Golangco v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a petition for annulment of marriage filed by Lucia Golangco against Rene Uy Golangco. During these proceedings, a hearing for custody pendente lite of their two children, Justin Rene and Stefan Rafael, was held. The trial court initially awarded custody to Lucia, granting Rene visitation rights. Subsequently, Lucia filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking a writ of preliminary injunction due to an alleged incident where Rene physically abused their son Justin. Procedural History: Following the initial custody order and its affirmation by the Court of Appeals, Rene appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 120831), which was dismissed. After Lucia's motion for reconsideration and the alleged abuse incident, a criminal complaint for slight physical injuries was filed against Rene. The trial court then issued a temporary restraining order and, after hearing both parties, granted a writ of preliminary injunction on October 4, 1995, restraining Rene from seeing his children. Rene challenged this injunction order via a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP. No. 38866). The Petition: Rene Uy Golangco filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the Court of Appeals' resolution that dismissed his petition for violating Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 on forum-shopping. Rene argued that the Court of Appeals erred in finding forum-shopping, as the issues raised in his prior Supreme Court petition (G.R. No. 120831) concerning the July 21, 1994 custody order were distinct from the issues in his petition before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP. No. 38866) concerning the October 4, 1995 injunction order.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner violated the rule on non-forum shopping. Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
Ruling
The petition is partially granted. The resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 10, 1996, is set aside, and the order dated October 4, 1995, issued by the trial court is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum-shopping: The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' finding of forum-shopping. It distinguished the two petitions: G.R. No. 120831 questioned the July 21, 1994 order awarding custody pendente lite and visitation rights, while CA-G.R. SP. No. 38866 questioned the October 4, 1995 order granting a writ of preliminary injunction that restrained Rene from seeing his children. The Court emphasized that the issues raised in the two petitions were distinct and different. The first petition specifically questioned the award of custody and prayed for more time with his children, whereas the second petition questioned the propriety of the writ of injunction and alleged denial of procedural due process, seeking the reinstatement of his visitation rights. The Court reiterated the test for forum-shopping, focusing on whether the same causes of action and reliefs are sought, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. In this case, two different orders were questioned, with distinct causes of action and objectives, thus, forum-shopping did not exist. On the propriety of the writ of preliminary injunction: The Court found it necessary to rule on this issue to expedite the case and prevent further delay, citing the principle of settling the entire controversy in a single proceeding. The Court noted that a preliminary injunction is granted after a hearing and prior notice. In this case, a hearing was conducted where both parties presented evidence and witnesses. The trial court granted the writ after finding that petitioner failed to present controverting evidence to warrant its denial. The Court cited Bataclan v. Court of Appeals, emphasizing that a writ of preliminary injunction should not be summarily denied without adequate hearing and judicious evaluation, as doing so would deny procedural due process. The trial court gave both parties the opportunity to present evidence, conducted an adequate hearing, and based on the evidence, deemed it proper to grant the writ. The assessment and evaluation of evidence for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are findings of fact ordinarily left to the trial court, which is in a better position to examine real evidence and observe witness demeanor. The Supreme Court found no justifiable reason or exception to disturb the trial court's declaration in granting the writ.
Main Doctrine
Forum-shopping exists when a party, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, seeks a favorable opinion from another, other than by appeal or certiorari. However, where two petitions question distinct orders, raise different causes of action and objectives, forum-shopping does not exist.