Gatmaytan vs. Court of Appeals

A lawyer who repeatedly institutes multiple actions grounded on the same cause, after having been repeatedly rebuffed by the courts, for the purpose of delaying adjudication on the merits is guilty of forum shopping and contempt of court, warranting both a fine and suspension from the practice of law.

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank), as successor-in-interest of Fortune Motors, Inc., owned a building in Makati where the law firm CIAGLO (Caparas Ilagan Alcantara & Gatmaytan Law Office) occupied space as sub-lessee of Canlubang Automotive Resources Corporation (CARCO). Metrobank filed an ejectment suit against CIAGLO for non-payment of rentals and electric bills. Augusto Gatmaytan was a partner of CIAGLO and, singly or jointly with his law firm, instituted the series of actions that gave rise to this contempt proceeding. The dispute was rooted in CIAGLO's refusal to recognize Metrobank's title and its insistence that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment suit because ownership of the premises was allegedly in dispute.

On November 3, 1986, Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) filed an ejectment suit in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61, against the law firm CIAGLO (Caparas Ilagan Alcantara & Gatmaytan Law Office), docketed as Civil Case No. 32033. Metrobank sued as successor-in-interest of Fortune Motors, Inc., the owner of the building in question. CIAGLO occupied space in the building as sub-lessee of Canlubang Automotive Resources Corporation (CARCO), and was sued for failure to pay rentals and electric bills amounting to ₱76,224.99. In its Answer with Counterclaim, CIAGLO raised several defenses: that ownership of the leased premises was the subject of a pending case between Metrobank and Fortune Motors, Inc.; that implementation of Metrobank's writ of possession had been enjoined by the Court of Appeals; that it had a valid and effective arrangement with CARCO regarding the leased area; and that the rent and electricity charges were unreasonable and unconscionable.

Augusto Gatmaytan, a partner of CIAGLO, thereafter instituted a series of judicial remedies, singly or jointly with his law firm, all directed at challenging the MTC's jurisdiction over the ejectment suit. On September 21, 1987, during the pendency of Civil Case No. 32033, Gatmaytan filed an action for declaratory relief, prohibition, and damages in the RTC of Makati, Branch 145, docketed as Civil Case No. 17873, principally seeking to declare the MTC without jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The RTC dismissed the action on January 28, 1988, holding that the MTC had exclusive original jurisdiction over the ejectment case and that prohibition was improper. Before the RTC could act on Gatmaytan's motion for reconsideration, CIAGLO filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA-GR SP No. 14116) seeking to compel the RTC to admit its amended complaint and to suspend MTC proceedings. The CA dismissed this petition on December 16, 1988, ruling that linking the issue of ownership with possession cannot divest the MTC of its exclusive original jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal in G.R. No. 87891 on July 13, 1989.

Meanwhile, CIAGLO appealed the RTC's dismissal of Civil Case No. 17873 to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CV No. 18292). By Resolution dated July 16, 1990, the CA affirmed the dismissal, pointing out that the rights of a possessor in good faith do not apply to a lessee or sub-lessee, that the issues raised were matters proper as defenses in the ejectment suit itself, and that Metrobank's title over the building was already beyond debate. CIAGLO's petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 95992) was dismissed on February 25, 1991 for failure to show reversible error.

Notwithstanding these successive adverse rulings, CIAGLO continued to resist the ejectment proceedings. On October 10, 1989, it filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 32033, reiterating substantially the same grounds previously raised. The MTC denied the motion on September 25, 1990 and set the case for trial. CIAGLO's subsequent filings—a motion for postponement, a request for admission, written interrogatories, and an omnibus motion—were all denied on June 4, 1991. CIAGLO then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the RTC of Makati (Civil Case No. 91-1908) on July 9, 1991, seeking to nullify the MTC's orders and dismiss the ejectment case. The RTC dismissed this petition on September 30, 1992. CIAGLO elevated the dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR SP No. 33314), which dismissed the petition on July 18, 1995, declaring the issues barred by res judicata and finding CIAGLO guilty of forum shopping. The CA's motion for reconsideration was denied on December 4, 1995 as time-barred, and the petition for relief was denied on January 4, 1996.

Gatmaytan then filed the present petition (G.R. No. 123332) with the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed on February 12, 1996, the Court ruling that the motion for extension, the petition, and the docketing fees were all filed out of time, the CA decision having become final and executory, and that the cause was barred by res judicata and prosecuted manifestly for delay. In the same resolution, the Court ordered Gatmaytan to show cause why he should not be held liable for forum shopping. Gatmaytan filed his compliance on May 2, 1996, asserting that his various remedies were "forced or duty moves" compelled by the circumstances and adherence to the rules, and that he acted in good faith. The Court rejected this justification, finding that Gatmaytan had one obvious and obsessive objective: to put at issue the jurisdiction of the MTC over the ejectment case and thereby defer adjudication for as long as possible, an enterprise upon which he had embarked for the ninth time after having been repeatedly rebuffed on the same fundamental issue.

• Nature of Remedies Filed: Petitioner maintained that the various remedies he resorted to were "forced or duty moves" compelled by the circumstances and in adherence to the rules, and did not constitute forum shopping as defined in Ortigas & Company Ltd. Partnership vs. Velasco.
• Good Faith: Petitioner argued that he should not be made to wait for the final judgment of the MTC on what he characterized as a patently deficient complaint, and that he acted in good faith and in accordance with the law in seeking and applying for appropriate remedy and relief in various courts.
• Validity of Underlying Cause: Petitioner asserted he had a good ground to seek the declaration of the complaint in Civil Case No. 32033 as void for failure to state a cause of action.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Atty. Augusto Gatmaytan is guilty of contempt of court for forum shopping by instituting nine separate judicial remedies, all directed at challenging the MTC's jurisdiction over the ejectment suit, after having been repeatedly rebuffed by the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court on the same fundamental issue.

• Forum Shopping: Yes. Atty. Gatmaytan was found guilty of contempt of court for forum shopping, having repeatedly instituted multiple actions grounded on the same cause to impugn the MTC's jurisdiction over the ejectment suit, thereby frustrating the summary nature of ejectment proceedings and abusing court processes.

• Forum Shopping: The facts plainly demonstrated Gatmaytan's guilt of forum shopping, defined as "the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition," or "the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari." While the adjective law makes available several remedies, a party may not resort to them simultaneously or at pleasure; there is a sequence and hierarchical order that must be observed. Gatmaytan had one obvious and obsessive objective: to put at issue the jurisdiction of the MTC over the ejectment case and, by preventing its continuation, defer adjudication on the basic issue for as long as possible. This was an enterprise upon which he embarked for the ninth time after having already been rebuffed on the same fundamental issue multiple times by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. His conduct frustrated final and executory dispositions and unwarrantedly imposed on the time and patience of the courts in relation to what should have been a simple, summary ejectment action. The Court endorsed the Court of Appeals' observation in CA-GR SP No. 33314 that the filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of court processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct, and degrade the administration of justice, and that forum shopping is contumacious and an act of malpractice proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts.

• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping is "the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition," or alternatively, "the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari." The Court applied this doctrine to find Gatmaytan guilty, as he repeatedly filed new actions raising the same jurisdictional challenge after each adverse ruling, rather than pursuing the proper appellate remedies. The Court emphasized that the availability of multiple remedies does not permit a party to resort to them simultaneously or at whim; a sequence and hierarchical order must be observed.
• Contempt of Court for Abuse of Judicial Processes — A lawyer who systematically files multiple actions to delay proceedings in a simple ejectment case, frustrating the summary nature of such proceedings and imposing unwarrantedly on the time and patience of the courts, is guilty of contempt of court. The Court held that such conduct warrants both a fine and suspension from the practice of law, as it constitutes an abuse of the privilege to practice law and degrades the administration of justice.
• MTC Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Ejectment — Linking the issue of ownership with the issue of possession does not divest the Metropolitan Trial Court of its exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer under B.P. 129, Section 33(2). A defendant in an ejectment case who does not claim ownership of the building cannot raise the issue of ownership and deny title to the plaintiff.

• "But that the adjective law makes available several remedies does not imply that a party may resort to them simultaneously or at his pleasure or whim. There is a sequence and a hierarchical order which must be observed in availing of them." — This passage articulates the principle that procedural remedies must be pursued in the proper sequence and hierarchy, and that their multiplicity does not license simultaneous or indiscriminate invocation.
• "Impatience at what may be felt to be the slowness of the judicial process, or even a deeply held persuasion in the rightness of one's cause, does not justify short-cuts in procedure, or playing fast and loose with the rules thereof." — This statement defines the boundary between zealous advocacy and abuse of process, holding that subjective conviction cannot excuse procedural shortcuts.
• "In the case at bar, as in the other proceedings instituted by him, Atty. Gatmaytan had one obvious and obsessive objective: put at issue the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court at Makati over the ejectment case filed against him and his law partners and, by thereby preventing said case from continuing in due course in said court, defer and put off adjudication on the basic issue for as long as possible." — This passage states the Court's finding of Gatmaytan's motive and establishes the factual basis for the contempt conviction.

• Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco, 234 SCRA 455 (1994) — Cited for the definition of forum shopping, which the Court adopted and applied to Gatmaytan's conduct.
• Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 273 — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the proposition that filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of court processes and improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, and degrade the administration of justice.
• Buan vs. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34 — Cited for the rule that a violation of the rule against forum shopping warrants prosecution for contempt of court and constitutes ground for summary dismissal, without prejudice to administrative action against counsel.
• Tui vs. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 100 (1971) — Cited in G.R. No. 87891 for the proposition that a defendant in an ejectment case who does not claim ownership cannot raise the issue of ownership and deny title to the plaintiff.
• Dimagiba vs. Montalvo, Jr., 202 SCRA 647 — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the observation that when court dockets get clogged and the administration of justice is delayed, the greater fault lies in lawyers who take their privilege lightly.

• Rule 71, Rules of Court (as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95) — Governs contempt of court proceedings; applied as the basis for imposing the fine of ₱5,000.00 and the suspension from the practice of law for six months.
• B.P. 129, Section 33(2) — Confers exclusive original jurisdiction on the Metropolitan Trial Court over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; applied to reject the argument that linking ownership with possession divests the MTC of jurisdiction.

Davide, Jr., Melo, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concurred.