendency of his MR before the OPP.
• Violation of Ethical Canons: Lim asserted that Atty. Mejica's actions constituted direct violations of Rule 1.03 of Canon 1, Rule 12.02 of Canon 12, and Rule 7§.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR, rendering him unfit to remain a member of the Bar.

• Defense of Good Faith: Respondent argued that the filing of the case before the MCTC during the pendency of his OPP MR was made in complete good faith and was a result of honest inadvertence.
• Reliance on Legal Advice: He alleged that upon discovering that Lim's pleadings were being drafted by the same person handling the case in the OPP, he consulted Atty. Emmanuel C. Apelado, a Public Attorney's Office (PAO) lawyer, who advised him that oral defamation does not require preliminary investigation and could be filed directly with the MCTC.
• Lack of OPP Jurisdiction: Atty. Mejica argued that because preliminary investigation is not required for oral defamation, the OPP did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense. Thus, its resolution on probable cause was not a bar to the MCTC's independent judicial determination of probable cause, and his direct filing before the MCTC was the legally correct procedure.

• Stipulated Filings: It is undisputed by both parties that Atty. Mejica initiated a criminal complaint before the OAPP on July 16, 2008, which was dismissed on February 19, 2009. It is further undisputed that he filed the same complaint before the MCTC on March 31, 2009, while his MR of the prosecutor's dismissal was still pending.

Issue

1. Whether Atty. Aquilino Mejica (respondent) is administratively liable under Canon 10 of the CPR for failing to inform the MCTC of his pending MR before the OPP, and for failing to withdraw that motion when he filed the case with the MCTC.
2. Whether the appropriate penalty to be imposed on Atty. Mejica is disbarment or a lesser period of suspension, taking into consideration his prior administrative infractions.

Ruling

• MAIN ISSUE: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Mejica did not commit forum shopping. The executive determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is separate and distinct from the judicial determination of probable cause by the court, and because the OPP did not have jurisdiction over the offense of Grave Oral Defamation, the filing of the complaint directly with the MCTC was procedurally correct and did not constitute a vexation of the courts.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 1: YES. The Court found Atty. Mejica liable for violating Canon 10 of the CPR. Although he did not commit forum shopping, his failure to inform the MCTC of the pending MR before the OPP, and his failure to withdraw the said MR despite filing the MCTC case, constituted professional misconduct and a failure to observe candor, fairness, and good faith.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 2: SUSPENSION FOR SIX (6) MONTHS. The Court ruled that because Atty. Mejica acted without malice and was guided by a "wrong notion" of the jurisdiction of the OPP, the supreme penalty of disbarment was not warranted, and a six-month suspension from the practice of law was sufficient to protect the legal profession and the public.

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution No. XXI-2014-595 dated September 27, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors is hereby SET ASIDE.

The Court, however, finds Atty. Aquilino Mejica to have violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby meted out the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS with WARNING that a similar offense by him will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be entered in the personal record of Atty. Aquilino Mejica as a member of the Philippine Bar and furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

1. Requisites of Forum Shopping and Litis Pendentia: The Court emphasized that forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of:
   • (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions;
   • (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
   • (c) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.
2. The Separation of Executive and Judicial Determinations of Probable Cause: Citing Co v. Lim, the Court held that the determination made by the Secretary of Justice (or the prosecutor) on whether there is a prima facie case is entirely separate and distinct from the judicial determination of the court. The former is pursuant to the investigative powers of the Department of Justice under the Revised Administrative Code, while the latter is in accord with the judicial powers conferred by Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Consequently, the prosecutor's investigative action is not a trial and "the prosecutor's resolution does not constitute as a valid and final judgment."
3. Strict Application of Rule 110§, Section 1(b) and Rule 112, Section 1: Offenses that do not require a preliminary investigation are governed by Section 1(b) of Rule 110§. A preliminary investigation is only conducted for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day. For all other offenses, the criminal action is instituted:
   • (a) by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; or
   • (b) by filing the complaint with the office of the prosecutor.
4. Jurisdictional Divestment of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor: The crime of Grave Oral Defamation is punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which is less than four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day. Therefore, it does not require a preliminary investigation, and the complaint must be filed directly with the MCTC under Section 1(b) of Rule 110§. As a consequence, "the OPP of Oras, Eastern Samar did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense charged." Since the OPP completely lacked jurisdiction to determine probable cause, Atty. Mejica's subsequent filing of the case before the MCTC was the legally mandated step to vest jurisdiction and could not constitute forum shopping.
5. Ethical Breach of Canon 10 (Candor and Good Faith): Despite the absence of forum shopping, the Court found Atty. Mejica liable for professional misconduct. Under Canon 10 of the CPR: "A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court." Atty. Mejica breached this duty by failing to inform the MCTC of the pending motion before the OPP and failing to withdraw his MR before the OPP. The Court declared that "he made a mockery of the judicial process and further eroded public confidence in lawyers when he ignored the proceedings he initiated in the OPP."
6. Discretionary Nature of Administrative Penalties: In determining the appropriate penalty under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Court exercised sound judicial discretion. While the IBP recommended a 5-year suspension due to his prior administrative infractions, the Court held that because Atty. Mejica acted without bad faith or malice, but rather out of a "wrong notion" of the jurisdiction of the OPP, a suspension of six (6) months was sufficient.

• The Codal Rule on the Institution of Criminal Actions: Section 1, Rule 110§ of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is the absolute framework for initiating criminal suits:

  "Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: (a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. (b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaints shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters."

• Executive vs. Judicial Determination of Probable Cause: The finding of probable cause by a prosecutor is purely executive and inquisitorial, aimed only at determining whether an information must be filed in court [21-23]. It does not place the accused in jeopardy of punishment. Once the information is filed in court, the court acquires exclusive jurisdiction, and any subsequent disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion of the judge.

• No Forum Shopping between Executive and Judicial Spheres: The rule against forum shopping applies only to concurrent or successive filings before tribunals of co-equal or coordinate jurisdiction where a judgment in one would constitute res judicata in another. It does not apply to the successive filing of a criminal complaint before a prosecutor's office (which is administrative/executive) and a court of law (which is judicial), especially when the prosecutor's office lacks jurisdiction over the offense.
• Disbarment as a Measure of Last Resort: The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of serious professional misconduct. A lawyer's honest mistake of law or "wrong notion" of procedural jurisdiction, in the absence of proven malice or bad faith, will mitigate the penalty and justify a temporary suspension rather than permanent disbarment.

Separate Opinions