Taroma v. Taroma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners instituted a complaint for annulment of title and damages against respondents before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The MCTC dismissed the complaint, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC's decision. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Review. Procedural History: Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Review with the CA. The CA issued a Decision dated February 27, 2003, dismissing the Petition for Review for lack of merit and affirming the RTC's decision. Petitioners received this decision on March 6, 2003. On March 19, 2003, they filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, arguing the decision was based on the original petition and not the amended one. The next day, March 20, 2003, petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court (SC) seeking to annul the same CA decision (G.R. No. 157393). The SC's First Division denied this petition with finality on June 25, 2003. The CA, on August 20, 2003, declared petitioners' motion for reconsideration abandoned, citing Section 15, Rule VI of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA). The Petition: Petitioners then filed a "Brief Motion for Reconsideration" with the CA on September 4, 2003, arguing their SC petition did not abandon their CA motion for reconsideration. The CA, in a Resolution dated October 3, 2003, noted this motion without action, stating it had lost jurisdiction upon the filing of the SC petition and that the motion for reconsideration was deemed abandoned. This CA Resolution is the subject of the instant petition before the SC.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court resulted in the abandonment of the motion for reconsideration filed with the Court of Appeals, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in not admitting the Amended Petition for Review. Whether the petitioners engaged in forum shopping. Whether the instant petition was an attempt to resurrect an issue that had already attained finality.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 3, 2003, which noted without action the petitioners' "Brief Motion for Reconsideration," is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the abandonment of the motion for reconsideration and the amended petition: The Court held that the "Brief Motion for Reconsideration" filed by the petitioners with the Court of Appeals was a second motion for reconsideration, which is generally not entertained under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Court of Appeals never admitted the Amended Petition for Review, which is why its Decision of February 27, 2003, was based on the original petition. The CA's request for respondents to comment on the amended petition did not signify its admission; the absence of any action legally meant it was denied. The reliance on Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court was misplaced as it pertains to amendments before the trial court, not appellate courts. The applicable provision is Section 6, Rule 42, which vests discretion in the Court of Appeals to give due course to a petition, and its sub-silentio action on the amended petition was construed as a denial. On forum shopping: The Court found the existence of forum shopping to be self-evident. Petitioners sought reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated February 27, 2003, with the CA, and then, merely twenty-four hours later, sought the reversal of the same decision before the Supreme Court. They actively pursued both actions, filing pleadings in both courts with the same objective: to reverse the CA decision. This repetitive resort to judicial remedies in different forums, simultaneously and substantially founded on the same facts and issues, constitutes forum shopping. The Court reiterated that a party is not free to resort to remedies simultaneously or at their pleasure, emphasizing the need to follow the sequence and hierarchical order of remedies. On the finality of judgments: The Court pointed out that the instant petition was an attempt to resurrect the issue of the validity of the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 27, 2003, which had already been sought to be annulled in a previously dismissed petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 157393) that had attained finality. The Court reminded petitioners that having chosen their forum and lost their claim therein, they are bound by the adverse judgment due to the principle of finality of judgment, as litigation must end and terminate at some point.
Main Doctrine
A party is proscribed from resorting to simultaneous remedies in different forums, which constitutes forum shopping and leads to the dismissal of the case. Furthermore, a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution is generally not entertained.