Viva Productions, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Hubert J.P. Webb
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Viva Productions, Inc. was set to exhibit the movie "The Jessica Alfaro Story," based on the life of Ma. Jessica M. Alfaro, the NBI star witness in the "Vizconde Massacre" case. Private respondent Hubert J.P. Webb, against whom an Information for Rape With Homicide was filed, sent letters to Viva Productions, Inc. and Alfaro warning that the movie's exhibition would violate the sub judice rule and his constitutional rights. Despite these warnings, Viva Productions, Inc. proceeded with promotion and marketing. Procedural History: On September 6, 1995, Hubert J.P. Webb filed a Petition for Contempt before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque, Branch 274, alleging violations of the sub judice rule due to the movie's exhibition. The Parañaque court issued a Cease and Desist Order restraining the exhibition and promotion. Subsequently, on September 8, 1995, Webb filed a separate case for Injunction With Damages before the RTC of Makati, Branch 58, seeking to enjoin the movie's exhibition, and the Makati court issued an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order. Viva Productions, Inc. elevated these matters to the Court of Appeals via petitions for certiorari, which consolidated and dismissed the petitions. The Petition: The instant petition before the Supreme Court assails the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court is asked to resolve whether the Makati court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the injunction case despite the pending contempt proceedings in the Parañaque court, and whether private respondent committed forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the Parañaque court can totally disregard and indiscriminately curtail petitioner's constitutional right to freedom of expression and of the press without the presence of a clear and present danger. Whether the Makati court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the injunction case filed before it which is identical to the case pending before the Parañaque court which has already acquired jurisdiction over the act complained of; and whether private respondent committed forum shopping by filing two (2) cases with exactly the same factual set-up, issues involved and reliefs sought before two (2) different courts of coordinate jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. It declared null and void all orders of the Makati RTC in Civil Case No. 95-1365, dismissing the case. It also declared the order of the Parañaque RTC functus officio insofar as it restrained the public showing of the movie "The Jessica Alfaro Story." Private respondent and his counsel were admonished for forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of freedom of expression: The Court found no further need to resolve this issue, given its disposition on forum shopping. However, it noted the unreasonable period that had elapsed and the lack of factual basis constituting a "clear and present danger" to justify prior restraint on freedom of speech and expression, save for the Parañaque court's plea for time to hear the contempt petition. On the issue of jurisdiction of the Makati Court and Forum Shopping: The Court found that the private respondent's act of filing the injunction case with the Makati court was an "astute maneuver" intended to obtain a preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the exhibition of the movie, making the claim for damages a "subterfuge." The primordial issue in both the Makati and Parañaque courts was the same: whether the showing of the movie violated the sub judice rule. The Court reiterated that the filing of multiple petitions involving the same issues in different courts of concurrent jurisdiction constitutes forum shopping, as per Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The Court emphasized that the Makati court, being a co-equal of the Parañaque court, should have given deference to the latter, which had already acquired jurisdiction over the issue. The Court noted that the alleged damages were premature if the Parañaque court had already enjoined the act. Therefore, the Makati court committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the case outright or consolidating it with the Parañaque case, or at least suspending proceedings. The Court applied the sanction against forum shopping under Administrative Circular No. 04-94, ordering the summary dismissal of the Makati case. The Court also declared the injunctive relief granted by the Parañaque court functus officio due to forum shopping, while leaving the other aspects of the contempt proceedings to the discretion of the presiding judge.
Main Doctrine
The filing of multiple petitions involving the same issues in different courts of concurrent jurisdiction constitutes forum shopping, which is a ground for the dismissal of all such actions and may be considered direct contempt of court.