Borromeo v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Court of First Instance of Cebu approved the project of partition and distribution of the estate of Vito Borromeo. Subsequently, Numeriano G. Estenzo filed a petition with the Supreme Court (L-32876) to restrain the probate court from implementing the order and distributing the estate, which the Supreme Court denied. Transfer certificates of title were issued to the heirs. Later, the probate court, presided by Judge Francisco P. Burgos, issued orders evaluating the estate and segregating 40% for attorney's fees, and directing the Register of Deeds to annotate these claims. Atty. Domingo L. Antigua filed a motion for the surrender of certificates of title for inspection by prospective buyers, which was granted. Ricardo V. Reyes, an administrator, initially opposed but later filed a motion for the surrender of titles for reversion of lands to the estate. Petitioners, heirs of Vito Borromeo, moved for the disqualification of Judge Burgos due to alleged bias, which was denied. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) reversed this denial, disqualifying Judge Burgos. Judge Burgos, however, continued to take cognizance of the case. Petitioners filed another petition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 65995) to stop Judge Burgos. Subsequently, Judge Burgos issued an order cancelling certificates of title and reverting lands to the estate. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a petition before the IAC (AC-G.R. SP No. 03409) seeking to nullify the order of February 23, 1984, questioning the validity of the order issued after Judge Burgos' disqualification, the jurisdiction of the probate court to cancel titles issued years earlier, and the validity of a collateral attack on titles. The IAC dismissed this petition on the ground of forum-shopping, citing Section 17 of the Interim Rules of Court. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the IAC's decision dismissing their appeal due to alleged forum-shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of the petition before the Intermediate Appellate Court (AC-G.R. SP No. 03409) constituted forum-shopping in violation of Section 17 of the Interim Rules of Court. Whether the issues raised in AC-G.R. SP No. 03409 were premature.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is affirmed. Petitioners are found to have engaged in forum-shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum-shopping: The Court affirmed the IAC's finding that petitioners engaged in forum-shopping. The petition filed before the IAC (AC-G.R. SP No. 03409) sought to nullify the order of February 23, 1984, which cancelled certificates of title. This order was issued after Judge Burgos had been disqualified by the IAC. The Court noted that petitioners had previously filed G.R. No. 65995 with the Supreme Court, which sought to invalidate all acts of respondent Judge subsequent to his disqualification on March 1, 1983. The order of February 23, 1984, was precisely one such act occurring after the disqualification and was covered by the prayer in G.R. No. 65995. By filing a separate petition before the IAC on the same matter, petitioners deliberately split their appeals and sought similar reliefs in different courts, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. This act violated Section 17 of the Interim Rules of Court, which prohibits the filing of similar petitions in different courts and mandates summary dismissal for such violations. The Court emphasized that forum-shopping is a reprehensible manipulation of court processes that unduly burdens courts and delays proceedings. The penalty for such violation is the summary dismissal of both petitions and potential contempt of court charges against the counsel or party concerned. On the issue of prematurity: The issues raised in AC-G.R. SP No. 03409 were indeed premature, as the resolution of G.R. No. 63818 (concerning Judge Burgos' disqualification) would have rendered the subsequent acts of the disqualified judge moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
The filing of multiple petitions seeking the same or similar relief in different courts constitutes forum-shopping, which is a violation of Section 17 of the Interim Rules of Court and warrants the summary dismissal of the petitions.