Balite v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a complaint filed by Juan De Dios Carlos against Felicidad Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos II, seeking the nullity of marriage, status of child, recovery of property, reconveyance, sum of money, and damages. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon Carlos's posting of a P20,000,000 bond from SIDDCOR Insurance Corporation (SIDDCOR), which was served on the respondents' bank deposits. The respondents' motion to discharge the writ was denied. 2. Procedural History: The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the writ of preliminary attachment, which the CA granted. While this was pending, the trial court rendered a summary judgment in favor of Carlos. The CA's decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the trial court granted Carlos's motion for execution pending appeal, with SIDDCOR posting another P20,000,000 bond. The respondents filed another certiorari petition with the CA regarding this execution, leading to a status quo order. The CA later rendered judgment against the attachment bond, ordering SIDDCOR to pay a substantial sum with interest and attorney's fees. SIDDCOR filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 136035) challenging this judgment, and the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order. Despite this, the CA granted the respondents' motion for implementation of its judgment and issued an amended writ of execution. The CA then denied SIDDCOR's subsequent motions and ordered its president and counsel to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for forum shopping. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Ramon Balite (President of SIDDCOR), and its counsel, Frederick M. de Borja and Jose C. Leabres, seek review of the CA's resolutions dated June 23, 1999, and November 4, 1999. They argue that their motions to recall the writ of execution and notice of garnishment were made to prevent the CA from rendering the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 136035 moot and academic, and that they were merely informing the CA of the Supreme Court's temporary restraining order. They contend they were not guilty of forum shopping or contempt. The respondents argue that the petitioners should have sought relief from the Supreme Court directly and that their actions constituted forum shopping and contempt.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners, Ramon Balite, Jose C. Leabres, and Frederick M. de Borja, are guilty of forum shopping and contempt of court. Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in citing the petitioners for contempt and forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated November 4, 1999, citing the petitioners for contempt of court and imposing fines and reprimands, is ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping and contempt of court: The Court held that the petitioners were not guilty of forum shopping. While the CA had issued resolutions regarding the attachment bond, the Supreme Court had already acquired jurisdiction over the matter when SIDDCOR filed its petition in G.R. No. 136035. The Supreme Court had also issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the CA and the Sheriff from enforcing the judgment on the attachment bond. The petitioners' subsequent motions in the CA were not an attempt to obtain a favorable ruling from another forum after an adverse decision, but rather an effort to inform the CA of the Supreme Court's TRO and to prevent the CA's actions from rendering the Supreme Court's decision moot. The Court emphasized that the petitioners' motion in the CA was an "urgent motion to lift/recall notice of garnishment" which explicitly stated the Supreme Court's TRO and prayed for the recall of the garnishment notices in light of this development. This action, the Court reasoned, was a proper way to bring the Supreme Court's order to the attention of the CA and to seek its compliance, rather than an act of forum shopping. The Court noted that the CA had, in fact, initially issued a resolution directing the sheriff to temporarily stay the enforcement of the writ of execution and/or garnishment precisely to avoid preempting the Supreme Court's action. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA should not have taken cognizance of the respondents' motions for immediate implementation of its resolution on the attachment bond, especially after the Supreme Court had acquired jurisdiction over G.R. No. 136035 and issued a TRO. At the very least, the CA should have held the resolution of these motions in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's final disposition of the case. By granting the respondents' motions and subsequently citing the petitioners for contempt despite the Supreme Court's TRO and the petitioners' attempt to bring this to the CA's attention, the CA overstepped its bounds and disregarded the Supreme Court's authority. The Court reiterated that when the Supreme Court acquires jurisdiction over a case, the appellate court loses jurisdiction over the same subject matter.
Main Doctrine
A party who files a motion in the Court of Appeals seeking to recall or lift a writ of execution and notice of garnishment, despite the pendency of a petition before the Supreme Court involving the same subject matter and the issuance of a temporary restraining order by the Supreme Court, commits forum shopping and may be cited for contempt of court. However, if the motion filed in the Court of Appeals is merely to inform the said court of the Supreme Court's restraining order and to request compliance therewith, it does not constitute forum shopping.