Briones vs. Henson-Cruz

Filing separate recourses—an ordinary appeal for a final determination and a petition for certiorari for an interlocutory one—derived from the same order does not constitute forum shopping provided the issues are distinct, independently determinable, and neither litis pendentia nor res judicata would result from the other proceeding.

Ruby J. Henson filed a petition for the allowance of her late mother's holographic will, which Lilia Henson-Cruz opposed. Following the designated special administrator's declination, Atty. George S. Briones was appointed. After administering the estate, Briones sought approval of his final report and claimed an 8% commission. The trial court issued an order designating an accounting firm to audit the administration, fixing Briones's commission at 1.8%, and directing delivery of the estate residue to the heirs.

• Estate Administration: Respondent Ruby J. Henson filed a petition for the allowance of her late mother's holographic will. Her sister, respondent Lilia Henson-Cruz, opposed the petition and moved for the appointment of an interim special administrator. The trial court appointed Jose V. Ferro, who declined, leading to the appointment of petitioner Atty. George S. Briones.
• The April 3, 2002 Order: Following Briones's submission of his final report and a claim for an 8% commission, and respondents' subsequent request for an audit, the trial court issued an order resolving three matters: (1) designating an accounting firm to audit the estate administration; (2) fixing the special administrator's commission at 1.8% of the estate value; and (3) directing the delivery of the estate residue to the heirs.
• Dual Recourses: Aggrieved by the order, respondents pursued two separate remedies. They filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus regarding the appointment of the auditor, arguing that the audit was unnecessary and that they merely sought to examine the administrator under oath. Simultaneously, they filed a notice of appeal regarding the payment of the administrator's commission. The trial court denied the appeal on the ground of forum shopping, prompting respondents to file a petition for mandamus to compel the RTC to give due course to the appeal.

• Forum Shopping: Petitioner argued that respondents committed forum shopping by assailing the same trial court order twice—through a special civil action for certiorari and an ordinary appeal—because the reliefs prayed for were identical, i.e., the setting aside of the April 3, 2002 Order.
• Omission in Certification: Petitioner maintained that respondents deliberately failed to mention the pendency of their ordinary appeal in the certification against forum shopping attached to their certiorari petition.
• Error of Judgment: Petitioner posited that the trial court's dismissal of the appeal on the ground of forum shopping, even if erroneous, constituted an error of judgment correctible by appeal, not by certiorari or mandamus.

• Distinct Issues: Respondents countered that no forum shopping existed because the certiorari petition and the ordinary appeal involved different issues: the certiorari concerned the appointment of an auditor (an interlocutory matter), while the appeal concerned the administrator's commission (a final, appealable matter).
• Specific Reliefs: Respondents argued that despite the certiorari petition praying for the annulment of the entire order, the petition and the appeal were specific about the portions being assailed, and the CA decision in the certiorari case only ruled on the specified issues.
• No Misrepresentation: Respondents claimed there was no need to mention the appeal in the non-forum shopping certification because the appeal dealt with an issue altogether different from the certiorari petition, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court.

• Forum Shopping: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the respondents' petition for mandamus on the ground of forum shopping, given that respondents utilized both an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari to challenge different portions of the same trial court order.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping was not committed. The April 3, 2002 Order contained directives of differing finality. The designation of an auditor was interlocutory because it was preparatory to the final settlement of the estate and left further action to be taken on the merits; thus, it was subject only to a Rule 65 petition. In contrast, the fixing of the administrator's commission was a final and independently determinable issue—akin to a claim against the estate under Section 8, Rule 86—and was appealable under Section 13, Rule 86 and Section 1, Rule 109. Because the issues were distinct and independently determinable, neither litis pendentia nor res judicata would result from a ruling in one proceeding affecting the other. The appellate court also did not err in declining to resolve the forum shopping issue on the merits, as the issue was immaterial to the mandamus petition, which hinged solely on whether the respondents had properly filed their notice of appeal and record on appeal.

• Test for Interlocutory vs. Final Orders (Mirada Test) — An order is interlocutory if it leaves something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case; it is final if it does not. Applied to hold that the designation of an auditor was interlocutory because it was merely preparatory to the final settlement and distribution of the estate.
• Forum Shopping Requisites — Forum shopping exists when there are: (1) identity of parties or interests; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) identity such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. Applied to rule out forum shopping, as the second and third requisites were absent given the distinct issues and reliefs.
• Multi-Appeal in Special Proceedings — In settlement of estate proceedings, separate appeals are allowed for separately determinable issues to enable the rest of the case to proceed. A separate petition for certiorari may be allowed on an interlocutory aspect distinct from an appealed final aspect, as the probate court retains jurisdiction over the proceeding despite the appeal on a specific issue.

• "Where multi-appeals are allowed, we see no reason why a separate petition for certiorari cannot be allowed on an interlocutory aspect of the case that is separate and distinct as an issue from the aspect of the case that has been adjudged with finality by the lower court."
• "The test to ascertain whether or not an order is interlocutory or final is - Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not it is final."

• Mirada v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33007 — Followed. Cited for the test distinguishing interlocutory from final orders, which was used to classify the appointment of an auditor as an interlocutory act.
• Argel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128805 — Followed. Cited by respondents to support the proposition that a special civil action for certiorari and an appeal involving different issues do not constitute forum shopping.
• Silahis International, Inc. v. NLRC; Tantoy Sr. v. Court of Appeals; First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals — Distinguished. Cited by petitioner on forum shopping, but found inapplicable because the present case involves special proceedings where multi-appeals are allowed and the issues, though stemming from the same order, differ in substance and finality.

• Section 1, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Defines the subject of appeal, prohibiting appeals from interlocutory orders and directing the use of Rule 65 for such. Applied to classify the auditor appointment as unappealable and properly subject to certiorari.
• Section 1, Rule 109, Rules of Court — Enumerates orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken in special proceedings, including orders allowing or disallowing claims against the estate. Applied to allow the appeal of the administrator's commission.
• Section 8, Rule 86, Rules of Court — Recognizes a claim of an executor or administrator against the estate. Applied to classify the administrator's commission as a claim against the estate.
• Section 13, Rule 86, Rules of Court — States that the judgment approving or disapproving a claim against the estate is appealable as in ordinary cases. Applied to confirm the final and appealable nature of the order fixing the commission.
• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Prohibits forum shopping. Applied in conjunction with the requisites of litis pendentia and res judicata to find no violation.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.