The Supreme Court held that the City of Makati engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and a Motion for Reconsideration (later an Appeal) regarding a territorial dispute with the City of Taguig. This constitutes an abuse of court processes and undermines the administration of justice. The Court also found Makati’s counsels guilty of direct contempt, imposing fines for their role in the forum shopping.

Taguig vs. Makati: When Seeking Justice Becomes Abusing the System

This case arose from a long-standing territorial dispute between the City of Taguig and the City of Makati. In 1993, Taguig filed a complaint against Makati, questioning the constitutionality of certain presidential proclamations that affected the boundaries of Fort Bonifacio. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Taguig in 2011. Makati, however, took two simultaneous actions to challenge this decision.

First, Makati filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC decision was rendered without jurisdiction because the judge had already retired. Simultaneously, Makati filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC, which was later converted into an appeal to the CA. Taguig argued that Makati’s simultaneous pursuit of these remedies constituted forum shopping, an act prohibited by the Rules of Court.

Forum shopping occurs when a party files multiple suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, seeking the same or substantially the same reliefs, hoping that one court will rule favorably. The Supreme Court, in Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development Corporation, explained forum shopping as:

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 favorable disposition or increase a party’s chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action.

The rule against forum shopping aims to prevent the vexation caused to courts and litigants when a party seeks multiple rulings on the same issues. The Court emphasized that it degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets. Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires a certification against forum shopping and provides consequences for willful and deliberate violations.

To determine whether forum shopping exists, courts consider whether the elements of litis pendentia (a pending suit) or res judicata (a matter already judged) are present. The test is whether there is an identity of parties, rights, or causes of action, and reliefs sought in the two or more pending cases. Litis pendentia requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and causes of action, such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other.

Makati argued that its Petition for Annulment of Judgment and Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal were based on different causes of action: the former questioning the jurisdiction of the court and the latter addressing the merits of the territorial dispute. However, the Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing. A Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 is available when ordinary remedies like appeal are no longer available. Makati’s simultaneous appeal demonstrated that ordinary remedies were, in fact, available.

Rule 47 outlines the effects of a judgment granting a Petition for Annulment of Judgment:

A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court.

This contrasts with a Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 37, where a successful motion can lead to an amended judgment superseding the original decision. Despite these procedural differences, the fundamental purpose remains the same: to set aside a judgment for a more favorable outcome. Both remedies grant substantially the same reliefs.

The Supreme Court referenced Ley Construction and Development Corp. v. Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp., to reinforce its reasoning. Ley Construction shows that even if specific reliefs sought in different actions vary, the underlying objective can reveal forum shopping. Makati’s simultaneous actions demonstrated an intent to obtain a favorable outcome by any means, regardless of court procedures.

Makati argued that the lack of jurisdiction in the RTC decision justified their simultaneous remedies. However, the Court clarified that lack of jurisdiction can be raised in both a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and a Motion for Reconsideration or Appeal. Makati’s attempt to use the jurisdictional argument as a justification for forum shopping was rejected.

The Court also distinguished this case from Tiu v. First Plywood Corporation and Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, which Makati cited to support its position. Unlike those cases, Makati simultaneously pursued multiple remedies, creating the potential for conflicting decisions. The Court found that Makati’s actions were not mere precautionary measures but a deliberate attempt to circumvent court procedures.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals held conflicting views on Makati’s forum shopping, which further emphasized the harm caused by Makati’s actions. The Supreme Court, therefore, declared Makati guilty of forum shopping and held its counsels in direct contempt of court. The Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 on each of the counsels who filed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment.

FAQs

What is forum shopping?	Forum shopping occurs when a party files multiple lawsuits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, to increase their chances of obtaining a favorable decision. It is an abuse of court processes that undermines the administration of justice.
What is a Petition for Annulment of Judgment?	A Petition for Annulment of Judgment is a legal remedy under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing the Court of Appeals to set aside judgments of Regional Trial Courts when ordinary remedies are no longer available. It can be based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
What is the effect of a judgment of annulment?	A judgment of annulment sets aside the questioned judgment, final order, or resolution, rendering it null and void. This allows the original action to be refiled in the proper court, restarting the litigation process.
What is a Motion for Reconsideration?	A Motion for Reconsideration, governed by Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, is a request to the court to set aside or amend its judgment or final order. It can be based on excessive damages, insufficient evidence, or errors of law.
What is litis pendentia?	Litis pendentia refers to a situation where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. It can be a ground for dismissing the second action to avoid unnecessary litigation.
What is res judicata?	Res judicata, or prior judgment, prevents a party from relitigating issues that have already been decided by a court with jurisdiction. It requires a final judgment on the merits, involving the same parties and causes of action.
What are the penalties for forum shopping?	Forum shopping can result in the summary dismissal of the cases, contempt of court, and administrative sanctions against the party and their counsel. The specific penalties depend on the nature and severity of the forum shopping.
Can lack of jurisdiction be raised in a Motion for Reconsideration?	Yes, lack of jurisdiction can be invoked as a ground in a Motion for Reconsideration. The Omnibus Motion Rule allows certain objections, including lack of jurisdiction, to be raised even if not initially pleaded.
Why were Makati’s counsels held in contempt?	Makati’s counsels were held in direct contempt because their actions clearly constituted willful and deliberate forum shopping. This is a ground for direct contempt under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This decision serves as a stern reminder to litigants and counsels to adhere strictly to the rules of procedure and to refrain from engaging in forum shopping. The simultaneous pursuit of multiple remedies, especially when aimed at securing a favorable outcome through any means, undermines the integrity of the judicial system and constitutes an abuse of court processes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CITY OF TAGUIG VS. CITY OF MAKATI, G.R. No. 208393, June 15, 2016