3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.

Panganiban:EnBanc

ENBANC

[A.C.No.4058.March12,1998]

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. complainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO B.

FLORES,respondent.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

Theprofessionoflawexactsthehigheststandardsfromitsmembersandbrooksnoviolationof
its code of conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer who trifles with judicial processes, engages in forum
shoppingandblatantlyliesinhispleadingsmustbesanctioned.

TheCase

This is an administrative complaint against Atty. Ernesto Flores filed by Benguet Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO) before this Court on July 5, 1993, seeking his removal or suspension
from the bar for forum shopping, which amounted to grave misconduct, x x x unduly delaying the
administration of justice, and violating with impunity his oath of office and applicable laws and
jurisprudence.[1]
AftertherespondentsubmittedhisComment,datedAugust21,1993,wereferredthecasetothe
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on September 27, 1993 for investigation, report and
recommendation. On August 15, 1997, we received a resolution from the IBP Board of Governors,
findingrespondentguiltyofviolatingCanons10and12oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityand
recommendinghissuspensionfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofsixmonths,viz:

RESOLUTIONNO.XII97149
Adm.CaseNO.4058
BenguetElectricCooperative,Inc.vs.
Atty.ErnestoB.Flores

RESOLVEDtoADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDandAPPROVED,the
ReportandRecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissionerintheaboveentitledcase,
hereinmade[sic]partofthisResolution/DecisionasAnnexAandfindingtherecommendation
thereintobefullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelawsandrules,
RespondentAtty.ErnestoFloresisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)
monthsforviolatingtheprovisionofCanon[s]10and12oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility.[2]

TheFacts

Becausetheparties[3]agreedtodispensewiththepresentationoftestimonialevidence,thecase
was submitted for resolution on the basis of their documentary evidence.As found by Investigating
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 1/9
3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

CommissionerPlaridelC.Jose,thefactsareasfollows:

xxx.OnFebruary25,1993,LaborArbiterIrenarcoRimandooftheNationalLaborRelations
Commission,RegionalArbitrationBranch,CordilleraAdministrativeRegion,BaguioCity,issueda
WritofExecution(xxx)inNLRCCaseNo.RAB1031384toenforcethedecisionrenderedby
theSupremeCourtonMay18,1992inG.R.No.89070(BenguetElectricCooperative,Inc.vs.
NLRC,209SCRA55).TheWritofExecutionwasissuedonmotionofBenguetElectric
Cooperative(BENECOforshort)tocollecttheamountofP344,000.00whichitpaidtoPeter
CosalanduringthependencyofthecasebeforetheSupremeCourt,onthebasisofitsdecision
orderingtherespondentboardmemberstoreimbursepetitionerBENECOanyamountthatitmay
becompelledtopaytorespondentCosalanbyvirtueofthedecisionofLaborArbiterAmadoT.
Adquilen.

Afterissuanceofthewritofexecution,therespondent,asnewcounselforthelosinglitigant
membersoftheBENECOBoardofDirectors,filedaMotionforClarificationwiththeThirdDivision
oftheSupremeCourtinG.R.No.89070,theminuteresolutiontowit:tonotewithoutactionthe
aforesaidmotion.

Thereafter,therespondentinstitutedasuitdocketedasCivilCaseNO.2738R(xxx)with
theRegionalTrialCourt,Branch7,BaguioCity,seekingtoenjointhedefendantsClerkofCourt,
etal.fromlevyingontheirpropertiesinsatisfactionofthesaidwritofexecution.Thatcase,
however,wasdismissedbythePresidingJudgeClarenceVillanuevainhisOrderdatedMarch
18,1993(xxx).

Accordingly,theOfficeoftheClerkofCourt,MTC,BaguioCity,throughSheriffIIIWilfredo
Mendez,proceededtolevyonthepropertiesofthelosingboardmembersofBENECO.Thus,a
saleatpublicauctionwassetonJune1,1993,at10:00oclockinthemorninginfrontofthe
BaguioCityHall,perSheriffsNoticeofSaledatedMay4,1993(xxx),ofthepropertiesof
AbundioAwalandNicasioAliping[,]twoofthelosingmembersoftheBoardofDirectorsof
BENECOintheaforementionedcase.

Respondentclaimsinhiscomment(xxx)thatBranch7,motuproprio,dismissedCivilCase
No.2738RforlackofjurisdictiononMarch18,1993,whichdismissalwas[sic]becamefinaldue
torespondentsfailuretoperfectanappealtherefromwhichclaimaccordingtothecomplainant,
constitute[s]deliberatemisrepresentation,ifnotfalsehood,becausetherespondentindeed
interposedanappealsuchthatonMay11,1993,theRTC7ofBaguioCitytransmittedtheentire
recordofCivilCaseNo.2738RtotheCourtofAppealspercertifiedmachinecopyoftheletter
transmittalofsamedate(xxx).

WhilerespondentneveressentiallyintendedtoassailtheissuancebytheNLRCoftheWrit
ofExecutionxxxnorsoughttoundoit(xxx)thecomplaintinCivilCaseNo.2738Rwhichhe
filedpraysfortheimmediateissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderand/orpreliminarywritof
injunctionfordefendantsClerkofCourtandExOfficioCitySherifftoceaseanddesistfrom
enforcingtheexecutionandlevyofthewritofexecutionissuedbytheNLRCCAR,pending
resolutionofthemainactioninsaidcourt(xxx)whichcomplainantlikewiseclaimsasan
unproceduralmaneuvertofrustratetheexecutionofthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinG.R.
No.89070incompletedisregardofsettledjurisprudencethatregularcourtshavenojurisdiction
tohearanddecidequestionswhichariseandareincidentaltotheenforcementofdecisions,
ordersandawardsrenderedinlaborcasescitingthecaseofCangcovs.CA,199SCRA677,a
displayofgrossignoranceofthelaw.

OnMay26,1993,respondentagainfiledforAbundioAwalandNicasioAlipingwiththeRegional
TrialCourt,Branch9,LaTrinidad,Benguet,separatecomplaintsforJudicialDeclarationofFamily
HomeConstituted,OpeLege,andthusExemptfromLevyandExecutionthesubjectproperties
withDamages,etc.docketedasCivilCasesNos.93F0414(xxx)and93F0415(xxx),which
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 2/9
3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

areessentiallysimilaractionstoenjointheenforcementofthejudgmentrenderedinNLRCCase
No.RAB1031384.HealsofiledanurgentMotionExparte(xxx)prayingfortemporary
restrainingorderinthesetwo(2)cases.

Thecomplainantfurtherallegesthatrespondentsclaimfordamagesagainstthedefendant
Sheriffisanotherimproperandunproceduralmaneuverwhichislikewiseaviolationof
respondentsoathnottosueongroundlesssuitsincethesaidSheriffwasmerelyenforcingawrit
ofexecutionaspartofhisjob.

RecommendationoftheIBP

Asnotedearlier,InvestigatingCommissionerPlaridelC.Joserecommended,andtheIBPBoard
ofGovernorsconcurred,thatrespondentbesuspendedfromthebarforsixmonthsfor:
1. Falsehood, for stating in his comment before this Court that the order of the RTC dismissing the
complaintinCivilCaseNo.2738Rwasnotappealedontime
2.FailuretocomplywithSupremeCourtCircularNo.2891onforumshopping

CommissionerJoseratiocinated:

Acursoryglanceof(sic)xxxthecomplaintfiledbytherespondentinCivilCaseNo.2738Rbefore
theRTCofBaguioCity,whichcomplaintwassignedandverifiedunderoathbytherespondent,
revealsthatitlacksthecertificationrequiredbySupremeCourtCircularNo.2891whichtookeffect
onJanuary1,1992totheeffectthattothebestofhisknowledge,nosuchactionorproceedingis
pendingintheSupremeCourt,CourtofAppealsordifferentdivisionsthereoforanytribunalor
agency.Ifthereisanyotheractionpending,hemuststatethestatusofthesame.Ifheshouldlearn
thatasimilaractionorproceedinghasbeenfiledorpendingbeforetheSupremeCourt,Courtof
Appealsordifferentdivisionsthereoforanytribunaloragency[,]heshouldnotifythecourt,tribunalor
agencywithinfive(5)daysfromsuchnotice.

Amongtheotherpenalties,thesaidcircularfurtherprovidesthatthelawyermayalsobesubjectedto
disciplinaryproceedingsfornoncompliancethereof.

Insum,itisclearthattherespondentviolatedtheprovisionsofCanon[s]10and12oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilityunderwhichthelawyerowescandor,fairnessandgoodfaithtothecourt
andexert[s]everyeffortandconsider[s]ithisdutytoassistinthespeedyandefficientadministration
ofjustice.[4]

ThisCourtsRuling

WeadoptandaffirmtherecommendationoftheIBPsuspendingtherespondentfromthebar,but
weincreasetheperiodfromsix(6)monthstoone(1)yearandsix(6)months.

ForumShopping

CircularNo.2891,[5]datedSeptember4,1991whichtookeffectonJanuary1,1992,requiresa
certificate of nonforum shopping to be attached to petitions filed before this Court and the Court of
Appeals. This circular was revised on February 8, 1994. The IBP found that the respondent had

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 3/9
3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

violated it, because the complaint he filed before the RTC of Baguio City lack[ed] the certification
requiredbySupremeCourtCircularNo.2891.[6]
Wedistinguish.Respondentsfailuretoattachthesaidcertificatecannotbedeemedaviolationof
the aforementioned circular, because the said requirement applied only to petitions filed with this
Court and the Court of Appeals.[7] Likewise inapplicable is Administrative Circular No. 0494 dated
February 8, 1994 which extended the requirement of a certificate of nonforum shopping to all
initiatorypleadingsfiledinallcourtsandquasijudicialagenciesotherthanthisCourtandtheCourtof
Appeals. Circular No. 0494 became effective only on April 1, 1994, but the assailed complaint for
injunction was filed on March 18, 1993, and the petition for the constitution of a family home was
institutedonMay26,1993.
Be that as it may, respondent is still guilty of forum shopping. In Chemphil Export and Import
Corporation vs. Court ofAppeals,[8] this Court declared that (t)he rule against forum shopping has
longbeenestablishedandsubsequentcirculars[9]ofthisCourtmerelyformalizedtheprohibitionand
providedtheappropriate penalties against transgressors.The prohibition is found in Section 1(e) of
Rule16andSection4ofRule2ofthe1964RulesofCourt,whichprovide:

SECTION1.Grounds.Withinthetimeforpleading,amotiontodismisstheactionmaybemadeon
anyofthefollowinggrounds:

xxxxxxxxx

(e)Thatthereisanotheractionpendingbetweenthesamepartiesforthesamecause

xxxxxxxxx[10]

SEC.4.Effectofsplittingasinglecauseofaction.Iftwoormorecomplaintsarebroughtfordifferent
partsofasinglecauseofaction,thefilingofthefirstmaybepleadedinabatementoftheotheror
others,inaccordancewithsection1(e)ofRule16,andajudgmentuponthemeritsinanyoneis
availableasabarintheothers.[11]

The prohibition is also contained in Circular No. 2891. This circular did not only require that a
certificationofnonforumshoppingbeattachedtothepetitionsfiledbeforethisCourtortheCourtof
Appeals it also decreed that forum shopping constituted direct contempt of court andcould subject
theoffendinglawyertodisciplinaryaction.Thethirdparagraphthereofreads:

3.Penalties.

(a)AnyviolationofthisCircularshallbeacauseforthesummarydismissalofthemultiplepetitionor
complaint.

(b)Anywillfulanddeliberateforumshoppingbyanypartyandhislawyerwitthefilingofmultiple
petitionsandcomplaintstoensurefavorableactionshallconstitutedirectcontemptofcourt.

(c)ThesubmissionoffalsecertificationunderPar.2oftheCircularshalllikewiseconstitutecontempt
ofCourt,withoutprejudicetothefilingofcriminalactionagainsttheguiltyparty.Thelawyermayalso
besubjectedtodisciplinaryproceedings.(Underscoringsupplied.)

TheforegoingweresubstantiallyreproducedinRevisedCircularNo.2891[12]andAdministrative
CircularNo.0494.[13]
In a long line of cases, this Court has held that forum shopping exists when, as a result of an
adverseopinioninoneforum,apartyseeksafavorableopinion(otherthanbyappealorcertiorari)in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 4/9
3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

another,[14]orwhenheinstitutestwoormoreactionsorproceedingsgroundedonthesamecause,
onthegamblethatoneortheothercourtwouldmakeafavorabledisposition.[15]Themostimportant
factorindeterminingtheexistenceofforumshoppingisthevexationcausedthecourtsandparties
litigantsbyapartywhoasksdifferentcourtstoruleonthesameorrelatedcausesorgrantthesame
orsubstantiallythesamereliefs.[16]
AfterthisCourtrendereditsDecision[17]inBenguetElectricCooperative,Inc.vs.NationalLabor
Relations Commission, et al.[18] and upon motion of BENECO, Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando
issuedawritofexecution[19]orderingtheclerkofcourtandexofficiocitysheriffoftheMunicipalTrial
CourtofBaguioCitytolevyonandsellatpublicauctionpersonalandrealpropertyofthemembersof
theBoardofDirectorsofBENECO.
On March 18, 1993, Respondent Flores, acting as counsel for BENECO Board Members Victor
Laoyan, Nicasio Aliping, Lorenzo Pilando and Abundio Awal, filed with the RTC an injunction suit
praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to preserve the status quo as now
obtainingbetweentheparties,aswellasawritofpreliminarypreventiveinjunctionorderingtheclerk
of court and the ex officio city sheriff of the MTC of Baguio to cease and desist from enforcing by
executionandlevythewritofexecutionfromtheNLRCCAR,pendingresolutionofthemainaction
raisedincourt.[20]
When this injunction case was dismissed, Respondent Flores filed with another branch of the
RTCtwoidenticalbutseparateactionsbothentitledJudicialDeclarationofFamilyHomeConstituted,
opelege,ExemptfromLevyandExecutionwithDamages,etc.,docketedasCivilCaseNos.93F
0414and93F0415.[21] The said complaints were supplemented by an Urgent Motion Ex Parte[22]
whichprayedforanordertotemporarilyrestrainSheriffWilfredoV.Mendezfromproceedingwiththe
auctionsaleofplaintiffspropertytoavoidrenderingineffectualandfunctus[oficio]anyjudgmentofthe
courtlaterinthis[sic]cases,untilfurtherdeterminedbythecourt.
Civil Case Nos. 93F0414 and 93F0415 are groundless suits. Modequillo vs. Breva,[23]
reiteratedinManacopvs.CourtofAppeals,[24]showsthefrivolityoftheseproceedings:

UndertheFamilyCode,afamilyhomeisdeemedconstitutedonahouseandlotfromthetimeitis
occupiedasafamilyresidence.Thereisnoneedtoconstitutethesamejudiciallyorextrajudiciallyas
requiredintheCivilCode.Ifthefamilyactuallyresidesinthepremises,itis,therefore,afamilyhome
ascontemplatedbylaw.Thus,thecreditorsshouldtakethenecessaryprecautionstoprotecttheir
interestbeforeextendingcredittothespousesorheadofthefamilywhoownsthehome.

xxx.

Theexemptionprovidedasaforestatediseffectivefromthetimeoftheconstitutionofthefamilyhome
assuch,andlastssolongasanyofitsbeneficiariesactuallyresidestherein.

AdheringtotheCourtsdeclarationinsaidcases,thesubjectpropertiesaredeemedconstituted
asfamilyhomesbyoperationoflawunderArticle153oftheFamilyCode.
Thesuitsfortheconstitutionofafamilyhomewerenotonlyfrivolousandunnecessarytheywere
clearly asking for reliefs identical to the prayer previously dismissed by another branch of the RTC,
i.e.,toforestalltheexecutionofafinaljudgmentofthelaborarbiter.Thattheywerefiledostensiblyfor
the judicial declaration of a family home was a mere smoke screen in essence, their real objective
wastorestrainordelaytheenforcementofthewritofexecution.Inhisdeliberateattempttoobtainthe
same relief in two different courts, Respondent Flores was obviously shopping for a friendly forum
which would capitulate to his improvident plea for an injunction and was thereby trifling with the
judicialprocess.[25]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 5/9
3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

Weremindtherespondentthat,undertheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,[26]hehadaduty
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.[27] The Code also enjoins him from
undulydelayingacasebyimpedingtheexecutionofajudgmentorbymisusingcourtprocesses.[28]
In consonance with Millare vs. Montero[29] and Garcia vs. Francisco,[30] respondent should be
suspendedfromthepracticeoflawforoneyear.InMillare,therespondentfiledwithdifferentcourtsa
total of six appeals, complaints and petitions which frustrated and delayed the execution of a final
judgment.Holdingthatrespondentmadeamockeryofthejudicialprocessesanddisregardedcanons
ofprofessionalethicsinintentionallyfrustratingtherightsofalitigantinwhosefavorajudgmentinthe
casewasrendered[and],thus,abusedproceduralrulestodefeattheendsofsubstantialjustice,[31]
thisCourtsuspendedtherespondentfromthepracticeoflawforoneyear.
InGarcia,therespondentwasalsosuspendedforoneyearfromthepracticeoflaw,forviolating
theproscriptionagainstforumshopping.ThisCourtheldthathedeserve[d]tobesanctioned,notonly
asapunishmentforhismisconductbutalsoasawarningtootherlawyerswhomaybeinfluencedby
hisexample.[32]

Falsehood

Theinvestigatingcommissioneralsoheldrespondentliableforcommittingafalsehoodbecause,
in this administrative case, he stated in his comment that he had not perfected an appeal on the
dismissalofhispetitionforinjunction.Inhissaidcomment,therespondentstated:

Branch7(oftheRTC)motuproprio,dismissedthecaseforlackofjurisdictiononMarch18,1993.Not
havingperfectedanappealonthedismissal,theorderofdismissalbecamefinalundertheRules15
daysafteritsreceiptbyrespondentonrecord,orbeforeApril6,1993.Sothattodaythiscaseisno
longerpending.

xxx.

ItshouldbenotedthatwhenCivilCaseNos.93F0414and93F0415forfamilyhomesand
damageswerefiledinthecourtbelowonMay26,1993,CivilCaseNO.2378Rwhichseemstogive
basistothepresentComplaintwasdeemedterminated,therebeingnoappealformallytakenand
perfectedinaccordancewiththeRules.

xxx.

Andthatpreciselywastheprimalreasonwhyrespondentdecidednottoappealanyfurtheranymore
[sic]theorderofdismissalforlackofjurisdictionofthecourtbelowinCivilCaseNo.2738,andletit
bedeemedfinalbytheRulesandjurisprudence.[33](Underscoringsupplied.)

The indelible fact, however, is that respondent did file an appeal which was perfected later on.
The original records of the injunction suit had been transmitted to the appellate court.[34] Moreover,
the Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing the appeal.[35] Thus, in denying that he had
appealedthedecisionoftheRTC,respondentwasmakingafalsestatement.
Respondent argues that the withdrawal of his appeal means that no appeal was made under
Section2ofRule50oftheRulesofCourt.ThepertinentprovisionsofRule50[36]read:

SEC.2.Effectofdismissal.Fifteen(15)daysafterthedismissalofanappeal,theclerkshallreturn
tothecourtbelowtherecordonappealwithacertificateunderthesealofthecourtshowingthatthe
appealhasbeendismissed.Uponthereceiptofsuchcertificateinthelowercourtthecaseshallstand

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 6/9
3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

thereasthoughnoappealhadeverbeentaken,andthejudgmentofthesaidcourtmaybeenforced
withtheadditionalcostsallowedbytheappellatecourtupondismissingtheappeal.

xxxxxxxxx

SEC.4.Withdrawalofappeal.Anappealmaybewithdrawnasofrightatanytimebeforethefilingof
appelleesbrief.xxx.Thewithdrawalofanappealshallhavethesameeffectasthatofadismissalin
accordancewithsection2ofthisrule.

Respondents explanation misses the point.True, he withdrew his appeal. But it is likewise true
thathehadactuallyfiledanappeal,andthatthiswasperfected.Falsethenishisstatementthatno
appealwasperfectedintheinjunctionsuit.Worse,hemadethestatementbeforethisCourtinorder
toexculpatehimself,thoughinvain,fromthechargeofforumshopping.
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he owes
candor,fairnessandgoodfaithtothecourts.[37]Heshallneitherdoanyfalsehood,norconsenttothe
doingofany.Healsohasadutynottomisleadorallowthecourtstobemisledbyanyartifice.[38]
For this offense, we suspend the respondent from the practice of law for another year.True, in
Ordoniovs.Eduarte,[39]PoracTrucking,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals[40]andErectors,Inc.vs.NLRC,[41]
we imposed a suspension of only six months for a similar malfeasance. But in Flores case, his
falsehoodisaggravatedbyitsbrazenness,foritwascommittedinanattempt,vainasitwas,tocover
uphisforumshopping.
Beforeweclose,wenotethatthissimplecasewasreferredtotheIBPonSeptember27,1993.It
wasdeemedsubmittedforresolutionpertheinvestigatingcommissionersorderdatedMay10,1995.
However,theinvestigatingcommissionersubmittedhisreportonlyonMay5,1997.Moreover,theIBP
transmitted its recommendation to the Court only through a letter dated July 31, 1997, which was
receivedbytheOfficeoftheBarConfidantonAugust15,1997.WhyittooktheIBPalmostfouryears
to finish its investigation of the case and over two years from the date the parties filed their last
pleadingstoresolveitescapesus.Afterall,thecasedidnotrequireanytrialtypeinvestigation,and
thepartiessubmittedonlydocumentaryevidencetoproveorrebuttheirrespectivecases.Thus, we
finditopportunetourgetheIBPtohastenthedispositionofadministrativecasesandtoreminditthat
this Court gives it only ninety days to finish its investigation, report and recommendation. Should it
require more time, it should file with the Court a request for extension, giving the reason for such
request.
WHEREFORE, for trifling with judicial processes by resorting to forum shopping, Respondent
ErnestoB.FloresisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofONE(1)YEARand,
for violating his oath and the Canon of Professional Responsibility to do no falsehood, he is
SUSPENDED for another period of ONE (1) YEAR, resulting in a total period of TWO (2) YEARS,
effectiveuponfinalityofthisDecision.HeisWARNEDthatarepetitionofasimilarmisconductwillbe
dealtwithmoreseverely.
LetacopyofthisDecisionbeincludedinhisfileswhicharewiththeOfficeoftheBarConfidant,
andcircularizedtoallcourtsandtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa, CJ. Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Martinez,QuisumbingandPurisima,JJ.,concur.

[1]Complaint,p.4records,Vol.1,p.4.

[2]SeeNoticeofResolutionrecords,Vol.1.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 7/9
3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

[3]BENECOwasrepresentedbyAtty.EmilianoL.GayowhileRespondentFloresappearedascounselforhimself.Before
theIBPcommissioner,FloresfiledaonepageMemorandumdatedFebruary15,1995,whileGayosubmittedasixpage
MemorandumdatedFebruary13,1995.ThecasewasdeemedsubmittedforresolutionbytheIBPonMay10,1995.
(Records,p.63.)
[4]ReportofIBPCommissionerPlaridelC.Jose,pp.45.

[5]Re:AdditionalRequisitesforPetitionsfiledwiththeSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppealstoPreventForumShopping
orMultipleFilingofPetitionsandComplaints.
[6]ReportofIBPCommissionerPlaridelC.Jose,p.4.

[7]Gabionzavs.CourtofAppeals,234SCRA192,196,July18,1994.SeealsoCadalinvs.POEAsAdministrator,238
SCRA721,770,December5,1994
[8]251SCRA257,291,December12,1995perKapunan,J.

[9]RevisedCircularNo.2891andAdministrativeCircularNo.0494.

[10].Rule16oftheRulesofCourt.

[11]Rule2oftheRulesofCourt.

[12]Paragraph2.

[13]Paragraph2.

[14]FirstPhilippineInternationalBankvs.CourtofAppeals,252SCRA259,283,January24,1996andWashington
Distillers,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,260SCRA821,835,August22,1996.SeealsoBugnayConstructionand
DevelopmentCorporationvs.Laron,176SCRA240,252,August10,1989
[15]ChemphilExport&ImportCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals,251SCRA257,291,December12,1995.

[16]Borromeovs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,255SCRA75,84,March15,1996.

[17]Thedispositiveportionreads:

WHEREFORE,thePetitionforCertiorariisGIVENDUECOURSE,thecommentfiledbyrespondentBoardmembersis
TREATEDastheiranswer,andthedecisionoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommissiondated21November1988in
NLRCCaseNo.RAB1031384isherebySETASIDEandthedecisiondated5April1988ofLaborArbiterAmadoT.
AdquilenherebyREINSTATEDintoto.Inaddition,respondentBoardmembersareherebyORDEREDtoreimburse
petitionerBenecoanyamountsthatitmaybecompelledtopaytorespondentCosalanbyvirtueofthedecisionofLabor
ArbiterAmadoT.Adquilen.
(209SCRA55,66,May18,1992.)
[18]Composedof(1)VictorLaoyan,(2)NicasioAliping,(3)AbundioAwal,(4)AntonioSudangPan,and(5)LorenzoPilando.

[19]WritofExecution,pp.17records,Vol.1,pp.814.

[20]ComplaintforInjunction,p.8records,Vol.1,p.22.

[21]Records,Vol.1,pp.2637.Underscoringfoundintheoriginal.

[22]Records,Vol.1,pp.4445.

[23]185SCRA765,770771,May31,1990perGancayco,J.

[24]215SCRA773,781782,November13,1992.

[25]SeeFirstPhilippineInternationalBankvs.CourtofAppeals,252SCRA259,283,January24,1996Millarevs.
Montero,246SCRA1,8,July13,1995andLimpin,Jr.vs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,161SCRA83,98,May5,1988.
[26]PromulgatedbytheSupremeCourtonJune21,1988.

[27]Canon12.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 8/9
3/12/2017 BenguetElectricCorpIncvsFlores:AC4058:March12,1998:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

[28]Rule12.04ofCanon12,CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

[29]246SCRA1,July13,1995.

[30]220SCRA512,March30,1993.

[31]246SCRA1,9,July13,1995perQuiason,J

[32]220SCRA512,516,March30,1993,percuriam.

[33]Comment,pp.2,7and9records,Vol.1,pp.53,58and60.

[34]Thetransmittalletterreads:

Inconnectionwiththeappealinterposedbytheplaintiffsintheaboveentitledcase,wearetransmittingherewiththeoriginal
recordsofthesameconsistingofthefollowing:
PageinRecord
1.MotionforImmediateRaffle12
2.Complaint(includingAnnexes)348
3.OrderdatedMay18,19934849
4.NoticeofAppeal50
5.ApprovalofAppeal52
xxx.
(Records,Vol.2,p.24.)
[35]Itreads:

ConsideringplaintiffsappellantsWithdrawalofAppealdatedAugust19,1993,thesameisgranted,andtheappealishereby
DISMISSED.
xxx.
(Records,Vol.2,p.30.)
[36]Thiswaspriortotheeffectivityofthe1997amendmentstotheRulesofCourt.

[37]Canon10oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

[38]Rule10.01ofCanon10,CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

[39]207SCRA229,March16,1992.

[40]202SCRA674,October15,1991.

[41]166SCRA728,October28,1988.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_4058.htm 9/9