Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 74 views

    Kimteng vs. Atty. Yound (1stbatch)

    Uploaded by

    Harry Dave Ocampo Pagaoa
    The petitioners filed a complaint for disbarment against the private respondents before the Commission on Bar Discipline and a petition for contempt under Rule 71. The private respondents claimed this constituted forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not constitute forum shopping because a disbarment proceeding and a petition for contempt are different and involve different issues. Forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and facts/circumstances between the two cases, which was not present here. Therefore, filing both the disbarment complaint and contempt petition did not amount to impermissible forum shopping.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kimteng vs. Atty. Yound (1stbatch)

    Uploaded by

    Harry Dave Ocampo Pagaoa
    74 views2 pages
    The petitioners filed a complaint for disbarment against the private respondents before the Commission on Bar Discipline and a petition for contempt under Rule 71. The private respondents claimed this constituted forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not constitute forum shopping because a disbarment proceeding and a petition for contempt are different and involve different issues. Forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and facts/circumstances between the two cases, which was not present here. Therefore, filing both the disbarment complaint and contempt petition did not amount to impermissible forum shopping.

    Original Title

    Kimteng vs. Atty. Yound (1stBatch)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners filed a complaint for disbarment against the private respondents before the Commission on Bar Discipline and a petition for contempt under Rule 71. The private respondents claimed this constituted forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not constitute forum shopping because a disbarment proceeding and a petition for contempt are different and involve different issues. Forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and facts/circumstances between the two cases, which was not present here. Therefore, filing both the disbarment complaint and contempt petition did not amount to impermissible forum shopping.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views2 pages

    Kimteng vs. Atty. Yound (1stbatch)

    Uploaded by

    Harry Dave Ocampo Pagaoa
    The petitioners filed a complaint for disbarment against the private respondents before the Commission on Bar Discipline and a petition for contempt under Rule 71. The private respondents claimed this constituted forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not constitute forum shopping because a disbarment proceeding and a petition for contempt are different and involve different issues. Forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and facts/circumstances between the two cases, which was not present here. Therefore, filing both the disbarment complaint and contempt petition did not amount to impermissible forum shopping.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DOCTRINE: The filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the

    Philippines and the filing of this Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute forum
    shopping.

    SECOND DIVISION

    DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN,
    LILIAN CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO
    YU LIM, v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY.
    JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT, et. al.

    G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015

    LEONEN, J.;

    FACTS:

    Petitioners are the majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation, a corporation


    subject to a liquidation proceeding. Atty. Young, Atty. Gambol and Atty. Magat are lawyers
    practicing under the firm, Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. They entered their appearance in the
    liquidation proceedings as counsels for the liquidator. An Opposition was filed against the
    appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat on the ground that Revilla was already disbarred
    in 2009. Young Revilla Gambol & Magat filed a Reply to the Opposition. Judge Calo overruled
    the opposition to the appearance of Young Revilla Gambol & Magat and stated that Atty. Young
    could still appear for the liquidator as long as his appearance was under the Young Law Firm and
    not under Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. Young Law Firm does not exist. Thus, petitioners
    filed this Petition under Rule 71 to cite respondents Atty. Walter T. Young, Anastacio E. Revilla,
    Jr., Atty. Jovito Gambol, Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat, and Judge Ofelia L. Calo in contempt.
    Private respondents raise the issue of forum shopping because petitioners allegedly filed a
    disbarment Complaint against them before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of
    the Philippines. One of the grounds for disbarment cited by petitioners was the use of Revilla's
    name in their firm name.
    ISSUE:

    Is there a forum shopping?

    HELD:

    NO

    Disbarment proceedings are sui generis, and are not akin to civil or criminal cases. A
    disbarment proceeding is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable
    members in order to protect the public and the courts.

    Petitioners do not deny that they filed a Complaint for disbarment. They argue, however,
    that they did not mention the disbarment proceedings against respondents in view of Rule 139-B,
    Section 18 of the Rules of Court, which states that disbarment proceedings are private and
    confidential. In addition, a Petition for contempt under Rule 71 and a Complaint for disbarment
    are different from each other.
    The filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
    the filing of this Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute forum shopping. Forum
    shopping has been defined as:

    when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously
    or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts
    and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already
    resolved adversely by some other court.

    The elements of forum shopping are:


    (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;
    (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
    and
    (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other
    action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
    consideration.

    You might also like