City of Taguig vs. City of Makati

Simultaneously pursuing a petition for annulment of judgment and a motion for reconsideration (or appeal) of the same decision constitutes forum shopping because both remedies share the fundamental purpose of setting aside the judgment to obtain a different, favorable one; the ground of lack of jurisdiction may be raised in a motion for reconsideration or appeal, making a separate petition for annulment unnecessary, premature, and an abuse of court processes.

For decades, the Cities of Taguig and Makati disputed territorial jurisdiction over the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and the Inner Fort area of Fort Bonifacio. Taguig initiated a civil action for judicial confirmation of its territory and nullification of certain presidential proclamations that had allegedly altered its boundaries without a plebiscite. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 153, rendered a decision in Taguig’s favor, declaring the contested parcels part of Taguig and the proclamations unconstitutional. Makati responded by attacking the decision on two fronts simultaneously: it questioned the decision’s validity before the Court of Appeals through a petition for annulment of judgment, while at the same time seeking reconsideration and later an appeal on the merits before the trial court and the appellate court. This dual strategy gave rise to the charge of forum shopping.

• The Territorial Dispute: On November 22, 1993, Taguig, then a municipality, filed before the RTC of Pasig City a complaint for judicial confirmation of its territory and boundary limits, and for the declaration of unconstitutionality and nullity of certain provisions of Presidential Proclamations No. 2475 (Series of 1986) and No. 518 (Series of 1990). Taguig alleged that the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and the area known as Inner Fort in Fort Bonifacio were within its territory and jurisdiction. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 63896 and raffled to Branch 153.

• The July 8, 2011 RTC Decision: On July 8, 2011, Presiding Judge Briccio C. Ygaña rendered a Decision in favor of Taguig. The Decision confirmed that Parcels 3 and 4, Psu‑2031 comprising the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation are part of Taguig’s territory; declared the subject proclamations unconstitutional insofar as they altered Taguig’s boundaries without a plebiscite; and made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction restraining Makati from exercising jurisdiction over the area.

• The Certification of Non-Promulgation: Makati alleged that on the afternoon of July 12, 2011, three days after Judge Ygaña’s retirement took effect, its legal counsels went to Branch 153 and obtained a Certification from the Clerk of Court, Atty. Jerome T. Victor, attesting that the draft decision “has already been finished on July 8, 2011, but the same is still undergoing review, revision and counterchecking.” Makati received a copy of the July 8, 2011 Decision on July 13, 2011, and accepted it under protest, asserting it was void for having been rendered by a retired judge.

• Simultaneous Remedies: On July 28, 2011, Makati simultaneously filed two pleadings. First, it filed before the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam of the July 8, 2011 Decision, attacking the merits of the territorial dispute. Second, it filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 120495, asserting that the RTC Decision was rendered without jurisdiction and in violation of due process because it was issued after the presiding judge’s retirement. Makati argued that the two remedies were based on different causes of action, raised different issues, and sought different reliefs—one challenging the validity of the judgment, the other addressing the substantive merits of the boundary dispute.

• The RTC’s Finding of Forum Shopping: On December 19, 2011, the RTC, now presided by Pairing Judge Leili Cruz Suarez, denied Makati’s Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam. In the Order, the RTC expressly found that Makati had committed forum shopping by filing simultaneous remedies in two different fora, although it refrained from imposing the sanction of dismissal to afford the parties the full measure of proceedings. The RTC’s subsequent Order dated February 13, 2012 affirmed that the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the July 8, 2011 Decision were “all in order and soundly based.”

• The Appeal Ad Cautelam: Following the denial of its motion for reconsideration, Makati filed a Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelam on January 3, 2012, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 98377. This appeal remained pending before the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals. Makati subsequently filed its Appellant’s Brief Ad Cautelam on October 5, 2012.

• Forum Shopping: Petitioner Taguig maintained that Makati engaged in willful and deliberate forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals and a Motion for Reconsideration (later an Appeal) before the RTC. Both remedies sought to set aside the same July 8, 2011 Decision, splitting a single cause of action, and causing vexation to the courts and the adverse party. The RTC itself had already found that forum shopping occurred.

• Prematurity and Impropriety of the Rule 47 Petition: Petitioner argued that the Petition for Annulment of Judgment was fatally defective because it failed to comply with the requirement that ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration, appeal, or petition for relief must no longer be available. Since Makati had a pending Motion for Reconsideration and later an Appeal, the Petition for Annulment was unnecessary and premature.

• Prayer for Sanctions: Petitioner prayed before the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeals’ silence on the issue of forum shopping in its July 25, 2013 Resolution be deemed a denial of relief, and that the assailed resolutions be modified to include an express declaration that Makati committed forum shopping, with the imposition of appropriate sanctions for direct contempt and administrative liability.

• Different Causes of Action and Reliefs: Respondent Makati countered that its Petition for Annulment of Judgment and Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam were based on different causes of action, raised different issues, and sought different remedies. The annulment petition attacked the validity of the Decision on the ground that it was rendered without jurisdiction by a retired judge, seeking to declare it void ab initio. The motion for reconsideration and subsequent appeal pertained to the merits of the territorial dispute. Their simultaneous filing, therefore, did not constitute forum shopping.

• Exception for Void Judgments: Respondent relied on Tiu v. First Plywood Corporation and Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, arguing that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed at any time, either collaterally or in a direct action, without waiting for ordinary remedies to become unavailable. Because the July 8, 2011 Decision was purportedly void, Respondent contended that it was not required to await the exhaustion of ordinary remedies before filing the annulment petition.

• Precautionary Measure: Respondent emphasized that its Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal were merely precautionary measures appended with the phrase “ad cautelam,” and that its Petition for Annulment of Judgment contained a proper verification and certification against forum shopping signed by the Mayor of Makati.

• Forum Shopping: Whether respondent City of Makati engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously filing a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 and a Motion for Reconsideration (later an Appeal) of the same RTC decision.
• Sanctions: Whether the acts of respondent’s counsels constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping warranting the imposition of direct contempt and administrative sanctions under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.

• Forum Shopping: The simultaneous pursuit of a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and a Motion for Reconsideration (or Appeal) constitutes forum shopping. Both remedies have the same fundamental purpose: the setting aside of an adverse judgment so that a different, favorable one may take its place. Because lack of jurisdiction may be raised as a ground in a motion for reconsideration or an appeal, filing a separate petition for annulment is unnecessary and merely splits a single cause of action. The distinction between a Rule 47 petition grounded on lack of jurisdiction and an appeal on the merits does not prevent a finding of forum shopping; the practical legal effect of granting either remedy is the reversal of the same decision, as established in Ley Construction. The elements of litis pendentia—identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought—are satisfied. The precedents of Tiu and Nazareno do not support Makati because in those cases the remedies were pursued independently and sequentially, not simultaneously in a manner that trifled with court processes.

• Sanctions: The forum shopping committed by Makati, through its counsels, was willful and deliberate. Makati’s actions not only vexed the courts and the adverse litigant but also actually produced conflicting decisions—between the RTC and the Court of Appeals, and within the Court of Appeals itself—thereby inflicting real harm on the administration of justice. Under Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, willful and deliberate forum shopping constitutes direct contempt and is a cause for administrative sanctions. Accordingly, a fine of P2,000.00 is imposed upon each of the three counsels who filed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment: Atty. Pio Kenneth I. Dasal, Atty. Glenda Isabel L. Biason, and Atty. Gwyn Gareth T. Mariano, pursuant to Rule 71, Section 1.

• Test for Forum Shopping — Forum shopping is committed when a party institutes two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, asking the courts to rule on the same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. The test for determining forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are present—identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. Ultimately, what is truly important is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant and the creation of the possibility of conflicting decisions.

• Identity of Purpose Between Annulment of Judgment and Reconsideration/Appeal — A petition for annulment of judgment and a motion for reconsideration (or appeal) share the same fundamental purpose: to set aside an unfavorable judgment so that a different, favorable one may take its place. Because lack of jurisdiction, the typical ground for annulment, may also be raised in a motion for reconsideration or an appeal under the Omnibus Motion Rule in relation to the exceptions to waiver of defenses, filing both remedies simultaneously splits a single cause of action and amounts to forum shopping.

• Simultaneous Remedies as Willful Forum Shopping — The act of appending “ad cautelam” to a motion for reconsideration or appeal does not alter the nature of the remedy pursued. Simultaneously filing a petition for annulment and an appeal, knowing the appeal is available, is willful and deliberate forum shopping that constitutes direct contempt under Rule 7, Section 5, punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment under Rule 71, Section 1.

• “Simultaneously pursuing an appeal (or motion for reconsideration) and a petition for annulment of judgment is an act of forum shopping. This act, which heaps vexation upon courts and parties-litigants, is illustrated by the facts of this case in which conflicting decisions have been rendered by different courts upon the same issue.” — Framing the core transgression and its concrete harmful consequences.

• “No stretch of legal imagination can justify as final and executory the Order assailed in the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by respondent City of Makati. It was still subject to appeal. Respondent City of Makati’s having availed itself of this remedy is, in fact, the entire impetus for this Decision.” — Underscoring the prematurity of the Rule 47 petition.

• “Appending the phrase ‘ad cautelam’ to an application for relief does not alter the nature of the remedy being pursued. Had it been granted by the trial court, the Motion for Reconsideration—ad cautelam or otherwise—would have ultimately resulted in the setting aside of the assailed decision.” — Rejecting the argument that the simultaneous filing was merely precautionary.

• “…the purposes of Motions for Reconsideration and Petitions for Annulment of Judgment are fundamentally the same: the setting aside of a judgment in order that a different, favorable, one may take its place. They ‘grant… substantially the same reliefs.’” — Laying down the identity-of-relief rationale integral to the forum shopping determination.

• Ley Construction and Development Corp. v. Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp., 393 Phil. 633 (2000) — Followed. Held that an appeal and a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the same dismissal order grant substantially the same relief, and their simultaneous pursuit constitutes forum shopping. Applied to equate a petition for annulment with an appeal for purposes of the forum shopping rule.

• First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 280 (1996) — Cited. Defined forum shopping, traced its origins in private international law, and established that the ultimate consideration is the vexation caused courts and parties-litigant and the risk of conflicting decisions.

• Tiu v. First Plywood Corporation, 629 Phil. 120 (2010) — Distinguished. The rule that a void judgment may be assailed at any time does not authorize simultaneous pursuit of multiple remedies; the annulment petition there was filed after the judgment had attained finality, not while an appeal was pending.

• Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 32 (2002) — Distinguished. The petitioner in that case did not simultaneously pursue annulment and appeal but waited for the definitive resolution of one before availing of the other, demonstrating orderly procedure rather than an abuse of court processes.

• Rule 47, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions; such petitions are available only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Because Makati’s appeal was still pending, the Petition for Annulment was improperly filed.

• Rule 37, Section 1, in relation to Rule 15, Section 8 (Omnibus Motion Rule) and Rule 9, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be based on the ground that the decision is contrary to law; lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, like litis pendentia and res judicata, is explicitly excepted from the waiver rule and may be invoked in a motion for reconsideration. Hence, lack of jurisdiction could have been—and should have been—raised in the motion for reconsideration or appeal rather than in a separate, simultaneous petition.

• Rule 7, Section 5, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires a certification against forum shopping in every initiatory pleading; provides that willful and deliberate forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

• Rule 71, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Prescribes the penalty for direct contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank as a fine not exceeding P2,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both. Applied as the basis for the fine imposed on each of Makati’s counsels.

Carpio, J. (Chairperson), and Mendoza, J., concurred. Brion, J., and Del Castillo, J., were on official leave.