"x x x.
CEBU City Assistant Prosecutor Mary Ann Castro is again suspended for six months for filing separate petitions for annulment of marriage in two trial courts in Cebu in 2000.
The Supreme Court’s (SC) Third Division found her guilty of violating Rule 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
“Filing multiple actions contravenes such duty because it does not only clog the court dockets, but also takes the courts’ time and resources from other cases,” read the SC decision penned by Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza.
In June 2015, the High Court suspended Castro for six months and a day for wielding “excessive influence” when she asked police to help her brother who complained about a defective vehicle he bought in 2001.
The SC 2nd Division affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which found Castro guilty of using her office’s influence to use the Special Weapons and Tactics (Swat) “for a purely personal matter.”
Castro started serving her suspension last March 16. The suspension will end on Sept. 17.
In an interview, Castro said they will file a petition for review before the SC.
Castro’s latest suspension stemmed from an administrative case from the findings in the judicial audit conducted by the SC in the sala of Judge Ildefonso Suerte of Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 60 in Barili, Cebu.
Castro married Rocky Rommel Roa on March 30, 1993. They have two children. However, on June 5, 2000, Castro filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC Branch 56 in Mandaue City.
During the audit, the SC discovered that Castro filed two separate petitions in two different courts, one in the sala of Judge Suerte and the other in the sala of Judge Jesus de la Pefia.
The SC ordered the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to look into the “fitness” of Castro as a member of the bar in connection with her filing of the two separate petitions.
In April 2001, the RTC Branch 56 in Mandaue City granted Castro’s first petition, and declared her marriage to Roa void by reason of psychological incapacity.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the trial court’s decision before Court of Appeals (CA).
The OSG argued, among others, that the trial court erred in voiding the marriage.
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 to give Roa the opportunity to present his evidence.
Castro filed a motion to dismiss since she no longer wished to continue the trial because “the continuance of the trial would mean extra effort, time and money that would dwindle her income.”
While her motion was pending in court, Castro filed a second petition for annulment of marriage before the RTC Branch 60 in Barili, Cebu last Nov. 20, 2003.
She cited fraud through the concealment of drug addiction and habitual alcoholism under Article 45 (3) in relation to Article 46 of the Family Code.
Castro failed to mention her pending petition in the Mandaue City court and a certification of non-forum shopping.
In January 2004, the RTC Branch 60 in Barili, Cebu granted Castro’s second petition and declared her marriage to Roa as void.
In 2004, brothers Jake and Nanak Yu filed a complaint before the Ombudsman-Visayas, accusing Castro of perjury and falsification of public document and grave misconduct.
In November 2011, the IBP Board of Governors found Castro guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP Board recommended her suspension from practicing law for one year. The IBP Board 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 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.
As a lawyer, she should have been aware that the motion did not automatically dismiss the first petition until ordered by the court.
“She may be acting as a mother seeking a peaceful family life for her children, but this does not excuse her from compliance with the rules of the profession that she has chosen for herself to support her family,” the SC said.
The SC 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.
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on July 24, 2016.
x x x."
