Now with regard to complainant’s argument

that it was error for the Investigating

Commissioner to dismiss the complaint
against respondents because, by filing a
motion to dismiss, respondents are deemed
to have admitted the allegations of the
complaint against them, suffice it to say that
SECOND DIVISION the rule that a motion to dismiss is to be
considered as a hypothetical admission of
[Adm. Case No. 3825. February 1, the facts alleged in the complaint applies
1996.] more particularly to cases in which the
ground for dismissal is the failure of the
REYNALDO HALIMAO, Complainant, v. complaint to state a cause of action. When it
ATTYS. DANIEL VILLANUEVA and appears on the face of the complaint that
INOCENCIO PEFIANCO FERRER, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under
JR., Respondents. the facts alleged, the defendant may file a
motion to dismiss hypothetically admitting
the facts alleged in the complaint. By filing
SYLLABUS such a motion, the defendant in effect says
that even assuming the facts to be as
alleged by the plaintiff, the latter has failed
1. LEGAL ETHICS; COMPLAINTS AGAINST to prove that he has a right which the
LAWYERS; RULE 139-D SEC. 12(c) OF THE former has violated. The rule does not
RULES OF COURT; ALTHOUGH SAID RULE unqualifiedly apply to a case where the
MAKES NO MENTION OF A MOTION FOR defendant files a motion to dismiss based on
RECONSIDERATION, NOTHING IN ITS TEXT lack of jurisdiction of the court or tribunal
SUGGESTS THAT SUCH MOTION IS over the person of the defendant or over the
PROHIBITED. — Rule 139-B states in subject matter or over the nature of the
pertinent part: §12. Review and decision by action; or on improper venue; or on lack of
the Board of Governors. — . . . c) If the capacity to sue of the plaintiff or on litis
respondent is exonerated by the Board or pendentia, res judicata, prescription,
the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less unenforceability, or on the allegation that
than suspension or disbarment [such as the suit is between members of the same
admonition reprimand, or fine] it shall issue family and no earnest efforts towards a
a decision exonerating respondent or compromise have been made. In such
imposing such sanction. The case shall be cases, the hypothetical admission is limited
deemed terminated unless upon petition of to the facts alleged in the complaint which
the complainant or other interested party relate to and are necessary for the
filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen resolution of these grounds as preliminary
(15) days from notice of the Board’s matters involving substantive or procedural
resolution, the Supreme Court orders laws, but not to the other facts of the case.
otherwise. Although Rule 139-B, §12(c) On the other hand, when a motion to
makes no mention of a motion for dismiss is based on payment, waiver,
reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its abandonment, release, compromise, or
history suggests that such motion is other form of extinguishment, the motion to
prohibited. It may thereof be filed within 15 dismiss does not hypothetically, but actually,
days from notice to a party. Indeed, the admits the facts alleged in existence of the
filing of such motion should be encouraged obligation or debt, only that plaintiff claims
before resort is made to this Court as a that the obligation has been satisfied. So
matter of exhaustion of administrative that when a motion to dismiss on these
remedies, to afford the agency rendering the grounds is denied, what is left to be proven
judgment an opportunity to correct any in the trial is no longer the existence of the
error it may have committed through a debt but the fact vel non of payment by the
misapprehension of facts or misappreciation defendant.
of the evidence. Considering, however, that
complainant’s motion for reconsideration 3. ID.; RES JUDICATA; WHAT IS ESSENTIAL
was filed after the IBP had forwarded the IN RES JUDICATA IS IDENTITY OF INTEREST
records of this case to this Court, it would be AND NOT THE ABSOLUTE IDENTITY OF
more expedient to treat it as complainant’s PARTIES. — The Investigating Commissioner
petition for review within the contemplation properly dismissed the complaint in this case
of Rule 139-B, §12(c). on the ground of res judicata, it appearing
that it involves the same incident and the
2. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; same cause of action as Administrative Case
MOTION TO DISMISS; RULE THAT A No. 3825. Indeed, it appears that on August
MOTION TO DISMISS IS TO BE 5, 1995, the First Division of the Court
CONSIDERED A HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION dismissed a similar complaint filed in
OF THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE Administrative Case No. 3835. Two motions
COMPLAINT; APPLICATION OF THE RULE. — for reconsideration of this resolution were

1
filed by the complainant therein, both of case.
which were denied, the first one on
September 23, 1992 and the second one on Respondent Ferrer claimed that he was
November 9, 1992. While the complainant nowhere near the compound when the
(Danilo Hernandez) in Administrative Case incident took place. He submitted affidavits
No. 3835 is different from the complainant attesting to the fact that he had spent the
in the present case, the fact is that they whole day of April 4, 1992 in Makati with his
have an identity of interest, as the family.
Investigating Commissioner ruled. Both
complainants were employed at the Oo Kian Additionally, Ferrer claimed that the two
Tiok Compound at the time of the alleged complaints were filed for the purpose of
incident. Both complain of the same act harassing him because he was the principal
allegedly committed by respondents. The lawyer of Atty. Daniel Villanueva in two
resolution of this Court in Administrative cases before the Securities and Exchange
Case No. 3835 is thus conclusive in this Commission. The cases involved the
case, it appearing that the complaint in this ownership and control of Filipinas Textile
case is nothing but a duplication of the Mills (Filtex), which is owned by Villanueva’s
complaint of Danilo Hernandez in the prior family and whose premises are the Oo Kian
case. In dismissing the complaint brought by Tiok compound.
Danilo Hernandez in the prior case, this
Court categorically found "want of a prima This case was thereafter referred to the
facie showing of professional misconduct on Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
the part of the respondents [Attorneys investigation, report and recommendation.
Daniel Villanueva and Inocencio Ferrer, Jr.]."
In its Resolution No. XI-94-017 dated
January 22, 1994, the Board of Governors of
the IBP dismissed the case against
DECISION respondents. It acted on the basis of the
report and recommendation of Atty. Victor
C. Fernandez, Investigating Commissioner,
MENDOZA, J.: who found that the complaint is barred by
the decision in Administrative Case No. 3835
which involved the same incident. Atty.
This is a complaint for disbarment against Fernandez noted that in fact the complaints
Attorneys Daniel Villanueva and Inocencio in the two cases were similarly worded.
Ferrer, Jr., for serious misconduct.
The Investigating Commissioner held that
The complaint originated from a letter dated although the complaint in the prior case was
April 14, 1992 which complainant Reynaldo initiated by a security guard (Danilo
Halimao wrote to the Chief Justice, alleging Hernandez) of the compound while the
that respondents, without lawful authority present case was filed by the caretaker,
and armed with armalites and handguns, nevertheless the complainants had
forcibly entered the Oo Xian Tiok Compound substantially the same interest. The
in Cainta, Rizal, of which complainant was Investigating Commissioner
caretaker, on April 4, 1992 at 11:00 A..M. observed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Complainant prayed that an investigation be
conducted and respondents disbarred. To Furthermore, Danilo Hernandez is not a
the complaint were attached the affidavits of stranger to complainant herein. Both
alleged witnesses, including that of Danilo represent the same interest as co-workers in
Hernandez, a security guard at the the Oo Kian Tiok Compound. In his letter-
compound, who had also filed a similar complaint, complainant mentions Danilo
complaint against herein respondents. Hernandez as an employee and his co-
worker at the Oo Kian Tiok Compound.
In its resolution dated July 1, 1992, the Complainant even attached to his complaint
Court required respondents to comment. the affidavit of Danilo Hernandez that was
submitted to the Municipal Trial Court of
On August 14, 1992, respondents filed a Cainta, Rizal in support of the criminal
comment in which they claimed that the complaints (Criminal Cases Nos. MTC-4700
complaint is a mere duplication of the and 4701 (92) filed against respondents
complaint filed by Danilo Hernandez in herein. In said affidavit (Magkakalakip na
Administrative Case No. 3835, which this Sinumpaang Salaysay) dated April 4, 1992,
Court had already dismissed on August 5, Danilo Hernandez also mentions the name of
1992 for lack of merit. They pointed out that complainant as a caretaker of the Oo Kian
both complaints arose from the same Tiok Compound. Clearly, the complainant
incident and the same acts complained of and Danilo Hernandez not only represent the
and that Danilo Hernandez, who filed the same interest in filing their respective
prior case, is the same person whose complaints, but have the same complaint
affidavit is attached to the complaint in this against respondents. 1

2
 Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of
The Commissioner held that for res judicata the Board’s resolution, the Supreme Court
to apply, absolute identity of parties is not orders otherwise.
required, it being sufficient that there is
identity of interests of the parties. In this Although Rule 139-B, §12(c) makes of a
case, both complainants were present at the motion for reconsideration, nothing in its
compound when the incident allegedly text or in its history suggests that such
happened, and the acts they were motion is prohibited. from notice It may
complaining against and the relief they were therefore be filed within 15 days to a party.
seeking were the same. Indeed, the filing of such motion should be
encouraged before resort is made to this
On March 28, 1994, complainant filed a Court as a matter of exhaustion of
motion for reconsideration of the resolution administrative remedies, to afford the
of the IBP Board of Governors. His motion agency rendering the judgment an
was referred to the Court in view of the fact opportunity to correct any error it may have
that the records of the case had earlier been committed through a misapprehension of
forwarded to the Court on March 11, 1994. facts or misappreciation of the evidence. 2

In his aforesaid motion, complainant Considering, however, that complainant’s

contends that by filing a motion to dismiss motion for reconsideration was filed after
the complaint in this case, private the IBP had forwarded the records of this
respondents must be deemed to have case to this Court it would be more
hypothetically admitted the material expedient to treat it as complainant’s
allegations in the complaint and, therefore, petition for review within the contemplation
private respondents must be deemed to of Rule 139-B, §12(c).
have confessed to the charge of serious
misconduct. Hence, it was error for the IBP Now with regard to complainant’s argument
to dismiss his complaint. that it was error for the Investigating
Commissioner to dismiss the complaint
Complainant also contends that by invoking against respondents because, by filing a
the resolution of this Court in Administrative motion to dismiss, respondents are deemed
Case No. 3835, respondents are evading the to have admitted the allegations of the
issues and that Ferrer’s defense of alibi is complaint against them, suffice it to say that
weak and cannot prevail against the direct the rule that a motion to dismiss is to be
and positive identification by him and his considered as a hypothetical admission of
witnesses. He contends that the resolution the facts alleged in the complaint applies
in Administrative Case No. 3835 has no more particularly to cases in which the
bearing upon the present case and that the ground for dismissal is the failure of the
Investigating Commissioner should have complaint to state a cause of action. When it
resolved the issues of fact before him. appears on the face of the complaint that
the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under
Respondents filed an Opposition to the the facts alleged, the defendant may file a
motion for As a preliminary matter, they motion to dismiss hypothetically admitting
argue reconsideration. that the motion for the facts alleged in the complaint. 3 By filing
reconsideration is a mere scrap of paper, such a motion, the defendant in effect says
because it is not provided for in Rule 139-B that even assuming the facts to be as
of the Rules of Court, and that what alleged by the plaintiff, the latter has failed
complainant should instead have done was to prove that he has a right which the
to appeal to this Court. former has violated. 4

Rule 139-B states in pertinent The rule does not unqualifiedly apply to a
part:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library case where the defendant files a motion to
dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction of the
§12. Review and decision by the Board of court or tribunal over the person of the
Governors. — defendant or over the subject matter or over
the nature of the action; or on improper
x              x              x venue; or on lack of capacity to sue of the
plaintiff or on litis pendentia, res judicata,
prescription, unenforceability, or on the
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the allegation that the suit is between members
Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed of the same family and no earnest efforts
by it is less than suspension or disbarment towards a compromise have been made. In
[such as admonition, reprimand, or fine] it such cases, the hypothetical admission is
shall issue a decision exonerating limited to the facts alleged in the complaint
respondent or imposing such sanction. The which relate to and are necessary for the
case shall be deemed terminated unless resolution of these grounds as preliminary
upon petition of the complainant or other matters involving substantive or procedural
interested party filed with the Supreme laws, but not to the other facts of the case.

3
 not in administrative proceedings to disbar
On the other hand, when a motion to Attorney Daniel Villanueva and his counsel,
dismiss is based on payment, waiver, Attorney Inocencio P. Ferrer, Jr.
abandonment, release, compromise, or
other form of extinguishment, the motion to WHEREFORE, the complaint against
dismiss does not hypothetically, but actually, respondents Attys. Daniel Villanueva and
admits the facts alleged in the complaint, Inocencio P. Ferrer, Jr. is DISMISSED for
i.e., the existence of the obligation or debt, lack of merit.
only that the plaintiff claims that the
obligation has been satisfied. So that when a Two motions for reconsideration of this
motion to dismiss on these grounds is resolution were filed by the complainant
denied, what is left to be proven in the trial therein, both of which were denied, the first
is no longer the existence of the debt but one on September 23, 1992 and the second
the fact vel non of payment by the one on November 9, 1992.
defendant.
While the complainant (Danilo Hernandez) in
The Investigating Commissioner properly Administrative Case No. 3835 is different
dismissed the complaint in this case on the from the complainant in the present case,
ground of res judicata, it appearing that it the fact is that they have an identity of
involves the same incident and the same interest, as the Investigating Commissioner
cause of action as that Administrative Case ruled. Both complainants were employed at
No. 3825. Indeed, it appears on August 5, the Oo Kian Tiok Compound at the time of
1995, the First Division of the Court the alleged incident. Both complain of the
dismissed a similar complaint filed in same act allegedly committed by
Administrative Case No. 3835. The respondents. The resolution of this Court in
resolution reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw Administrative Case No. 3835 is thus
library conclusive in this case, it appearing that the
complaint in this case is nothing but a
Adm. Case No. 3835 (Danilo Hernandez v. duplication of the complaint of Danilo
Attys. Daniel Villanueva and Inocencio Hernandez in the prior case. In dismissing
Pefianco Ferrer, Jr.). — This administrative the complaint brought by Danilo Hernandez
complaint against Attorneys Daniel in the prior case, this Court categorically
Villanueva and Inocencio P. Ferrer, Jr. is the found "want of a prima facie showing of
offshoot of a family feud involving the professional misconduct on the part of the
ownership and possession of the Filipinas respondents [Attorneys Daniel Villanueva
Textile Mills (Filtex). The contest between and Inocencio Ferrer, Jr.]"
Bernardino Villanueva and Daniel Villanueva
(probably relatives) for the control of the WHEREFORE, the resolution Governors of
corporation has escalated into a three- the Integrated Bar approving and adopting
cornered fight when Oo Kian Tiok joined the the report the Investigating Commissioner,
fray, claiming ownership of the same of the Board of the Philippines, and
property by purchase from the Equitable recommendation of is AFFIRMED and the
Banking Corporation, mortgage creditor and complaint against respondents is
highest bidder thereof at the mortgage DISMISSED.
foreclosure sale.
SO ORDERED.
Respondent Daniel Villanueva believes that
Bernardino Villanueva is the evil genius
behind this complaint for his disbarment
filed by a certain Daniel Hernandez. On the
other hand, Hernandez claims to be one of
several security guards placed by Oo Kian
Tiok on the Filtex property. His allegation
that the respondents drove him and the
other security guards out of the Filtex
premises at gun point was denied by the
respondents and is not substantiated by
independent evidence.

For want of a prima facie showing of

professional misconduct on the part of the
respondents, the complaint must be
dismissed. The three-cornered dispute
among respondent Daniel Villanueva,
Bernardino Villanueva and Oo Kian Tok [sic]
over the possession and ownership of the
Filtex property should be litigated and
determined in an appropriate judicial action,