The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer for one year and ordered him to pay P135,000 in fines for forum shopping and making what it called “frivolous” motions to inhibit judges, as well as “intemperate accusations” that fellow lawyers were plotting his assassination.

In a statement, the SC said that the administrative penalties against the lawyer identified as Atty. Makilito Mahinay stemmed from an intra-corporate dispute involving PJH Lending Corporation.

Mahinay represents one of the factions involved in the dispute, and the complaint against him was filed by Wilma Zamora, representing the opposing faction.

Zamora alleged that Mahinay engaged in forum shopping by filing numerous pleadings, abused court processes to delay a criminal case, and misled the court. She also accused Mahinay of making unfounded accusations against her lawyers, claiming in a separate disbarment case that he received information they had contracted individuals to assassinate him.

In a decision dated 5 April 2025 penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan of the SC Third Division, the court found that Mahinay committed willful and deliberate forum shopping by filing two different pleadings involving the same parties, similar issues and seeking the same remedy.

The court stated that this practice could lead to conflicting rulings from different legal forums.

Mahinay denied the allegations, arguing that he filed the pleadings as part of his duty to his client to exhaust all legal remedies against what he claimed were false charges. He also contended that the remedies he pursued were permissible under the rules and did not constitute an abuse of process.

Regarding the alleged assassination plot, Mahinay asserted that threats to his life should not be taken lightly and that his statement in the ex-parte manifestation was a precautionary measure.

However, the Supreme Court stated that while lawyers have a duty to defend their clients, they cannot willfully or through gross negligence file similar pleadings in multiple courts seeking a favorable judgment.

The court also found that Mahinay abused court processes by filing motions seeking the inhibition of judges after they issued rulings unfavorable to his client.

“The parties and their lawyers cannot simply impute bias or partiality to a judge whenever they receive an unfavorable judgment for to do so is to disrespect the judicial officer and the judicial system as a whole,” the SC said.

The court did find that Mahinay did not mislead the court regarding an order for the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct an expert examination of a document.