Executive Secretary and Lomibao v. Gordon, Diaz, and Mendiola
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Richard J. Gordon filed a petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court on June 29, 1998, seeking to prevent his removal as Chairman of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) due to an impending change in administration. On June 30, 1998, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 1, recalling Gordon's appointment. Procedural History: On July 1, 1998, at 9:21 AM, respondent Gordon filed a "Notice of Withdrawal of [his] Petition" before the Supreme Court. At 11:30 AM of the same day, he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City. The Petition: The Executive Secretary and Arturo C. Lomibao (petitioners) filed the present petition for contempt against respondents Gordon, Diaz, and Mendiola, alleging that the filing of two petitions involving the same issues before the Supreme Court and the RTC of Olongapo City, both pending, constituted forum-shopping and contempt of court, in violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, after filing and subsequently withdrawing a similar petition before the Supreme Court, constitutes forum-shopping and contempt of court. Whether respondents complied with the certification against forum-shopping requirement under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
The petition for contempt is DISMISSED. The Court found that the respondents did not commit forum-shopping or contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum-shopping and contempt of court: The Court held that forum-shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. However, in this case, respondent Gordon first filed a notice of withdrawal of his petition before the Supreme Court before filing a substantially similar petition in the RTC of Olongapo City. This action was taken to comply with the policy on the hierarchy of courts, as stated by Gordon himself, to obviate any technical objection. Furthermore, no adverse decision had been rendered against respondent Gordon in the Supreme Court petition, negating the intent to seek a more favorable judgment after an unfavorable one. The Court distinguished this case from E. Razon, Inc. v. The Philippine Port Authority, where a similar petition was filed in the RTC an hour after filing in the Supreme Court, and the withdrawal was sought only after assurance of a favorable action from the lower court. In the present case, the withdrawal was initiated prior to filing in the RTC, and the urgency stemmed from the issuance of Administrative Order No. 1, necessitating prompt action to secure injunctive relief. The Court also cited PCGG v. Sandiganbayan where a similar situation involving withdrawal of a motion before the Supreme Court to file a petition in a lower court was understood and overlooked due to the parties' predicament and the time-sensitive nature of the relief sought. The Court emphasized that contempt should not be exercised lightly and that the power should be preservative, not punitive. The respondents' actions, while not ideal, were understood in light of the circumstances and their stated intention to comply with procedural rules and the hierarchy of courts. On compliance with the certification against forum-shopping: The Court found that respondents complied with Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. They disclosed in the certification of non-forum shopping attached to their petition before the RTC the existence and subsequent withdrawal of their petition before the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated that it is neither forum-shopping nor defiance of a court's authority for a party to file a case in the lower court after seeking withdrawal of a case before the Supreme Court, especially when done to comply with the hierarchy of courts. The disclosure of the prior petition and its withdrawal demonstrated transparency and adherence to the spirit of the rule, rather than an attempt to deceive or abuse court processes.
Main Doctrine
Filing a petition in a lower court after withdrawing a similar petition in the Supreme Court, especially when done to comply with the hierarchy of courts and without an adverse decision having been rendered, does not constitute forum-shopping or contempt of court.