Disini v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a civil complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against Herminio T. Disini, along with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, and Rodolfo B. Jacob. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 0013 before the Sandiganbayan, alleged that Disini, in unlawful concert with his co-defendants, acquired and accumulated ill-gotten wealth through misappropriation of public funds, plunder, extortion, embezzlement, and other corrupt acts. Specifically, Disini was accused of acting as a dummy for the Marcoses, receiving favored loans and rescue funds, obtaining commissions from Westinghouse for the nuclear plant contract, and facilitating the siphoning of illegally acquired assets out of the country. 2. Procedural History: Summons was issued to Disini in 1987 but was unserved as he was not at the given address. The complaint was amended to include Rafael A. Sison. While co-defendants Sison and Jacob filed their answers, the Marcos spouses were declared in default. After significant delays, Jacob was dropped as a defendant to become a state witness. Disini remained unserved, leading the Republic to seek service by publication in 2002 after numerous attempts to locate him. Disini was declared in default on August 27, 2002. The Sandiganbayan denied Disini's motion to lift the default order on December 18, 2006, and allowed the Republic to present evidence ex-parte. Disini's subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied, and the ex-parte presentation of evidence proceeded. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Herminio T. Disini filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan's December 18, 2006 Resolution denying his motion to lift the order of default and to admit his answer. He also sought to prohibit the Sandiganbayan from continuing ex-parte proceedings and rendering a default judgment. Disini argued that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by not lifting the default order and by allowing ex-parte evidence presentation while his motion for reconsideration was pending. He contended he never received summons and lacked due process. However, the Supreme Court noted that Disini's subsequent filings with the Sandiganbayan, seeking affirmative reliefs, constituted voluntary appearance and waived his objection to jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found that Disini engaged in forum-shopping by filing a second motion to lift the default order with the Sandiganbayan while his petition was pending before the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of his petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in not lifting its default order against petitioner Disini, considering his pending Motion for Reconsideration and subsequent actions. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the Republic to present its evidence ex-parte, and whether the petitioner engaged in forum-shopping or had other adequate remedies available, precluding certiorari.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The Court held that the issue of the validity of service of summons was rendered moot by petitioner's voluntary appearance and submission to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan through various motions seeking affirmative reliefs. Furthermore, the Court found that petitioner engaged in forum-shopping by filing a Second Motion to Lift the Order of Default with the Sandiganbayan while the instant Petition for Certiorari was pending before the Supreme Court, seeking the same ultimate relief. The Court also ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the ex parte presentation of evidence, as petitioner was in default and his motion to lift the default order had already been denied, and there was a public interest in expediting the resolution of the long-pending forfeiture case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Non-Lifting of Default Order and Voluntary Appearance: The Court found that petitioner engaged in forum-shopping by filing the Petition for Certiorari while his Motion for Reconsideration was pending. His subsequent filing of a Second Motion to Lift the Order of Default while the Petition was pending constituted forum-shopping. Furthermore, petitioner's filing of motions seeking affirmative relief without reservation constituted a voluntary appearance and submission to the court's jurisdiction, waiving objections to service of summons. The Court reiterated the ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan where similar actions were deemed forum-shopping. On the Propriety of Ex-Parte Presentation of Evidence and Certiorari as a Remedy: The Court held that certiorari is available only when there is grave abuse of discretion and no other adequate remedy. Petitioner's filing of a Second Motion to Lift the Order of Default indicated his belief that adequate remedies were available before the Sandiganbayan, making certiorari improper. The Sandiganbayan's actions did not constitute grave abuse of discretion, as there was adequate justification for expediting the resolution of the case, and the ex parte presentation of evidence was consistent with petitioner's default status.
Main Doctrine
The simultaneous availment of judicial remedies from different fora for exactly the same ultimate relief and involving the same issue constitutes forum-shopping, a prohibited malpractice. Furthermore, filing a motion seeking affirmative relief from a court, other than a motion to dismiss, constitutes voluntary appearance and submission to the court's jurisdiction, thereby rendering moot any objection based on lack of jurisdiction over the person.