Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The dispute arose over ownership of Lots Nos. 5763 and 5765-New in Salawag, Dasmariñas, Cavite, leading to five consolidated civil cases in RTC-Br. 21, Imus, Cavite: Paxton Development Corp. v. Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc., Baikal Realty Corp., and Register of Deeds (Civil Case No. 1124-95); Paxton v. Hi-Tone Marketing Corp., Baikal, and Register of Deeds (No. 1125-95); Hi-Tone v. Estate of Serapio Cuenca et al. (No. 1134-95); Baikal v. Hi-Tone, Paxton, Top Rate, and Register of Deeds (No. 1224-95); and Paxton v. Hi-Tone and Register of Deeds (No. 1286-96). On 13 March 1998, RTC rendered a Joint Decision declaring Paxton's TCTs T-557274 (Lot 5763 including 5763-A/B) and T-559147 (Lot 5765-New) valid, nullifying Top Rate's TCTs T-147755 and T-147756, ordering surrender of possession and cancellation by Register of Deeds. Top Rate, represented by Gana Law Office (Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit), appealed with Baikal and Hi-Tone to CA as CA-G.R. CV No. 60656. On 21 May 2001, CA affirmed the RTC Joint Decision in toto. Top Rate and others moved for reconsideration; CA denied on 14 December 2001. Procedural History: Despite CA denial, on 21 December 2001 (received 14 January 2002), Top Rate filed a Manifestation and Motion with CA praying recall of the 14 December 2001 Resolution, resolution of merits on MRs, and grant of its MR—signed by same counsel. On 7 January 2002, Top Rate filed SC motion for extension to file petition for review from CA Decision/Resolution, with verification/certification by Pres. Alfredo S. Hocson falsely claiming no other pending actions, omitting the CA Manifestation/Motion; notarized by Atty. Manlangit. SC denied extension on 30 January 2002 for lack of service on CA. Undeterred, on 4 February 2002, Top Rate filed Petition for Review in SC seeking reversal of CA rulings, declaration of its titles valid, nullification of Paxton's/Baikal's, and damages—with another false verification/certification omitting CA filing and Secretary's Certificate by Atty. Gana authorizing SC appeal. SC denied Petition on 6 March 2002 as untimely. Top Rate moved to reconsider SC denial (15 March 2002), then on 3 April 2002 filed Manifestation/Motion to Withdraw SC Petition as 'premature' due to pending CA Manifestation/Motion before Division of Five. SC denied MR with finality and noted withdrawal without action on 24 April 2002; entry of judgment 3 May 2002. Meanwhile, CA Division of Five deferred action on 22 April 2002 pending SC action on withdrawal; Top Rate manifested on 31 May 2002 for CA to proceed. On 2 August 2002, CA issued Amended Decision granting Top Rate's appeal, declaring its titles valid, ordering cancellation of Paxton's (ponencia Rosario, J.; Hormachuelos, J. dissenting as prohibited second MR). Paxton/Baikal filed MRs; CA later resolved on 27 March 2003 to return records to origin without ruling on MRs. Top Rate sought writ of execution in RTC. The Petition: Though not a standard petition, proceedings arose from SC's show-cause on forum shopping after Top Rate's Urgent Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment (8 November 2002). Top Rate/Compliance (27 January 2003) denied willful forum shopping, claimed no intent, withdrawal showed good faith, Manifestation/Motion could be denied (losing SC appeal period), no litis pendentia/res judicata as SC could review CA's later ruling. Argued SC Petition premature, CA Amended Decision stands. Paxton manifested CA set aside Amended Decision.
Issue(s)
Whether Top Rate and counsel committed willful/deliberate forum shopping. Whether Attys. Gana and Manlangit are administratively liable under Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether CA Amended Decision (2 August 2002) is void and may be reversed herein.
Ruling
The Court RESOLVED to: (a) REVERSE and SET ASIDE the CA Amended Decision of 2 August 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 60656 and REINSTATE its Decision of 21 May 2001 affirming RTC Joint Decision of 13 March 1998; (b) DECLARE Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana, Elmer E. Manlangit, and Top Rate in CONTEMPT, ordering each to pay P10,000 fine within 5 days from finality; (c) SUSPEND Attys. Gana and Manlangit for 6 months from finality, with warning. Top Rate to pay double costs. Copies to Bar records, CA, RTC, IBP.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Forum Shopping): Forum shopping exists where a party files multiple actions in different courts for same/related causes and reliefs to vex courts and gain favorable rulings, per Santos v. COMELEC and Executive Secretary v. Gordon—critical is possibility of conflicting decisions, even sans jurisdiction. Here, Top Rate/counsel simultaneously pursued SC Petition for Review (4 Feb 2002, seeking reversal of CA Decision, validity of its titles, nullity of Paxton's, damages) and CA Manifestation/Motion (21 Dec 2001, praying recall of CA Resolution, merits resolution, grant of MR)—identical reliefs on same causes (title ownership). False certifications in SC motion/extension and Petition (7 Jan/4 Feb 2002) omitted pending CA filing, notarized by Manlangit, with Gana as Sec'y certifying board approval; estopped from 'prematurity' claim after asserting CA finality to SC. Post-SC denials, sought withdrawal (3 Apr 2002) only after rebuff, akin to E. Razon v. PPA (withdrawal after favorable lower action) and Executive Secretary v. Gordon (abandoning adverse case). Willful: coordinated 4-month strategy, instigating CA post-SC finality despite CA Internal Rules Sec. 15 (MR abandoned upon SC filing). No excuse in client interest; violates Rule 7 Sec. 5 as direct contempt. Argument on no litis pendentia/res judicata fails—SC ruling binds CA action, barring later review by res judicata per Crisostomo v. SEC. On Issue 2 (Admin Liability): Attys. Gana/Manlangit violated Canons 1 (uphold Constitution/laws), 1.02 (no defiance/lessening confidence), 10.03 (no misuse of procedure), 12.02 (no multiple actions), 15.07 (impress client fairness), 19/19.01 (fair/honest means)—grossly by false certifications, instigating CA despite SC finality, deceiving highest Court. Primary duty to courts/society over clients; prior cases (Benguet Electric, Villanueva v. Adre) imposed censure/suspension. Here, 6-month suspension and P10k fine apt to deter abuse clogs dockets. On Issue 3 (Void CA Decision): Collateral attack proper in contempt if void on face (no jurisdiction), per Macabingkil v. PHDC and Co v. CA—nullity from record/recitals. CA lost jurisdiction upon Top Rate's SC motion for extension/Petition (pre-2 Aug 2002 Amended Decision), per CA Internal Rules Sec. 15; prior SC denials (30 Jan, 6 Mar, 24 Apr 2002) final. CA record shows SC filings/Resolutions; 22 Apr 2002 deferral and Hormachuelos dissent reference SC Petition prove awareness. Like Joy Mart (trial court lost control post-CA elevation), CA voidly acted post-jurisdiction loss. Thus, reverse Amended Decision, reinstate 21 May 2001 CA Decision.
Main Doctrine
Forum shopping is committed by instituting two or more suits in different courts, simultaneously or successively, to obtain the same or substantially identical reliefs on the same or related causes, aiming to secure favorable dispositions and vexing the courts. It is an unethical malpractice that abuses judicial processes, clogs dockets, and risks conflicting decisions, punishable as direct contempt under Rule 7, Sec. 5 and subject to administrative sanctions. Critical is the non-disclosure in certifications of non-forum shopping of any pending actions, rendering filings defective and parties estopped from later claiming prematurity after invoking finality. Filing a petition for review or extension therefor in the Supreme Court abandons any pending CA motion for reconsideration per CA Internal Rules Sec. 15, divesting CA jurisdiction and voiding subsequent CA rulings. Such void decisions may be collaterally attacked in contempt proceedings if nullity is apparent from the record, as where CA acts despite knowledge of SC invocation. Willfulness is shown by coordinated filings, false oaths, and post-denial withdrawals, warranting fines and suspensions for lawyers violating professional canons.