Taguig v. Makati
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a territorial dispute between the City of Taguig and the City of Makati concerning areas known as the Enlisted Men's Barangays (EMBOs) and Inner Fort in Fort Bonifacio. Taguig filed a complaint seeking judicial confirmation of its territorial boundaries and the declaration of unconstitutionality of certain Presidential Proclamations that allegedly altered its jurisdiction without a plebiscite. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, in a decision dated July 8, 2011, ruled in favor of Taguig, confirming the disputed areas as part of its territory and declaring the relevant presidential proclamations unconstitutional. Procedural History: Following the Regional Trial Court's decision, Makati filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals, alleging that the decision was rendered without jurisdiction as the judge had already retired. Simultaneously, Makati filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Regional Trial Court. Taguig moved to dismiss Makati's petition, citing forum shopping and other procedural defects. The Court of Appeals initially denied Taguig's motion to dismiss but later, upon reconsideration, dismissed Makati's Petition for Annulment of Judgment, finding it moot, premature, and constituting forum shopping. Makati moved for reconsideration, and the Court of Appeals, in its April 30, 2013 Resolution, denied this motion but abandoned its findings of mootness and forum shopping, maintaining only that the petition was premature. Taguig then sought clarification, and the Court of Appeals, in its July 25, 2013 Resolution, clarified that the appeal filed by Makati rendered the annulment petition moot and academic. The Petition: Petitioner City of Taguig filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to modify the Court of Appeals' resolutions. Taguig argued that the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring Makati guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping and in not imposing sanctions. Taguig contended that Makati simultaneously pursued a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and a Motion for Reconsideration (which led to an appeal), constituting forum shopping. The Supreme Court was asked to determine if Makati engaged in forum shopping and, if so, to impose appropriate sanctions on Makati and its counsels.
Issue(s)
Whether the City of Makati engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and a Motion for Reconsideration (later Appeal) of the same RTC Decision. Whether sanctions should be imposed on the City of Makati and its counsels for wilful and deliberate forum shopping.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition. The assailed Court of Appeals Resolutions dated April 30, 2013 and July 25, 2013 were MODIFIED. The City of Makati was declared to have engaged in forum shopping. Furthermore, its counsels, Atty. Pio Kenneth I. Dasal, Atty. Glenda Isabel L. Biason, and Atty. Gwyn Gareth T. Mariano, were found guilty of direct contempt and each fined P2,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that the City of Makati engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals and a Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC, which later became an Appeal. The Court emphasized that forum shopping is committed when a party institutes multiple suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, to ask for rulings on the same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. The Court found Makati's argument that its remedies were based on different causes of action to be specious, as both the Petition for Annulment and the Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal fundamentally sought to set aside the July 8, 2011 Decision. The Court noted that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy resorted to when ordinary remedies are no longer available, yet Makati had an available ordinary remedy in filing a Motion for Reconsideration and subsequently an Appeal. The Court highlighted that the phrase "ad cautelam" appended to an application for relief does not alter the nature of the remedy being pursued, and that pursuing both remedies created the possibility of conflicting decisions, which is precisely what the rule against forum shopping seeks to prevent. The Court pointed out that the RTC itself found Makati guilty of forum shopping in its December 19, 2011 Order, and that the CA had flip-flopped on the issue, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court's definitive ruling. On the imposition of sanctions: The Court found that Makati's actions constituted wilful and deliberate forum shopping, which is a ground for summary dismissal, direct contempt, and administrative sanctions under Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court determined that it was inadequate to stop with a mere declaration of forum shopping and that sanctions were warranted. Citing Rule 71, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for penalties for direct contempt, the Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 on each of Makati's counsels who filed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals: Atty. Pio Kenneth I. Dasal, Atty. Glenda Isabel L. Biason, and Atty. Gwyn Gareth T. Mariano. The Court found that these counsels were responsible for the abuse of court processes.
Main Doctrine
Simultaneously pursuing an appeal (or motion for reconsideration) and a petition for annulment of judgment constitutes forum shopping, an act of abusing legal processes that heaps vexation upon courts and parties-litigants, and warrants sanctions.