Republic of the Philippines Believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical standards, complainant

SUPREME COURT filed an administrative complaint2 with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
Manila of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent filed an Answer with Impleader (Motion to Dismiss and
Counterclaims)3 claiming that Atty. Emmanuel A. Jocson, complainant's legal counsel, also
SECOND DIVISION played an important part in imputing the malicious, defamatory, and fabricated charges against
him. Respondent also pointed out that the complaint had no certification against forum
A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007
shopping and was motivated only to confuse the issues then pending before the Labor Arbiter.
[Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1565]
By way of counterclaim, respondent asked for damages and for the disbarment of Atty. Jocson.
FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA, complainant, Respondent also asked the IBP to endorse the prosecution of Atty. Jocson for Usurpation of
vs. Public Functions4 and for violation of the Notarial Law.5
ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO, respondent.
A mandatory conference was held on 6 December 2005 but respondent failed to appear.6 Both
RESOLUTION parties were thereafter required to submit their position papers.

TINGA, J.: The Report and Recommendation7 of Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan found
that complainant, failed to file his position paper and to comply with Administrative Circular
In this administrative complaint, a lawyer is charged with violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 No. 04-94 requiring a certificate against forum shopping and, accordingly, recommended the
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for writing a demand letter the contents of which dismissal of the complaint against respondent. On 26 May 2006, the IBP Board of Governors
threatened complainant with the filing of criminal cases for tax evasion and falsification of adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.8
documents. On 10 July 2006, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted to the Supreme Court the
notice of said Resolution and the records of the case.9 Thereafter, on 18 August 2006,
Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio (respondent) appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal respondent filed with the IBP a Motion for Reconsideration (for Modification of Decision)10
dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Sometime in August reiterating his claim of damages against complainant in the amount of four hundred million
2005, complainant Fernando Martin O. Pena, as President of MOF Company, Inc. (Subic), pesos (P400,000,000.00), or its equivalent in dollars, for filing the "false, malicious, defamers
received a notice from the Conciliation and Mediation Center of the NLRC for a [sic], fraudulent, illegal fabricators [sic], malevolent[,] oppressive, evasive filing [of] a
mediation/conciliation conference. In the conference, respondent, in behalf of his client, groundless and false suit."11
submitted a claim for separation pay arising from her alleged illegal dismissal. Complainant
rejected the claim as being baseless. Complainant thereafter sent notices to Hufana for the Complainant thereafter filed this Petition for Review (of the Resolution of the IBP Commission
latter to explain her absences and to return to work. In reply to this return to work notice, on Bar Discipline)12 alleging that he personally submitted and filed with the IBP his position
respondent wrote a letter to complainant reiterating his client's claim for separation pay. The paper, after serving a copy thereof on respondent by registered mail. He further alleges that he
letter also contained the following threat to the company: was deprived of his right to due process when the IBP dismissed his complaint without
considering his position paper and without ruling on the merits thereof.
BUT if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we will be constrained to file and claim bigger
amounts including moral damages to the tune of millions under established precedence of Complainant accordingly prays for the reversal and setting aside of the 26 May 2006
cases and laws. In addition to other multiple charges like: Resolution13 of the IBP Board of Governors and the remand of the case to the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline for proper adjudication and disposition on the merits.
1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not reported to the government.
Based on the records, there is truth to complainant's assertion that he filed his position paper
2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion on 21 December 2005, after serving a copy of the same to respondent. The IBP stamp on the
front page of said document shows that it was received by the IBP on 21 December 2005. The
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents
registry receipt attached to the same document also shows that it was sent by registered mail
4. Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws. to respondent on the same date. 14

These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above amounts as settlements Complainant, however, omitted to offer any explanation in his petition before this Court for his
in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).1 failure to attach a certification against forum shopping in his complaint against respondent.
The requirement of a certification against forum shopping was originally required by Circular tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation.
No. 28-91, dated 8 February 1994, issued by this Court for every petition filed with the Court or Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes,19 which tends to
the Court of Appeals. Administrative Circular No. 04-94, made effective on 1 April 1994, degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds
expanded the certification requirement to include cases filed in courts and quasi-judicial to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.20 Furthermore, the rule
agencies below this Court and the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and
(1) and (2) of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly
administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.15 Said rule states that a violation thereof would constitute precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more
contempt of court and be cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions without prejudice courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.21
to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel of the party concerned.16
It is in this light that we take a further look at the necessity of attaching a certification against
The Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors took against complainant his forum shopping to a disbarment complaint. It would seem that the scenario sought to be
failure to attach the certification against forum shopping to his complaint and consequently avoided, i.e., the filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions, rarely
dismissed his complaint. This Court, however, disagrees and, accordingly, grants the petition. happens in disbarment complaints considering that said proceedings are either "taken by the
However, a remand of the case to the IBP would unduly prolong its adjudication. Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified
complaint of any person."22 Thus, if the complainant in a disbarment case fails to attach a
The Court's determination is anchored on the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings,
certification against forum shopping, the pendency of another disciplinary action against the
the reasons for the certification against forum shopping requirement, complainant's
same respondent may still be ascertained with ease. We have previously held that the rule
subsequent compliance with the requirement, and the merit of complainant's complaint
requiring a certification of forum shopping to accompany every initiatory pleading, "should not
against respondent.
be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate
The Court, in the case of In re Almacen,17 dwelt on the sui generis character of disciplinary objective or the goal of all rules of procedure—which is to achieve substantial justice as
proceedings against lawyers, thus: expeditiously as possible."23

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely At any rate, complainant's subsequent compliance with the requirement cured the supposed
criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the defect in the original complaint. The records show that complainant submitted the required
Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in certification against forum shopping on 6 December 2006 when he filed his
no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor Comment/Opposition to respondent's Motion to Dismiss the present petition.
therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective,
Finally, the intrinsic merit of complainant's case against respondent justifies the grant of the
and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to
present petition. Respondent does not deny authorship of the threatening letter to
be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court
complainant, even spiritedly contesting the charge that the letter is unethical.
merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court
with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall represent his
honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their client with zeal within the bounds of the law," reminding legal practitioners that a lawyer's duty
misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and
occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.18 [Emphasis supplied] ethics.24 In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a "lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
In view of the nature of disbarment proceedings, the certification against forum shopping to be
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
attached to the complaint, if one is required at all in such proceedings, must refer to another
in any case or proceeding." Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any
administrative case for disciplinary proceedings against the same respondent, because such
unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to
other proceedings or "action" is one that necessarily involves "the same issues" as the one
secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the
posed in the disbarment complaint to which the certification is supposedly to be attached.
lawyer's client.25
Further, 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,
In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule proscribe. Through his claims. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional
letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts they propose Responsibility.
as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as
multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business Respondent cannot claim the sanctuary provided by the privileged communication rule under
license to operate due to violations of laws. The threats are not only unethical for violating which a private communication executed in the performance of a legal duty is not actionable.
Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail. The privileged nature of the letter was removed when respondent used it to blackmail
complainant and extort from the latter compliance with the demands of his client.
Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or
opposition in the public prints,…obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining However, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that
from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he wrote the
prejudice." In common parlance and in general acceptation, it is equivalent to and synonymous same out of his overzealousness to protect his client's interests. Accordingly, the more
with extortion, the exaction of money either for the performance of a duty, the prevention of appropriate penalty is reprimand.
an injury, or the exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is granted. The 26 May 2006 Resolution of the
operating on the fears or the credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose the
IBP Board of Governors is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio
weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the victim.26
is hereby found liable for violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
In Sps. Boyboy v. Atty. Yabut, Jr.,27 we held that "[a]n accusation for blackmail and extortion is Responsibility, and is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the STERN
a very serious one which, if properly substantiated, would entail not only respondent's WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
disbarment from the practice of law, but also a possible criminal prosecution." 28 While the
SO ORDERED.
respondent in Boyboy was exonerated for lack of evidence, the same may not be said of
respondent in the present case for he admits to writing the offensive letter. Carpio, Acting Chairperson, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., on official leave.
In fact, respondent does not find anything wrong with what he wrote, dismissing the same as
merely an act of pointing out massive violations of the law by the other party, and, with
boldness, asserting that "a lawyer is under obligation to tell the truth, to report to the
government commission of offenses punishable by the State."29 He further asserts that the
writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition and that our laws allow and
encourage the settlement of disputes.

Respondent's assertions, however, are misleading, for it is quite obvious that respondent's
threat to file the cases against complainant was designed to secure some leverage to compel
the latter to give in to his client's demands. It was not respondent's intention to point out
complainant's violations of the law as he so gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter even contains
an implied promise to "keep silent" about the said violations if payment of the claim is made
on the date indicated.

Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this jurisdiction. It
is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship that he has with his
client, the principal. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent, the lawyer may be tasked to
enforce his client's claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect it, such as writing a letter
of demand requiring payment within a specified period. However, the letter in this case
contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory
charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation pay.
The letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their