Lapulapu Development & Housing Corp. v. Group Management Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lapulapu Development and Housing Corporation (LLDHC), formerly B. Sunga Corporation, owned 78 lots (423,117 sqm) in Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu City. On February 4, 1974, LLDHC entered a Project and Loan Agreement with GSIS for P25M loan to develop/sell lots to GSIS members, secured by real estate mortgage over the lots; GSIS released P710,400 of ad interim P2.5M loan. LLDHC defaulted, leading GSIS to foreclose, bid as lone bidder, consolidate ownership post-redemption, and obtain TCTs. On February 26, 1980, GSIS conditionally sold lots to Group Management Corporation (GMC). LLDHC filed annulment of foreclosure suit (Civil Case No. R-82-3429, Manila RTC Br. 38); GMC filed specific performance suit against GSIS (Civil Case No. 2203-L, Lapu-Lapu RTC Br. 27), where LLDHC intervened but lost after trial. Procedural History: Lapu-Lapu RTC decided for GMC on February 24, 1992, dismissing LLDHC intervention; appeals dismissed December 6, 1993 as frivolous. Manila RTC annulled foreclosure May 10, 1994, ordering new titles for LLDHC post-payment. LLDHC's CA annulment petition (SP 34696) dismissed December 29, 1994, final January 28, 1995; SC certiorari (G.R. 118633) dismissed September 6, 1996 for forum shopping and lack of jurisdiction/merits. Lapu-Lapu execution ordered November 28, 1996; motions to stay denied. GMC obtained injunctions, contempt vs. Register of Deeds (RD); RD issued LLDHC titles per Manila writ. Lapu-Lapu Judge Risos nullified RD acts October 23, 1997, ordered GMC titles November 28, 1997. Successor Judge Fernandez set aside contempt/injunctions May 28/August 4, 1998. CA petition led to April 30, 1999 decision affirming Fernandez, nullifying Manila decision vs. GMC, enjoining interference with Lapu-Lapu execution; reconsideration denied December 29, 1999. The Petition: LLDHC petitions SC via Rule 45 to annul CA decision, arguing: (1) Manila RTC final/implemented decision superior, prevails over Lapu-Lapu; (2) GMC/CA guilty of forum shopping as Manila case predated Lapu-Lapu; (3) CA Justices Verzola/Tuquero should inhibit for prior CA-GR SP 44052 participation.
Issue(s)
Whether the final Manila RTC decision prevails over the Lapu-Lapu RTC final decision, binding non-party GMC and authorizing interference. Whether LLDHC or GMC committed forum shopping. Whether CA Justices Verzola and Tuquero should have inhibited.
Ruling
The Petition is DISMISSED, and the assailed CA Decision is AFFIRMED. Treble costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Valid and Binding Decision): The Lapu-Lapu RTC decision of February 24, 1992 in Civil Case No. 2203-L became final and executory after LLDHC's appeal was dismissed as frivolous on December 6, 1993, with no further perfection; subsequent CA dismissal of annulment (SP 34696, final January 28, 1995) and SC certiorari rejection (G.R. 118633, September 6, 1996) confirmed its immutability, as jurisprudence holds final judgments binding on parties/successors, unassailable even if erroneous (Legarda v. CA, 280 SCRA 642; Dorotheo v. CA, 320 SCRA 12). Execution is ministerial under Rule 39, compellable by mandamus, unaffected by Manila RTC's 1994 decision in R-82-3429, which bound only parties GSIS/LLDHC, not non-party GMC (personal judgments bind only participants). Courts of coequal jurisdiction (both RTCs) cannot interfere or nullify each other's orders (People v. Woolcock, 244 SCRA 235; Garaygay v. People, 335 SCRA 272), proscribed except in extremes; LLDHC's intervention allowed full participation/trial, negating due process/extrinsic fraud claims for annulment (Avendana v. Bautista, 142 SCRA 39). Petitioner's post-finality maneuvers (annulments disguised as certiorari) are collateral attacks, impermissible; Manila execution did not automatically void Lapu-Lapu judgment, as coordinate courts lack superiority based on filing date—both final, but Lapu-Lapu binds GMC/intervenor LLDHC. On Issue 2 (Forum Shopping): Forum shopping vexes courts/litigants via repeated same facts/issues/reliefs, risking conflicts (First Phil. Int'l Bank v. CA, 252 SCRA 259; Gatmaytan v. CA, 267 SCRA 487); LLDHC filed CA annulment (SP 34696, 1994, dismissed final 1995), SC certiorari-as-annulment (G.R. 118633, dismissed 1996), another CA certiorari (SP 44052), and present Rule 45— all seeking Lapu-Lapu annulment post-finality, copying prayers verbatim, despite Manila case predating (GMC unaware until intervention, rebuffed in Manila). GMC's Lapu-Lapu suit legitimate specific performance vs. GSIS; no vexation as it learned of Manila post-filing, intervened unsuccessfully there. LLDHC's serial suits (twice CA, thrice SC) delayed execution, clogging dockets—classic forum shopping, not GMC's single proper forum. On Issue 3 (Voluntary Inhibition): Justices presumed impartial, must decide unless disqualified (Rule 137, Sec. 1; People v. Moreno, 83 Phil. 286); voluntary recusal for bias/prejudice, opinion partiality, personal knowledge, affinity (People v. Gomez, 20 SCRA 293; Umale v. Villaluz, 51 SCRA 84)—mere prior CA-GR SP 44052 participation (rejecting execution stay) insufficient, highlights LLDHC's repetitiveness, not bias; no consent waiver issue as not reviewing own lower rulings.
Main Doctrine
Having the same power and prerogatives, courts of coequal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders and judgments, as they lack authority to pass upon or nullify each other's final rulings absent extreme legal exceptions. A final and executory judgment is valid and binding on parties and successors-in-interest, its execution being ministerial and unassailable by collateral attacks or serial petitions disguised as other remedies. Forum shopping is determined by the vexation caused to courts and litigants through repeated invocation of substantially identical facts, issues, and reliefs, even across different forums and nomenclatures, creating risks of conflicting decisions and docket clogging. Annulment of judgments requires proof of extrinsic fraud or jurisdictional void, not intrinsic matters or full participatory due process. Judges and justices must decide cases unless legally disqualified, voluntary inhibition lying only for proven bias, prejudice, or specified grounds under Rule 137, not mere prior involvement in related proceedings.