Decision vs. Ferrer
Decision vs. Ferrer
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer was found guilty of direct contempt of court by the
Court of AppealsCA when he filed two (2) Petitions for Certiorari successively. The CA Commented [SR2]: numbers
held that when the Second Petition was filed, the First Petition already existed but was
concealed; hence forum shopping had already been committed.
The CA further held that neither the adjudication of cases pending before courts nor the
contents of these cases are taken judicial notice by the courts, notwithstanding that both
cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge. Rather, it is
the party and the counsel's duty to inform the court trying the case of any pendency of a
similar case filed before any court. Violation of this rule makes the parties and their
counsel guilty of forum shopping. Commented [SR3]: irrelevant. Instead put the defense
of ferrer
Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag (Commissioner Hababag) of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline adopted the findings of the Court of
Appeals in toto and stated that respondent clearly violated the rule on forum shopping.
Thus, he recommended that the latter be suspended for three (3) months from the
practice of law with a stern warning that any similar infraction in the future would be dealt
with more severely.
The Integrated Bar of the PhilippinesIBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and
approve the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Hababag imposing penalty
of Atty. Ferrer be reprimanded Atty. Ferrer with a warning that a repetition of the same
act shall be dealt with more severely.
ISSUE:
Should respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer be held administratively liable for violating
the rule against forum shopping?Can respondent be held administratively liable for
violating the rule against forum shopping?
HELD:
Yes, Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer should be held administratively liable for violating the rule
against forum shopping.
Respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer was therefore guilty of forum shopping and should
be suspended from the practice of law. Commented [SR5]: This is not a conclusion. It’s a
prayer. Syntax