Zosa v. Estrella
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In August 1999, Chinatrust (Phils.) Commercial Bank Corporation demanded payment from Spouses Rolando and Luisa Zosa for an outstanding loan of P89,426,732.29. Upon the Zosas' failure to pay, Chinatrust initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged property. To prevent the auction sale, the Zosas filed a civil case for injunction, specific performance, and damages, seeking injunctive relief from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 67. Procedural History: The RTC initially issued a temporary restraining order and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the sale. However, the trial court later dismissed the Zosas' complaint for failure to prosecute. The RTC clarified that the dismissal automatically dissolved the injunction and denied the Zosas' motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, the Zosas filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging these orders. Concurrently, they also filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the CA, assailing the same RTC orders. The CA dismissed the petition for extraordinary writ. Subsequently, the CA also dismissed the Zosas' appeal, citing forum shopping and deficiencies in their appellants' brief. The CA further denied their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The Spouses Zosa filed two separate petitions for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The first petition, G.R. No. 149984, challenged the CA's decision and resolution dismissing their petition for certiorari. The second petition, G.R. No. 154991, assailed the CA's resolution dismissing their appeal and its subsequent denial of their motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court consolidated these petitions. The Court denied the petitions, holding that the Zosas engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari with the CA to challenge the same RTC orders, which are mutually exclusive remedies.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners engaged in forum shopping by filing both an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari assailing the same RTC orders. Whether the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and the appeal filed by the petitioners, considering the nature of remedies available.
Ruling
The petitions are denied. The Court affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals dismissing both the petition for certiorari and the appeal due to forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that the petitioners engaged in forum shopping by filing both an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the same orders of the RTC. Forum shopping is defined as the act of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties or their representatives; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered would amount to res judicata. In this case, all these elements were present as both suits were founded on the same facts, referred to the same subject matter (RTC Orders dismissing the case for non-suit), and sought the same relief (reversal of the RTC orders). On the dismissal of the CA petitions and the nature of remedies: Consequently, the Court found that the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 62915) and the appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 69892) filed by the petitioners. The dismissal of the appeal was also based on forum shopping and the absence of page references in the appellants' brief as required by the Rules of Court. The denial of the motion for reconsideration in both instances by the CA was also upheld. The Court reiterated the firm judicial policy that the remedies of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. Petitioners cannot hedge their case by pursuing multiple appeals, and then justify a recourse to Rule 65 by claiming the ordinary appeal was not speedy or adequate. This practice sanctions the filing of multiple suits in multiple fora, which is the very evil that the proscription on forum shopping seeks to prevent. The Court cited Young v. Sy and Guaranteed Hotels, Inc. v. Baltao to emphasize that the grave evil sought to be avoided is the rendition of contradictory decisions by competent tribunals, and that unscrupulous litigants may repeatedly try their luck in different fora until a favorable result is reached.
Main Doctrine
The successive filing of a notice of appeal and a petition for certiorari to assail the same trial court dismissal order for non-suit constitutes forum shopping, as the remedies of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.