Another six months: Castro handed new suspension

CEBU, Philippines - When it rains, it pours.

While still serving her six-month suspension from practicing law for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, Cebu City prosecutor Mary Ann Castro, was meted another six-month suspension by the Supreme Court for filing two petitions for the annulment of her marriage before two different courts in Cebu, an act prohibited by law.

The SC's Third Division held that Castro's act constitutes "forum shopping," or filing of multiple actions arising from the same cause, thus, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, which lays down rules of ethics for the members of the Bar.

Forum shopping is prohibited for being trifling with the courts and abusive of the court's processes, with the party aiming to increase chances of obtaining a favorable decision in any of the courts.

"Filing multiple actions contravenes such duty (assist in the administration of justice) because it does not only clog the court dockets, but also takes the courts' time and resources from other cases," read part of the 10-page SC decision penned by Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza.

The case stemmed from the findings in the judicial audit conducted by the SC in the sala of Judge Ildefonso Suerte of the Regional Trial Court Branch 60 in Barili, Cebu.

It was found out that Castro actually filed two separate petitions for annulment of marriage, one in Barili and another in RTC Branch 56 in Mandaue City.

Castro married Rocky Rommel Roa on March 30, 1993 and they had two children together. However, on June 5, 2000, Castro filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the trial court in Mandaue City on the grounds of psychological incapacity.

In April 2001, the RTC Branch 56 in Mandaue City granted Castro's first petition, and declared the marriage between Castro and Roa null and void by reason of psychological incapacity.

However, the Office of the Solicitor General appealed the decision before Court of Appeals, averring that there was an error in the decision. In its ruling dated Oct. 22, 2003, the CA found certain irregularities in the trial proceedings, and declared the trial court's decision as void.

The case was remanded to RTC Branch 56 in Mandaue City in order to give Castro the opportunity to present her evidence.

After the remand of her first petition, Castro filed a motion to dismiss the case, saying that she no longer wished to continue the trial since it would mean "extra effort, time and money that would dwindle her income."

But on November 20, 2003, while the motion was still pending resolution, Castro filed a second petition for annulment of marriage before RTC Branch 60 in Barili, Cebu, this time, on the ground of fraud through the concealment of drug addiction and habitual alcoholism under Article 45 (3) in relation to Article 46 of the Family Code.

But Castro allegedly failed to mention the pending petition in a Mandaue City court and present a certification of non-forum shopping.

In January 2004 RTC Branch 60 in Barili granted Castro's second petition and declared the marriage between Castro and Roa as null and void.

In her comment submitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Castro contended that there was no "substantial irregularity" when she filed the second annulment of marriage with another court. She argued that the two petitions were rooted from two distinct issues.

After its investigation, the IBP Board of Governors on November 2011 found Castro guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The IBP Board recommended her suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. It also ruled that there was forum shopping.

In the decision, the SC approved the IBP Board's recommendation but modified the penalty from one year of suspension from practice of law to six months.

"Clearly, Castro committed forum shopping in this case. The fact that she moved to dismiss the first petition will not excuse her from committing forum shopping," the SC ruled.

With the findings, the SC then ordered the IBP to look into the "fitness" of Castro as a member of the Bar.

Warning to lawyers

As a lawyer, she should have been aware that the motion did not automatically dismiss the first petition until ordered by the court, the SC added.

The suspension will take effect upon Castro's receipt of the decision.

"She is warned that a repetition of a similar act will be dealt with more severely," the SC said.

With this, the High Court reminded lawyers that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.

"Lawyers should not trifle with judicial processes and resort to forum shopping because they have the duty to assist the courts in the administration of justice," it said.

The SC earlier suspended Castro for six months and a day for showing "conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service" when she asked the Special Weapons and Tactics team to help her brother who complained about a defective vehicle he bought in 2001. The suspension took effect last March 16.

The SC said Castro used the influence of her office to use the police "for a purely personal matter."

A source from the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office said the latest suspension shall be served as soon as her first suspension is finished. However, when sought for comment on the latest SC decision, Castro said she would rather have it implemented immediately.

"Everything happens for a purpose. When God closes a door, He opens another window of greater opportunity. Wait and see na lang of the things to come... the opportunities are endless. We just have to explore it," she said in a text message sent to The FREEMAN.

"I'm about to sever my ties with the prosecution service and about to explore another field of adventure in this administration," she added.

When asked where she will be working soon, Castro hinted that she was offered a co-terminus position in the administration, but will be assigned to her hometown in Cagayan de Oro. (FREEMAN)