ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Willie B. Revillame

Deliberate and willful forum shopping constitutes a ground for the summary dismissal with prejudice of all cases instituted by the guilty party, including compulsory counterclaims.

The dispute originated from a three-year Talent Agreement executed on September 11, 2008, between ABS-CBN and Willie Revillame for the latter to host the program "Wowowee." Following a public on-air incident in May 2010 where Revillame demanded the firing of a colleague and threatened to resign, ABS-CBN suspended him. Revillame later sought to rescind the Agreement, which ABS-CBN rejected. Revillame then filed a civil action for judicial confirmation of rescission with damages (Civil Case No. Q-10-67770). In response, ABS-CBN filed an answer with compulsory counterclaims for substantial liquidated damages. Subsequently, ABS-CBN also filed a separate complaint for copyright infringement against Revillame and ABC Development Corporation (TV5's owner) in Makati, alleging that Revillame's new show "Willing Willie" infringed on ABS-CBN's rights under the Agreement. This multiplicity of suits based on the same alleged breach led to the core legal controversy.

• The Agreement: On September 11, 2008, ABS-CBN and Willie Revillame entered into a Talent Agreement for Revillame to host "Wowowee" for three years, until September 10, 2011.
• The Dispute: On May 4, 2010, during a live episode, Revillame demanded ABS-CBN fire a colleague and threatened to resign. ABS-CBN did not comply. Revillame stopped hosting and later sought to rescind the Agreement, which ABS-CBN rejected. ABS-CBN suspended Revillame for three months without pay and later offered him a replacement show, which he rejected.
• The Lawsuits: On August 23, 2010, Revillame filed a civil action for judicial confirmation of rescission with damages (Civil Case No. Q-10-67770). ABS-CBN answered with compulsory counterclaims for liquidated damages. On November 24, 2010, ABS-CBN filed a separate Complaint for Copyright Infringement against Revillame and ABC Development Corporation (TV5) in Makati, alleging Revillame's new show infringed on its rights under the Agreement.
• Procedural Developments: The RTC-Quezon City case was re-raffed to Branch 217, which issued orders allowing ABS-CBN to examine Revillame's signatures on a surety bond he posted. The Copyright Infringement Case was dismissed by the CA on September 5, 2011, for forum shopping. Subsequently, the RTC-Quezon City, Branch 76 dismissed ABS-CBN's compulsory counterclaims on the same ground and recalled the bond examination orders. Multiple appeals to the CA followed, leading to the consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

• ABS-CBN (G.R. Nos. 221781 & 225095): ABS-CBN argued it had an inherent right to examine the surety bond (AIPC Bond) posted by Revillame to secure potential damages. It contended the CA erred in dismissing its petitions regarding the bond examination, either as moot or on procedural grounds, and that the RTC's Amended Order conditioning the examination on the order's finality was an abuse of discretion.
• ABS-CBN (G.R. No. 236167): ABS-CBN maintained it was not guilty of deliberate forum shopping, arguing its compulsory counterclaim and the copyright infringement suit were distinct. It invoked the principle of judicial courtesy, asserting the counterclaim should not have been dismissed pending resolution of the infringement case appeal.
• Revillame (G.R. No. 236167): Revillame argued that ABS-CBN was guilty of deliberate and willful forum shopping, as both its compulsory counterclaim and the copyright infringement complaint sought relief based on the same cause of action—Revillame's alleged breach of the Talent Agreement by working for a rival network.

• Revillame (G.R. Nos. 221781 & 225095): Revillame countered that the issues regarding the bond examination were moot because the RTC had already discharged the bond. He also argued the examination was irrelevant to the main case and constituted a "fishing expedition."
• ABS-CBN (G.R. No. 236167): ABS-CBN reiterated its arguments that it did not commit forum shopping and that its compulsory counterclaim should be reinstated.
• ABC Development Corp.: ABC Corporation supported the dismissal of ABS-CBN's compulsory counterclaim based on the finding of forum shopping in the related copyright infringement case.

• Forum Shopping: Whether ABS-CBN's act of filing a compulsory counterclaim in the rescission case and a separate complaint for copyright infringement, both based on Revillame's alleged breach of the Talent Agreement, constitutes deliberate and willful forum shopping.
• Mootness (Bond Examination): Whether the issues concerning ABS-CBN's right to examine the AIPC Bond and Revillame's signatures thereon became moot and academic after the bond was discharged by the RTC.
• Compulsory Counterclaim: Whether the dismissal of ABS-CBN's compulsory counterclaim was proper as a consequence of the finding of forum shopping.

• Forum Shopping: ABS-CBN was guilty of deliberate and willful forum shopping. The Court found that both the compulsory counterclaim and the copyright infringement complaint were founded on the same delict: Revillame's alleged breach of the Talent Agreement by working for a rival network in a similar show. ABS-CBN's filing of the second suit after being denied a TRO in the first demonstrated a willful intent to seek the same relief in different fora.
• Mootness (Bond Examination): The petitions in G.R. Nos. 221781 and 225095 were dismissed as moot. The RTC had already discharged the AIPC Bond, releasing Revillame from the obligation to answer for contingent damages. With the bond no longer part of the record, any ruling on the right to examine it would be an advisory opinion without practical legal effect.
• Compulsory Counterclaim: The CA's decision reinstating ABS-CBN's compulsory counterclaim was reversed. The deliberate forum shopping warranted the dismissal of all cases initiated by ABS-CBN, including its compulsory counterclaim, as a punitive measure under the Rules of Court. The principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment applied, as the issue of forum shopping had been finally settled in a prior Supreme Court resolution (G.R. No. 201664).

• Forum Shopping — The act of a party against whom an adverse decision has been rendered in one forum, or who seeks a favorable opinion in another forum, by instituting two or more actions based on the same cause, seeking the same relief. Deliberate and willful forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice of all actions filed by the guilty party.
• Res Judicata by Conclusiveness of Judgment — When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the judgment is conclusive upon the parties and their privies in a subsequent suit involving a different cause of action. It bars the relitigation of the particular fact or question already settled in the first suit.
• Mootness — A case becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy due to supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over moot cases.

• "Deliberate and willful forum shopping is a cause for the dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim. Res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment applies." — This succinctly states the core ruling linking the procedural infirmity to the substantive dismissal.
• "The dismissal of all cases involved in forum shopping is a punitive measure against the deplorable practice of litigants of resorting to different fora to seek similar reliefs, so that their chances of obtaining a favorable judgment is increased." — This excerpt articulates the rationale for the strict rule against forum shopping.

• ABS-CBN Corporation v. ABC Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 201664 (2019) — The Court took judicial notice of this prior Resolution, which had already affirmed the CA's finding that ABS-CBN was guilty of forum shopping. This served as the basis for applying res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.
• Heirs of Mampo v. Morada, G.R. No. 214526 (2020) — Cited to explain the two aspects of res judicata: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment.
• Ley Construction & Development Corp. v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, 635 Phil. 503 (2010) — Elaborated on the elements of conclusiveness of judgment, requiring only identity of parties and subject matter, not of causes of action.
• Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535 (2014) — Defined when a case becomes moot and academic.

• Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court — Provides that if the acts of a party or counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, it shall be a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and direct contempt. The Court applied this provision to order the dismissal of ABS-CBN's compulsory counterclaim.

Justice Caguioa (Chairperson), Justice Inting, Justice Zalameda, and Justice Gaerlan concurred.