Concordia Garcia filed a civil case against Sotero Lee by reason of Lee’s refusal to vacate Garcia’s property. Atty. Crisanto Francisco was Lee’s lawyer. In 1992, Garcia filed a disbarment case against Atty. Francisco on the ground that in order to gain leverage for his client, Atty. Francisco resorted to filing frivolous cases against Garcia. Among the cases he filed against Garcia are one civil case and five special civil actions (one was before the Supreme Court). All of these actions were dismissed for being baseless.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco is administratively liable.
HELD: Yes. The cases filed by Atty. Francisco for Lee were obviously without merit. Atty. Francisco was aware of the lack of merit of Lee’s case when his cases were consistently denied. Atty. Francisco added to the already clogged dockets of the courts and wasted their valuable time. He also caused much inconvenience and expense to Garcia, who was obliged to defend herself against his every move.
By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defense only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. By violating his oath not to delay any man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proved himself unworthy of trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. He was suspended for one year.
