Santos v. Parañaque Kings Enterprises
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Civil Case No. 91-786 was a complaint for breach of contract with damages filed by Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. (PKE) against Catalina L. Santos and David A. Raymundo. PKE alleged it had the first option to buy lots it leased from Santos, who had sold them to Raymundo. The complaint was dismissed by the RTC, affirmed by the CA, but reversed by the Supreme Court, which remanded the case for trial on the merits, holding that Santos should have offered the property anew to PKE for PhP 9 million before selling it to Raymundo. Procedural History: Petitioners filed their Joint Answer with Counterclaims, alleging the PhP 9 million offer was made. PKE moved to strike this allegation based on res judicata. The Makati City RTC, through Acting Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, denied PKE's motion in its May 18 and June 11, 1998 Orders. PKE filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA G.R. SP No. 48214) before the CA, assailing these orders for grave abuse of discretion. Subsequently, the RTC dismissed PKE's complaint for failure to prosecute and denied its Notice of Appeal. PKE filed a second Petition for Certiorari (CA G.R. SP No. 50570) before the CA, assailing these subsequent orders. Petitioners alleged forum shopping due to the pendency of both CA petitions. The Petition: The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 48214 granted PKE's petition, setting aside the May 18, 1998 order and ordering the motion to strike to be resolved by the regular judge. PKE filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration to also nullify the June 11, 1998 order, which the CA granted. Petitioners Santos and David filed the instant petition, arguing that the CA should have addressed the issue of forum shopping and dismissed both petitions.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. engaged in forum shopping by separately filing two petitions for certiorari. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders dated May 18 and June 11, 1998.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in its Decision and Resolution. The Court finds no forum shopping and therefore no need to discuss the merits of the second issue as the CA Decision in the first petition had attained finality as to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that there is no forum shopping because the two CA petitions involved different transactions, facts, and issues. The first CA Petition (CA G.R. SP No. 48214) questioned the RTC Orders denying PKE's motion to strike out allegations in the answer, which pertained to the offer of the property. The second CA Petition (CA G.R. SP No. 50570) assailed the RTC Orders dismissing the complaint for non-suit and denying the notice of appeal, which occurred after the filing of the first petition. While both alleged grave abuse of discretion, the underlying events and the specific orders challenged were distinct. The Court reiterated the definition of forum shopping, emphasizing the need for an identity of transactions, causes of action, and issues, as established in cases like Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals. The Court noted that while a decision in the second petition could render the first moot, the CA was aware of the pendency and had already acted on the first petition, rendering the issue moot by the time the decision was promulgated. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the CA's decision in the first petition, allowing it to attain finality as to them. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no need to discuss the merits of the second issue. This was because the petitioners were essentially appealing the June 15, 2000 CA Resolution, which was a corrective order that merely nullified the June 11, 1998 RTC Order denying the motion for reconsideration of the May 18, 1998 Order. Since the CA's Decision in the first petition (CA G.R. SP No. 48214) had already attained finality as to the petitioners when they failed to file a motion for reconsideration, it was "too late in the day" to review the merits of the issues raised in the second petition, which were intertwined with the issues in the first petition. The Court also noted that the CA itself had considered and implicitly rejected the claim of forum shopping when it proceeded to rule on the petitions.
Main Doctrine
For a finding of forum shopping, there must be an identity of transactions and causes of action. Forum shopping does not exist where the petitions for certiorari concern alleged grave abuse of discretion but relate to different transactions or orders which are not essentially or intimately related.