Jaban v. City of Cebu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, practicing lawyers with non-professional driver's licenses, encountered incidents where their vehicles were clamped and immobilized by Cebu City traffic enforcers. Atty. Bienvenido P. Jaban, Sr. had his car clamped on June 23, 1997, and was compelled to pay a P4,200.00 fine for its release. Similarly, Atty. Bienvenido Douglas Luke B. Jaban, Jr. experienced his car being clamped and impounded on May 19, 1997, leading to a P1,400.00 fine for release. These actions were taken pursuant to Cebu City Traffic Code Ordinance No. 801, as amended by Ordinances No. 1642 and 1664. The petitioners alleged that these ordinances were oppressive, arbitrary, discriminatory, and that the clamping mechanism was used to compel payment of fines without due process. Procedural History: On July 29, 1997, the petitioners filed a Civil Complaint for Damages and to declare the relevant ordinances unconstitutional, seeking injunctive relief. This case was consolidated with a similar complaint filed by Atty. Valentino Legaspi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 58, limited the issues during pre-trial to the validity of Ordinance No. 1664 and entitlement to damages. On January 22, 1999, the RTC declared Ordinance No. 1664 unconstitutional and ordered the City of Cebu to pay damages. The respondents moved for reconsideration, and the petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to also declare Ordinance No. 801 unconstitutional and to issue a permanent injunction. On April 8, 1999, the RTC denied both motions, ruling that the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 801 was not an issue agreed upon during pre-trial and that a permanent injunction was inappropriate. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The petitioners also filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's Joint Order. The CA later reversed the RTC's decision, finding Ordinance No. 1664 constitutional. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC's April 8, 1999 Joint Order. They argued that the RTC erred in failing to address the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 801, despite it being raised in their pleadings, and in refusing to issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of Ordinance No. 1664. The petitioners sought to have Ordinance No. 801 declared unconstitutional and to affirm the RTC's declaration of Ordinance No. 1664's unconstitutionality, along with the issuance of a permanent injunction. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petition was an improper remedy for assailing the Joint Order, that the RTC correctly limited the issues to those defined in the Pre-Trial Order, and that the petitioners were guilty of forum shopping due to the pendency of the respondents' appeal in the Court of Appeals on related issues.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the appropriate remedy to assail the Joint Order of the trial court denying the Omnibus Motion. Whether the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to declare Ordinance No. 801 unconstitutional in this case. Whether the petitioners are guilty of forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the Joint Order denying the Omnibus Motion was a final order, and the proper recourse was to appeal the main decision to the Court of Appeals, not to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Court also found that the petitioners were guilty of forum shopping by filing the petition with the Supreme Court while their appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, involving the same parties and issues. Furthermore, the issue of Ordinance No. 801's constitutionality was not properly raised as it was not included in the Pre-Trial Order.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appropriate remedy: The Court ruled that the Joint Order denying the petitioners' Omnibus Motion was a final order. The proper recourse for the petitioners was to appeal the main decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals via an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, or to file a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court on questions of law. Filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals was also an option to nullify the Joint Order. However, the petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, which was an improper remedy to assail the Joint Order. On the jurisdiction to declare Ordinance No. 801 unconstitutional: The Court held that the petitioners' contention that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to declare Ordinance No. 801 unconstitutional in this case had no merit. Firstly, the petitioners did not assail the RTC's decision in their petition, but rather the Joint Order denying their Omnibus Motion. Secondly, the RTC's decision, as clarified by the trial court, did not involve the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 801, but rather Ordinance Nos. 1662 and 1664. Thirdly, the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 801 would have been to appeal the RTC's decision to the CA or to file a separate complaint questioning its constitutionality. On forum shopping: The Court agreed with the respondents that the petitioners engaged in forum shopping. The petitioners filed their petition for review with the Supreme Court while the respondents' appeal, involving the same parties and issues (constitutionality of Ordinance No. 1664 and entitlement to damages), was pending before the Court of Appeals. This created the possibility of conflicting decisions from different fora. The Court emphasized that forum shopping is a deplorable practice that vexes the courts and parties-litigants. The petitioners' attempt to have the Supreme Court preempt the CA's decision was deemed a pernicious ploy that could not be countenanced.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the appropriate remedy to assail a final order that denies a motion for reconsideration, but the issue of constitutionality of an ordinance not included in the pre-trial order cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, filing a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court while an appeal involving the same issues and parties is pending before the Court of Appeals constitutes forum shopping.