Heirs of Mampo v. Morada
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns five parcels of land in Baras, Canaman, Camarines Sur, which were covered by Emancipation Patents (EPs). The Heirs of Inocentes Mampo and Raymundo A. Mampo (Heirs of Mampos) initiated a complaint for the recovery of possession of these lots against Nelida and Alex Severo. The initial complaint was dismissed by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). 2. Procedural History: The DARAB Central Office, in a Decision dated January 16, 2008, set aside the PARAD's dismissal and ruled in favor of the Heirs of Mampos, ordering the respondents to vacate the landholdings and restore possession. This decision became final and executory. Subsequently, a Writ of Execution was issued. However, Josefina Morada filed a Third-Party Claim, which the PARAD granted, ordering respect for Morada's possession and recalling the Writ of Execution. The Heirs of Mampos' motion for reconsideration was denied, and their subsequent motion for implementation was dismissed by the DARAB for lack of jurisdiction. The DARAB later granted the Heirs of Mampos' motion for reconsideration, reviving the Writ of Execution, ruling that Morada's claim was a protest against the identification of beneficiaries, which fell under the DAR Secretary's jurisdiction. Morada then filed a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) and a Petition for Review (Rule 43) with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the DARAB's resolution. The Heirs of Mampos moved to dismiss both petitions for forum shopping. The CA's Sixth Division dismissed the Rule 65 petition. The CA's Twelfth Division, however, granted Morada's Rule 43 petition, nullifying the DARAB resolution and affirming the PARAD's order. The Heirs of Mampos appealed this decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, the Heirs of Mampos, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They are not challenging the merits of the Court of Appeals' decision but rather argue that the CA erred in failing to dismiss Morada's Rule 43 petition for forum shopping. They contend that since a prior Rule 65 petition filed by Morada involving the same parties, issues, and reliefs was already dismissed with finality by another division of the CA for forum shopping, the Rule 43 petition should have likewise been dismissed, applying the principle of res judicata and the punitive measure of twin dismissals for willful and deliberate forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss the Rule 43 action for forum shopping, despite a prior final and executory resolution dismissing a related Rule 65 action on the same ground. Whether Josefina Mampo Morada committed willful and deliberate forum shopping by filing two separate actions with different remedies but identical issues and reliefs sought before different divisions of the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision dated December 20, 2013, and Resolution dated September 1, 2014, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123523 are reversed and set aside. The September 19, 2011 Resolution of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board is reinstated. The Court directs Atty. Godofredo B. Guzman and respondent Josefina Mampo Morada to show cause why they should not be cited for direct contempt for willful and deliberate forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping and the dismissal of the Rule 43 action: The Court found merit in the petition, holding that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss the Rule 43 action for forum shopping. The Court reiterated that forum shopping is the institution of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, or the same issues and reliefs, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable disposition. The penalty for forum shopping is the dismissal of all actions involved, as it is a punitive measure against litigants who trifle with the courts and abuse their processes. The Court emphasized that the prior dismissal of the Rule 65 action for forum shopping, which had become final and executory, established res judicata on the issue of whether Morada committed forum shopping. Therefore, the Court of Appeals should have applied the principle of conclusiveness of judgment and dismissed the Rule 43 action as well. On whether Morada committed willful and deliberate forum shopping: The Court found that Morada was guilty of forum shopping by committing two distinct acts: instituting two actions in different divisions of the CA to avail of remedies founded on similar facts, and submitting false certifications of non-forum shopping. The Court noted the identity of parties and the substantial identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for in both the Rule 65 and Rule 43 petitions. Both petitions challenged the DARAB Resolution dated September 19, 2011, and sought to prevent the execution of the PARAD Decision dated January 16, 2008. The Court also pointed out Morada's failure to disclose the pendency of the Rule 65 action in her certification for the Rule 43 action and her failure to report the filing of the Rule 43 action in her certification for the Rule 65 action, thus violating the undertakings mandated by Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The Court concluded that Morada's actions were willful and deliberate, negating any claim of good faith.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that forum shopping is a violation of the rules against it, and the penalty for such violation is the dismissal of all actions involved, not just one. The Court also emphasized that the identity of parties and issues are sufficient for the principle of conclusiveness of judgment to apply, even if the causes of action or remedies sought are different.