Alonso v.

Relamida 626 SCRA 281  On February 17, 2005, the Court's

Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already
FACTS: become final and executory; thus, a
corresponding Entry of Judgment[12] has
 On July 5, 2002, the Labor Arbiter ruled in been issued.
favor of Servier. It held that Ebanen
voluntarily resigned from Servier and was,  However, despite said entry of judgment,
therefore, not illegally dismissed. Ebanen, thru her counsel, Atty. Relamida,
filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005
 Ebanen appealed at the National Labor for illegal dismissal based on the same cause
Relations Commission (NLRC). On March of action of constructive dismissal against
31, 2003, the NLRC-Third Division affirmed Servier, now docketed as NLRC-NCR Case
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter No. 00-08-07222-05.

 Thus, Ebanen moved for reconsideration.

However, the NLRC denied the same in a  Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru
Resolution[4] dated May 5, 2003. counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed
to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.,
 Unsatisfied, Ebanen filed a Petition for praying that respondents be disciplinary
Certiorari before the Court of Appeals which sanctioned for violation of the rules on
was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77968. In a forum shopping and res judicata.
Decision[5] dated January 16, 2004, the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the findings  Subsequently, in a Resolution[13] dated
of the NLRC that Ebanen voluntarily November 15, 2005, the Court required both
resigned and that there was no constructive Ebanen and Atty. Relamida to comment on
dismissal. Ebanen moved anew for the letter-complaint against them.
reconsideration, but was denied in a
Resolution[6] dated April 30, 2004.
 On January 16, 2006, respondents filed their
Comments.[14] Both respondents admitted
 Unrelenting, Ebanen filed a Petition for the filing of the second complaint against
Review before the Supreme Court. However, Servier. They claimed that the judgment
in a Resolution[7] dated August 4, 2004, the rendered by the Labor Arbiter was null and
Court found no reversible error on the part void for want of due process, since the
of the CA, thus, denied said petition. Ebanen motion for the issuance of subpoena duces
filed a motion for reconsideration, but was tecum for the production of vital documents
denied with finality in a Resolution[8] dated filed by the complainant was ignored by the
October 11, 2004. Labor Arbiter. They opined that the
dismissal did not amount to res judicata,
 Ebanen filed a Motion for Leave to Admit since the decision was null and void for lack
Second Motion for Reconsideration of the of due process. As a result, they claimed
Resolutions dated August 4, 2004 and that there was also no violation of the rule
October 11, 2004, respectively. On January on forum shopping.
19, 2005, the Court denied her motion.
 On February 7, 2006, the Court referred the
 Persistent, Ebanen filed a Motion to Admit a
instant bar matter to the Integrated Bar of
Third Motion for Reconsideration of the
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
Resolution dated January 19, 2005. On April
report and recommendation.
20, 2005, the Court denied her motion for
being a prohibited pleading and noted
without action Ebanen's third motion for  On January 22, 2007, the Labor Arbiter
reconsideration. dismissed the second complaint on the
grounds of res judicata and forum shopping.
It further reiterated that Ebanen voluntarily
 On July 27, 2005, the Second Division of the
resigned from employment and was not
Supreme Court noted without action
constructively dismissed.
Ebanen's Motion for Leave to Admit
Supplemental Third Motion for
Reconsideration dated June 1, 2005, in view  On March 14, 2008, during the mandatory
of the entry of judgment on February 17, conference before the IBP, complainants
2005. failed to appear. Ebanen manifested that
she is not a lawyer.
 Both parties were required to submit their  In its Report, the IBP found that by filing the
respective position papers. second complaint, Atty. Relamida was guilty
of violating the rules on res judicata and
 Atty. Relamida reiterated that Ebanen is not forum shopping. It concluded that Atty.
a lawyer and that she is the daughter of Atty. Relamida abused his right of recourse to the
Leonardo Aurelio (Atty. Aurelio), the senior courts by filing a complaint for a cause that
partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law had been previously rejected by the courts.
Offices where he is employed as associate
lawyer.  On June 5, 2008, the IBP Board of
Governors resolved to adopt and approve
 He narrated that on March 28, 2001, with modification as to penalty the report of
Ebanen filed a Complaint for illegal the IBP-CBD. Instead, it recommended that
dismissal against Servier. He claimed that in Atty. Relamida be suspended from the
the beginning, Atty. Aurelio was the one who practice of law for one (1) month for his
prepared and reviewed all the pleadings and violation of the rules on res judicata and
it was Atty. Lapulapu Osoteo who stood as forum shopping.
counsel for Ebanen in the said labor case.
Atty. Relamida admitted, however, that  On December 7, 2009, the Office of the Bar
during the filing of the second complaint he Confidant recommended that the instant
took over as counsel of Ebanen, as requested complaint be re-docketed as a regular
by Atty. Aurelio.[17] He also admitted that administrative case against Atty. Relamida.
during the pendency of the first complaint,
he occasionally examined pleadings and ISSUE:
signed as counsel for Ebanen.
 In the instant case, it is clear that Atty.
 Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a Relamida is guilty of forum shopping and
courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had violation of the rule on res judicata. Atty.
no choice but to represent the latter. Relamida should have refrained from filing
Moreover, he stressed that his client was the second complaint against Servier. He
denied of her right to due process due to the ought to have known that the previous
denial of her motion for the issuance of a dismissal was with prejudice, since it had
subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the effect of an adjudication on the merits.
the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null He was aware of all the proceedings which
and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He the first complaint went through as by his
maintained that he did not violate the own admission, he participated in the
lawyer's oath by serving the interest of his preparation of the pleadings and even signed
client. as counsel of Ebanen occasionally. He knew
that the decision in the subject case had
 Servier, on the other hand, argued that the already attained finality. Atty. Relamida was
filing of the second complaint is a violation well aware that when he filed the second
of the rights of Servier, since the issue has complaint, it involved the same parties and
already attained finality. It contended that same cause of action, albeit, he justified the
Atty. Relamida violated the rules on forum same on the ground of nullity of the previous
shopping for the same act of filing a second dismissal.
complaint. As a consequence, they are being
made to defend themselves in a case that has
been settled before the labor tribunals and RULING:      
courts. Likewise, Servier insisted that the
filing of the second complaint was also a  WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-
blatant violation of the rule on res judicata. 286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which
Hence, Servier prayed that Atty. Relamida found respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida,
be disciplinary dealt with due to his abuse of Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res
the processes of the courts. Judicata and Forum Shopping, is
AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is hereby
SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the
 On April 19, 2008, the IBP-Commission on
practice of law, effective upon the receipt of
Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended
this Decision. He is warned that a repetition
that respondent Atty. Relamida be
of the same or a similar act will be dealt with
suspended from the practice of law for six
more severely.
(6) months. It imposed no sanction on
Ebanen for being a non-lawyer.