DE ZUZUARREGUI vs. HON.

VILLAROSA

agree. No agreement was reached and as far as they know, no

progress was made towards the settlement of Bellas estate. They
were not aware that Rosemary had filed a petition for the issuance of
letters of administration and that a judgment by compromise
agreement was rendered by the RTC of Pasig City. Rosemary had
falsely averred that aside from herself, petitioner, who was her niece,
was the only other heir of Bella. In petitioners opposition, it was
likewise averred that petitioner and Rosemary were the only heirs of
Bella. The subsequent compromise agreement contained similar
averments, and it was not disclosed that Peter, Catherine, and
Fannie were also Bellas heirs. It was only sometime in June 2004 that
they came to know of the decision by compromise agreement of the
Pasig City RTC.

This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of

the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the
Resolutions dated August 23, 2007 [2] and July 14, 2008[3] of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98978. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by
petitioner seeking the reversal of the November 16, 2006 and
March 9, 2007 Orders[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati
City, Branch 66, which found that there was no prejudicial question
to warrant the suspension of the criminal actions against petitioner.
The following facts are established:

Petitioner and Rosemary filed their answers [11] to the petition for
annulment of judgment and the petition-in-intervention. They
raised similar defenses. They denied that Peter, Catherine, and
Fannie were heirs of Bella for, as far as they knew, the three (3)
were literally purchased from third persons who represented to
Bella and the latters common-law husband, Alejandro Ty, that they
were abandoned children. Bella and Alejandro took pity on the
three (3) and brought them up as their own. This was known within
the family circle, but was not disclosed to Peter, Catherine, and
Fannie in order to protect them from the stigma of knowing they
were unwanted children. However, Alejandro and Bella did not
legally adopt them; hence, they were never conferred the rights of
legitimate children.

Sometime in August 2000, Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekhi (Rosemary),

the sister of petitioners late father Alexander Torres Ty, filed a
petition for the issuance of letters of administration of the estate of
her mother, Bella Torres (Bella), before the RTC of Pasig City.
[5]
Petitioner initially opposed[6] Rosemarys petition, but they
eventually reached an amicable settlement and entered into a
compromise agreement which they submitted to the RTC for
approval.[7] In a Decision[8] dated November 19, 2002, the RTC
approved the compromise agreement.
Subsequently, two (2) of Rosemarys alleged siblings, Peter Torres Ty
(Peter) and Catherine Torres Ty-Chavez (Catherine), filed with the
Court of Appeals a Petition to Annul Judgment Approving
Compromise Agreement, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87222.[9] Peter
and Catherine claimed that they are also biological children of the
late Bella, and are entitled to participate in the settlement of the
latters estate. Later, private respondent Fannie Torres-Ty (Fannie),
who likewise claimed to be a biological child of the late Bella and
therefore also entitled to inherit from her, filed a petition-inintervention in the action for annulment of judgment.[10]

While the action for annulment of judgment was pending before the
Court of Appeals, Fannie filed a complaint[12] for falsification and
perjury against petitioner and Rosemary. Fannie alleged that
petitioner and Rosemary falsely and maliciously stated in the
pertinent pleadings filed before the RTC of Pasig City that the late
Bella had only two (2) heirs, namely the two (2) of them. Petitioner
and Rosemary forthwith filed a joint motion to suspend the
preliminary investigation on the ground of a pending prejudicial
question before the Court of Appeals.[13] They argued that the issue
of whether Peter, Catherine, and Fannie are related to Bella and
therefore legal heirs of the latter was pending before the Court of
Appeals. The investigating prosecutor denied the joint motion and
found probable cause against petitioner and Rosemary for two (2)
counts each of falsification of public documents.[14]The prosecutor
held that the issue before the Court of Appeals is the validity of the

Peter, Catherine, and Fannie alleged that upon the death of Bella,
they held a number of discussions pertaining to the settlement of the
latters estate. Rosemary, their elder sister, promised to take care of
the processing of papers so that the estate may be divided among
them in the manner provided by law. However, in subsequent
discussions, Rosemary made known to them her intention to get a
disproportionately larger share of the estate, but they did not

compromise agreement which is not determinative of the criminal

case which involves the liability of petitioner and Rosemary for
falsification, allegedly for willfully making the false statements in the
opposition to the petition for letters of administration and in the
subsequent compromise agreement filed before the RTC of Pasig
City.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration was also denied in the July

14, 2008 Resolution[27] of the Court of Appeals.
Hence, the present recourse.
Petitioner alleges that:

On December 20, 2005, three (3) informations [15] against petitioner

and Rosemary were thus filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 61.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY

ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
ON THE GROUND THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF NONFORUM SHOPPING WAS SIGNED BY COUNSEL
ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3, RULE 46, IN
RELATION TO SEC. 1 RULE 65, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.

Petitioner filed a petition for review[16] with the Department of Justice

(DOJ) and a motion to defer proceedings [17] before the MeTC on the
ground of the pending appeal before the DOJ. Also, petitioner and
Rosemary filed with the MeTC separate motions to suspend
proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question.[18] However,
petitioners appeal was dismissed by the DOJ, [19] while her motions
before the MeTC were denied by the said court. [20] The MeTC agreed
with the prosecutor that the issue before the Court of Appeals in the
action for annulment of judgment is the validity of the compromise
agreement while the criminal case involves their liability for
falsification of public documents. The MeTC also denied petitioners
motion for reconsideration.[21]

II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT NULLIFYING THE ASSAILED ORDERS
OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT JOSELITO VILLAROSA ON
THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS ISSUED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.[28]

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and

prohibition[22] with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 66. In an
Order[23] dated November 16, 2006, the RTC denied the petition on
the ground that there was no prejudicial question; hence, the MeTC
did not act with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners
motion to suspend proceedings. The RTC held that there was no
prejudicial question as the quantum of evidence in the civil action for
annulment of judgment differs from the quantum of evidence
required in the criminal action for falsification of public documents.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration[24] was also denied by the RTC
in its Order[25] datedMarch 9, 2007.

The petition is meritorious.

Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, petitions for certiorari must be
verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum
shopping.[29] The primary question that has to be resolved in this
case is whether the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping, erroneously signed by counsel, may be cured by
subsequent compliance.[30]
Generally, subsequent compliance with the requirement of a
certification of non-forum shopping does not excuse a party from
failure to comply in the first instance. [31] A certification of the
plaintiffs counsel will not suffice for the reason that it is the
petitioner, and not the counsel, who is in the best position to know
whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. [32] A

Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition

before the Court of Appeals assailing the RTCs orders. In its August
23, 2007 Resolution,[26] the appellate court dismissed the petition
on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping was
signed only by petitioners counsel and not by petitioner herself.

certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a

defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the
requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the
petition.[33]

On the second assignment of error that the Court of Appeals

erred in denying petitioners prayer for a writ of certiorari and
prohibition, we likewise find for petitioner.
Under Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
as amended, a criminal action may be suspended upon the
pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action, to wit:

However, there are instances when we treated compliance

with the rule with relative liberality, especially when there are
circumstances or compelling reasons making the strict application
of the rule clearly unjustified.[34]

SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial

question. - A petition for suspension of the criminal
action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial
question in a civil action may be filed in the office of
the prosecutor or the court conducting the
preliminary investigation. When the criminal action
has been filed in court for trial, the petition to
suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at
any time before the prosecution rests.

In the case of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of

Appeals,[35] while we said that, strictly, a certification against forum
shopping by counsel is a defective certification, the verification,
signed by petitioners counsel in said case, is substantial
compliance inasmuch as it served the purpose of the Rules of
informing the Court of the pendency of another action or
proceeding involving the same issues. We then explained that
procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice which should be used to achieve such end
and not to derail it.[36]

For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend a criminal

action, it must appear not only that said civil case involves facts
intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution
would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues
raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined.[42] The rationale behind the principle of
prejudicial question is to avoid two (2) conflicting decisions.

In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[37] we categorically stated

that while the petition was flawed as the certification of non-forum
shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, such
procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial
justice.[38] Finally, the Court has also on occasion held that the party
need not sign the verification; a partys representative, lawyer or
any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in
the pleading may sign the verification.[39]

Thus, for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a

criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal
proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case, the following
requisites must be present: (1) the civil case involves facts
intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution
would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in
the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question
must be lodged in another tribunal.[43]

Here, the verification and certification of non-forum

shopping was signed by petitioners counsel. Upon receipt of the
resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing her petition for noncompliance with the rules, petitioner submitted, together with her
motion for reconsideration, a verification and certification signed by
her in compliance with the said rule. [40] We deem this to be
sufficient compliance especially in view of the merits of the case,
which may be considered as a special circumstance or a compelling
reason that would justify tempering the hard consequence of the
procedural requirement on non-forum shopping.[41]

If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not

determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal
action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity that the civil
case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil
case does not involve a prejudicial question.[44] Neither is there

a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can,

according to law, proceed independently of each other.[45]

No costs.
SO ORDERED.

As stated, the determination of whether the proceedings

may be suspended on the basis of a prejudicial question rests on
whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the civil
case are so related with the issues raised in the criminal case such
that the resolution of the issues in the civil case would also
determine the judgment in the criminal case.

PIMENTEL vs. PIMENTEL, G.R. No. 172060, September 13,

2010
Facts: Respondent, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel, filed an action for
frustrated parricide against petitioner, Joselito
R. Pimentel. TheInformation for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30
August 2004 and was raffled to RTC Quezon City on 25 October
2004. The pre-trialand trial was set on 14 February 2005. She also
filed on 5 November 2004, a petition, dated 4 November 2004, for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family
Code on the ground of psychological incapacityPetitioner received
summons to appear before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City
on 7 February 2005, for the pre-trial and trialof the Civil Case. He
then filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the
RTC Quezon City on the ground of theexistence of a prejudicial
question asserting that the relationship between the offender and
the victim is a key element in parricide, theoutcome of Civil Case
would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him before
the RTC Quezon City.The RTC Quezon City held that the pendency of
the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a prejudicial question that
warrants thesuspension of the criminal case before it.The Court of
Appeals also denied the petition holding that the issue in the
criminal case for frustrated parricide differs from the issuein the
civil action for annulment of marriage. It ruled that even if the
marriage between petitioner and respondent would be
declaredvoid, it would be immaterial to the criminal case because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts constituting the
crime offrustrated parricide had already been committed. At the
time of the commission of the crime, the marriage is still subsisting

A perusal of the allegations in the petition to annul

judgment shows that CA-G.R. SP No. 87222 pending before the
Court of Appeals is principally for the determination of the validity
of the compromise agreement which did not include Peter,
Catherine, and Fannie as heirs of Bella. Peter, Catherine, and Fannie
presented evidence to prove that they are also biological children
of Bella and Alejandro. On the other hand, Criminal Case Nos.
343812 to 343814 before the MeTC involve the determination of
whether petitioner committed falsification of public documents in
executing pleadings containing untruthful statements that she and
Rosemary were the only legal heirs of Bella.
It is evident that the result of the civil case will determine
the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal cases for
falsification of public documents. The criminal cases arose out of
the claim of Peter, Catherine, and Fannie that they are also the
legal heirs of Bella. If it is finally adjudged in the civil case that they
are not biological children of the late Bella and consequently not
entitled to a share in her estate as heirs, there is no more basis to
proceed with the criminal cases against petitioner who could not
have committed falsification in her pleadings filed before the RTC of
Pasig City, the truth of her statements regarding the filiation of
Peter, Catherine and Fannie having been judicially settled.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions
dated August 23, 2007 and July 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 98978 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
criminal proceedings against petitioner Krizia Katrina Ty-De
Zuzuarregui in Criminal Case Nos. 343812 to 343814 before
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61 are hereby
ordered SUSPENDED until the final resolution of CA-G.R. SP No.
87222.

.Issue: Whether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of

marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension
ofthe criminal case for frustrated parricide.
Ruling: The elements of a prejudicial question under Section 7, Rule
111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which are: (a)
the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal

action and(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or

not the criminal action may proceed, were not met.Civil action
must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action. In
this case, the civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of
the criminal case for frustrated parricide.Further, the resolution of
the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant the
suspension of the criminal action.There is a prejudicial question
when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and
there exists in the civil action an issuewhich must be preemptively
resolved before the criminal action may proceed because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action isresolved would be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case.The relationship between the offender and the victim
is a key element in the crime of parricide. However, the issue in the
annulmentof marriage is not similar or intimately related to the
issue in the criminal case for parricide. Further, the relationship
between theoffender and the victim is not determinative of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.The issue in the civil case for
annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is
whether petitioner is psychologicallyincapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations. The issue in parricide is whether
the accused killed the victim. In thiscase, since petitioner was
charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he
performed all the acts of execution which wouldhave killed
respondent as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not
produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioners will. At
the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and
respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of
theirmarriage, in case the petition in Civil Case is granted, will have
no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of
thesubsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage
between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still
be heldcriminally liable since at the time of the commission of the
alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.

A.C. No. 6971

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On December 1, 2003, Quirino Tomlin II filed a complaint 1 before
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Salvador N. Moya II for allegedly
reneging on his monetary obligations and for having issued
bouncing checks; thereby violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility2 and Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22.3
Complainant averred that respondent borrowed from him
P600,000.00 partially covered by seven postdated checks.
However, when complainant tried to encash them on their
respective due dates, the checks were all dishonored by the drawee
bank, to wit:

Check No.

Due Date

Amount

Reason for D

MOB 1011326

May 16, 2001

P13,500.00

RTCOC

MOB 1011311

June 11, 2001

P30,000.00

RTCOC

MOB 1011328

June 17, 2001

P5,000.00

Account C

MOB 1011313

August 12, 2001

P50,000.00

Account C

MOB 1011329

August 16, 2001

P5,000.00

Account C

MOB 1011314

August 19, 2001

P50,000.00

Account C

MOB 1011330

September 18, 2001

P5,000.00

Account C

February 23, 2006

QUIRINO TOMLIN II, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II, Respondent.
DECISION

Complainant made several demands, the last being a formal

letter4 sent on September 25, 2002;5 however, respondent still
failed and refused to pay his debt without justifiable reason.
Consequently, complainant instituted a case for seven counts of
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the respondent before the Municipal
Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.6 In addition, he filed the instant
case for respondents disbarment.

In the Report and Recommendation dated March 31, 2005, the

Investigating Commissioner noted that respondent failed to file an
answer and/or position paper despite several requests for
extension, in disregard of the orders of the IBP. Moreover, it was
observed that the pending criminal action against respondent does
not pose a prejudicial question to the resolution of the issues in the
present administrative case. Hence, it was recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

On December 1, 2003, respondent was directed to file his answer

but instead he filed several motions for extension of time to file a
responsive pleading7 and a motion to dismiss complaint.8

On October 22, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and

approved the report of the Investigating Commissioner, but
modified the penalty of suspension from the practice of law from
one year to two years.

Respondent alleged that the case should be dismissed outright for

violation of the rule on non-forum shopping. He argued that
complainant did not inform the IBP about the cases he filed for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22 against respondent pending before the
Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan. 9 Respondent argued
that the filing of the administrative case despite the pendency of
the criminal cases is a form of harassment which should not be
allowed.

We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not
only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the peoples faith and
confidence in the judicial system is ensured.19 Lawyers may be
disciplined whether in their professional or in their private
capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty,
probity and good demeanor.20 Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in
his profession or private capacity is a ground for the imposition of
the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character is
an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law
and for the continuance of such privilege.21

On April 28, 2004, the Commission on Bar Discipline denied10 the

motion to dismiss for being a prohibited pleading under Section 2,
Rule 3 of its Rules of Procedure. Respondents motion for
reconsideration11 was likewise denied on June 16, 2004.12
Thereafter, respondent filed several motions for extension of time
to file an answer.13 His last motion for extension was however
denied for lack of merit. Consequently, the Commission on Bar
Discipline declared him in default.14

In the present case, respondent admitted his monetary obligations

to the complainant but offered no justifiable reason for his
continued refusal to pay. Complainant made several demands, both
verbal and written, but respondent just ignored them and even
made himself scarce. Although he acknowledged his financial
obligations to the complainant, respondent never offered nor made
arrangements to pay his debt. On the contrary, he refused to
recognize any wrongdoing nor shown remorse for issuing worthless
checks, an act constituting gross misconduct. 22 Respondent must
be reminded that it is his duty as a lawyer to faithfully perform at
all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
clients. As part of his duties, he must promptly pay his financial
obligations.23

Respondent thereafter filed a manifestation with motion to

terminate proceedings on the ground of prescription15and omnibus
motion to recall the default order.16
On January 3, 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline required the
parties to submit their respective verified position papers after
which the case shall be considered submitted for resolution. 17
Only the complainant submitted his position paper. 18

The contention that complainant violated the rule against forum

shopping with the filing of this administrative complaint is bereft of
merit. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than
by appeal or certiorari) in another24 or when he institutes two or
more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable
disposition.25 Forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or
proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings.26 Moreover, Criminal
Case Nos. 6-367-03 to 6-373-03 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 refer to
the respondents act of making or drawing and issuance of
worthless checks; while the present administrative case seeks to
discipline respondent as a lawyer for his dishonest act of failing to
pay his debt in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.lavvph!1.net

Finally, we note that respondent failed to file his answer and

verified position paper despite several opportunities given him by
the IBP, that is, from the time he received on December 20,
200329 the Order30 of the IBP requiring him to file an answer until
March 31, 2005 when the Investigating Commissioner submitted
the Report and Recommendation. Instead, he filed several motions
for extension of time, motion to dismiss the complaint, motion for
reconsideration, manifestation with motion to terminate
proceedings, and omnibus motion to recall the default order. Until
the end, respondent offered no plausible explanation for his failure
to pay his debts. Instead, he kept on insisting, on plainly
unmeritorious grounds, the dismissal of the complaint. Verily,
respondents failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without
justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial
authorities.31 Respondent should be reminded that the IBP has
disciplinary authority over him by virtue of his membership
therein.32

Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that

administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.
They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of
criminal cases. The burden of proof in a criminal case is guilt
beyond reasonable doubt while in an administrative case, only
preponderance of evidence is required. Thus, a criminal prosecution
will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and
circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. 27

In view of the foregoing, we find the penalty of suspension from the

practice of law for two years as recommended by the IBP
commensurate under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Salvador N. Moya II is found GUILTY of gross
misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years,
effective immediately, with a warning that any further infraction by
him shall be dealt with most severely.

Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of

a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted
upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless from applying
the rules on admission to and continuing membership in the legal
profession during the whole period that the criminal case is
pending final disposition when the objectives of the two
proceedings are vastly disparate.28

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to all courts as well as the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar
Confidant.
SO ORDERED.