On June 19, 2006, petitioner filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of Real Properties fraudulently obtained with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 19 and docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-32448 claiming that he is in possession of the original of the Transfer Certificate of Title, against respondents, who earlier filed a Petition for the Issuance of New Duplicate Certificate of Title, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 9 in a Resolution dated April 11, 2006.
Pending the resolution of petitioner’s complaint, he commenced another action before the Court of Appeals on November 4, 2008 for the Annulment of Judgment of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 9, which was dismissed based on technicalities in a Resolution dated April 22, 2009.
On June 5, 2009, petitioner commenced another civil action before the CA for the Annulment of Judgment of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 9. Meanwhile, on September 1, 2010, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19 dismissed Civil Case no. CEB-32448 on the ground of forum shopping.
The CA ruled that petitioner committed forum shopping because there is identity of causes of action, parties and reliefs sought in the action filed by him for reconveyance of real properties instituted before the RTC and the petition for annulment of judgment instituted before the CA.
Issues:
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the annulment of judgment of the trial court on mere technicalities that impeded the cause of justice and the parties’ right to an opportunity to be heard; and
- Whether or not the court a quo erred in ignoring and disregarding the jurisprudential ruling in Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation which states that if an owner’s duplicate copy of a certificate of title has not been lost but in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void, as the court rendering the decision never acquired jurisdiction
Ruling:
The petition was denied.
The rule against forum shopping is embodied in Rule 7, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court. There is identity of causes of action, parties and reliefs sought in the action he filed for the reconveyance of properties before the RTC and the petition for annulment of judgment filed before the CA.
Forum shopping is committed by a party who institutes two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favourable disposition or increase a party’s chances of obtaining a favourable decision or action.
Black’s Law Dictionary says that forum-shopping “occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favourable judgment or verdict.” Hence, according to Words and Phrases, “a litigant is open to the charge of “forum shopping” whenever he chooses a forum with slight connection to factual circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants should be encouraged to attempt to settle their differences without imposing undue expense and vexatious situations on the courts.”
A violation of this rule shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned.
Presently, Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a Certification against Forum Shopping be appended to every complaint or initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief.
As held in Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, the general rule is that compliance with the certificate of forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. Forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of both initiatory pleadings without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned.
It was also held in Top Rate Construction that forum shopping is an act of malpractice for it trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets. What is critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different for a upon the same issues, regardless of whether the court in which one of the suits was brought has no jurisdiction over the action.
Jurisprudence has recognized that forum shopping can be committed in several ways namely: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet; (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved; and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). It was also held that forum shopping exists where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction I another court after failing to obtain the same from the original court.
In Yap v. Chua, et. al., it was held that to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another; otherwise stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.
Litis pendentia refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. For litis pendentia to exist, three (3) requisites must concur: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.
Res judicata or prior judgment, on the other hand, bars a subsequent case when the following requisites are satisfied: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is – between the first and second actions – identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.
SC Circular No. 28-91 states that the deliberate filing of multiple complaints by any party and his counsel to obtain favourable action constitutes forum shopping and shall be a ground for summary dismissal thereof and shall constitute direct contempt of court, without prejudice to disciplinary proceeding against the counsel and the filing of a criminal action against the guilty party. In Spouses Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, the Court further reiterated that once there is a finding of forum shopping, the penalty is summary dismissal not only of the petition pending before this Court, but also of the other case that is pending in a lower court.
