Masakazu Uematsu vs. Alma N. Balinon

A final and executory judgment may no longer be altered, and a motion filed in the closed case seeking substantially the same reliefs already sought in a pending separate action constitutes forum shopping; an indirect contempt charge not initiated by the court motu proprio must be commenced by a verified petition; and a resolution finding a party guilty of indirect contempt and forfeiting property is a final, appealable judgment.

Petitioner Masakazu Uematsu and respondent Alma N. Balinon were common-law spouses. Respondent obtained a permanent protection order against petitioner under Republic Act No. 9262 after alleging physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuses by petitioner, whom she described as a drug dependent. The PPO decision became final and executory, with an Entry of Judgment issued on November 29, 2011. The parties also had co-owned properties and closed businesses, which later became the subject of petitioner's accounting and dissolution claims.

Masakazu Uematsu and Alma N. Balinon were common-law spouses. Balinon filed a Petition for the issuance of a permanent protection order and a plea for a temporary protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 against Uematsu. She asserted that she filed the case due to physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuses committed against her by Uematsu, her common-law spouse who was a drug dependent. In its Decision dated October 7, 2011, the RTC-Tagum granted the petition and issued a PPO against Uematsu, giving credence to Balinon's claim that she and her children would be in constant threat or harm unless the PPO issued. The Decision became final and executory, and an Entry of Judgment was issued on November 29, 2011.

On July 23, 2014, almost three years after the finality of the PPO case, Uematsu filed a Complaint with the RTC-Lapu-Lapu for dissolution of co-ownership, partnership, liquidation, and accounting against Balinon. He prayed for the winding up and accounting of his co-ownership with Balinon, that she be ordered to turn over all papers and effects pertaining to their co-ownership, and that the settlement of their properties be made. In the complaint, he listed real properties in Tagum City registered under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-239652, T-239653, T-239654, T-241966, T-241746, T-234235, T-234600, and T-263601, which he claimed were purchased because of their lending business and were subject of their supposed co-ownership.

On June 30, 2015, while the Dissolution case was pending, Uematsu filed with the RTC-Tagum a Motion (To Order Defendant Alma N. Balinon to Account) in the PPO case, praying that Balinon be ordered to account for all the proceeds of their closed businesses and sold properties. In the Motion to Account, Uematsu listed the same properties he had listed in the Dissolution case and similarly stated that these properties were acquired through their joint efforts or were co-owned by them. The RTC-Tagum directed Balinon to file a comment, but despite a 15-day extension, she failed to do so. Uematsu then filed a Motion to Direct [Respondent] to Comply with the Order of the Court, stating that Balinon's failure to file a comment and to make an account was disobedience to a lawful court order; he prayed that she be given a final warning to render an accounting under pain of contempt. In its Order dated December 2, 2015, the RTC-Tagum directed Balinon to explain why she should not be sanctioned for her failure to comply within five days, granted her 15 days to make an accounting, and declared that her failure to do so would constrain the court to admit the allegations in Uematsu's Motion to Account and to dispose of the properties therein enumerated.

On June 8, 2016, Uematsu filed a Motion for Resolution, declaring that Balinon was still unable to submit an accounting of their common properties; he prayed that she be cited in contempt and that his Motion to Account be resolved. In its Resolution dated August 15, 2016, the RTC-Tagum found Balinon guilty of indirect contempt, imposed imprisonment for 15 days and a fine of P30,000.00, and ordered that the properties enumerated in Uematsu's Motion to Account be forfeited in his favor. After obtaining this favorable ruling, Uematsu filed a notice to withdraw his Dissolution case with the RTC-Lapu-Lapu. Balinon moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied in the RTC-Tagum's Order dated September 6, 2016. She then filed a notice of appeal. In an Order dated September 28, 2016, the RTC-Tagum denied due course to the notice of appeal, holding that its August 15, 2016 Resolution was an interlocutory order and could not be the subject of an appeal.

Balinon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated May 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and annulled and set aside the RTC-Tagum's August 15, 2016 Resolution and its September 6, 2016 and September 28, 2016 Orders. The Court of Appeals denied Uematsu's motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated August 25, 2017. Uematsu then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• No Forum Shopping: Petitioner insisted that he did not commit forum shopping when he filed the Motion to Account before the RTC-Tagum even during the pendency of his Dissolution case with the RTC-Lapu-Lapu; he asserted that the reliefs prayed for in those cases were different because the Motion to Account involved the accounting of their moneylending and car dealership businesses, while the Dissolution case prayed for the dissolution of their community property and its distribution.
• Indirect Contempt Initiated Motu Proprio: Petitioner insisted that the RTC-Tagum did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding respondent guilty of indirect contempt because the charge was initiated motu proprio by the RTC-Tagum, such that he did not have to file a verified petition on the matter.
• Denial of Appeal Proper: Petitioner maintained that the denial of respondent's notice of appeal by the RTC-Tagum was proper because the August 15, 2016 Resolution, which found respondent guilty of indirect contempt and ordered the forfeiture of the subject properties in his favor, was an interlocutory order and not appealable.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Respondent countered that the RTC-Tagum had no more jurisdiction over the final and executory judgment in the PPO case, such that the eventual filing of the Motion to Account in the same case should have been dismissed outright.
• Improper Conversion: Respondent contended that petitioner's subsequent motions in the PPO case, after the decision therein had already been final and executory, erroneously converted it into a case of distribution of properties, which was absurd and beyond the authority of the RTC-Tagum.
• Forum Shopping: Respondent stressed that petitioner committed forum shopping when he filed the Motion to Account even when he had already filed a separate Dissolution case praying for the same remedies for accounting and distribution of properties.
• Withdrawal as Evidence: Respondent added that after the RTC-Tagum ruled in favor of petitioner and forfeited the subject properties in his favor, petitioner withdrew the Dissolution case, showing that after having secured one remedy from the RTC-Tagum, he sought the withdrawal of the other case.

• Immutability of Judgment and Forum Shopping: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC-Tagum gravely abused its discretion in granting the Motion to Account in the final and executory PPO case while the Dissolution case was pending.
• Indirect Contempt Procedure: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC-Tagum gravely abused its discretion in finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt based on petitioner's motion without a verified petition.
• Appealability of Contempt and Forfeiture Resolution: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC-Tagum gravely abused its discretion in denying due course to respondent's notice of appeal from the resolution finding her guilty of indirect contempt and forfeiting the properties.

• Immutability of Judgment and Forum Shopping: No. The Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC-Tagum's orders; the final PPO judgment could no longer be altered, and the Motion to Account was forum shopping because it sought substantially the same reliefs as the pending Dissolution case.
• Indirect Contempt Procedure: No. The indirect contempt charge was initiated by petitioner's motion, not motu proprio by the court, so it had to be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with initiatory pleading requirements under Rule 71.
• Appealability of Contempt and Forfeiture Resolution: No. The resolution finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt and forfeiting properties in petitioner's favor finally disposed of those matters; it was a final judgment appealable under Rule 41, not an interlocutory order.

• Immutability of Judgment and Forum Shopping: The PPO decision was final and executory before petitioner filed his Dissolution case on July 23, 2014. Under the doctrine of immutability of judgment, a final and executory judgment can no longer be altered by any court. The recognized exceptions—correction of clerical errors; nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice; void judgments; and circumstances after finality rendering execution unjust and inequitable—were neither alleged nor proved. Petitioner also committed forum shopping. A party is guilty of forum shopping when he institutes, simultaneously or successively, two or more actions before different courts asking them to rule the same or related issues and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. The identity of parties in the Dissolution case and the Motion to Account cannot be denied; both involved petitioner and respondent. The rights and reliefs asserted were the same: accounting of their co-owned properties. Petitioner listed the same Tagum City properties in both the Dissolution case and the Motion to Account and similarly claimed they were acquired through their joint efforts. After obtaining a favorable RTC-Tagum ruling on the Motion to Account, petitioner filed a notice to withdraw the Dissolution case, showing an attempt to trifle with court processes and to seek the same or similar reliefs from different courts. The Motion to Account should have been dismissed on the ground of forum shopping.
• Indirect Contempt Procedure: A person may be punished for indirect contempt for disobeying or resisting a lawful court order, among other acts in Section 3, Rule 71. Proceedings may be commenced by the court motu proprio or by a verified petition with supporting particulars, certified true copies of relevant documents, and full compliance with the requirements for initiatory pleadings. The RTC-Tagum found respondent guilty not because it initiated the proceedings motu proprio, but on the basis of petitioner's motion. Petitioner's Motion to Direct and Motion for Resolution claimed disobedience and prayed that respondent be cited for indirect contempt. Thus, petitioner should have filed a verified petition. Arriola vs. Arriola emphasized that indirect contempt not initiated by the court motu proprio must be commenced by a verified petition; even if the contempt proceedings emanated from a principal case, the petition must be treated independently of the main action. The requirements—verified petition, certification on non-forum shopping, and payment of docket fees—are mandatory. Because petitioner failed to comply, the RTC-Tagum improperly took cognizance of the charge and should have dismissed the motion.
• Appealability of Contempt and Forfeiture Resolution: A final judgment finally disposes of a case and leaves nothing more to be done by the court; the court's task to decide the controversy or determine the rights and liabilities of the parties ends. An interlocutory order does not finally dispose of an action because other matters remain. A final judgment is appealable; an interlocutory order is not. The RTC-Tagum adjudged respondent guilty of indirect contempt, imposed imprisonment of 15 days and a fine of P30,000.00, and thereby finally disposed of the matters surrounding the contempt charge. Under Section 11, Rule 71, the proper remedy to contest the ruling was an appeal under Rule 41. The RTC-Tagum's disposition on the forfeiture of the subject properties in petitioner's favor was also a final judgment that determined the rights and liabilities of the parties. The proper recourse was to appeal. The RTC-Tagum therefore had no merit in denying respondent's notice of appeal.

• Immutability of judgment — A final and executory judgment can no longer be altered in any way by any court. The recognized exceptions are (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) circumstances transpiring after finality that render execution unjust and inequitable. The Court applied the doctrine because the PPO decision was final and executory before petitioner filed his Motion to Account, and none of the exceptions was alleged or proved.
• Forum shopping — A party commits forum shopping when he institutes, simultaneously or successively, two or more actions before different courts asking them to rule the same or related issues and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. It is evident in: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, with dismissal grounded on either litis pendentia or res judicata). The Court found forum shopping because the Dissolution case and the Motion to Account involved the same parties and substantially the same reliefs over the same co-owned properties, and petitioner withdrew the Dissolution case after obtaining a favorable ruling on the Motion to Account.
• Indirect contempt procedure — Indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed, or by a verified petition with supporting particulars, certified true copies of relevant documents, and full compliance with the requirements for initiatory pleadings. Except for motu proprio proceedings, the verified petition is mandatory, and the contempt petition must be treated independently of the principal action even if it arose from it. The Court applied this because the RTC-Tagum acted on petitioner's motion, not on a motu proprio charge, and petitioner failed to file a verified petition and comply with initiatory pleading requirements.
• Final judgment vs. interlocutory order — A final judgment finally disposes of a case and leaves nothing more to be done by the court; it is appealable. An interlocutory order does not finally dispose of an action because other matters remain; it is not appealable. The Court applied this because the RTC-Tagum's resolution finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt and forfeiting the properties finally disposed of those matters, making it a final judgment subject to appeal under Rule 41.

• "A party is guilty of forum shopping when he or she institutes, either simultaneously or successively, two or more actions before different courts asking the latter to rule the same or related issues and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs." — This is the Court's canonical definition of forum shopping, which it used to characterize petitioner's Motion to Account as an improper parallel remedy to the pending Dissolution case.
• "Henceforth, except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu propio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements therefore and shall be disposed in accordance with the second paragraph of this section." — Quoted from Regalado vs. Go and relied upon in Arriola vs. Arriola, this passage states the mandatory verified-petition requirement for indirect contempt not initiated by the court on its own motion.
• "A final judgment is one that finally disposes of a case and leaves nothing more to be done by the court to it. Once rendered, the task of the court to decide the controversy or determine the rights and liabilities of the parties comes to an end. On the other hand, an interlocutory order is one that does not finally dispose of an action as there are other matters that need to be done by the court. A final judgment is appealable while a interlocutory order is not." — This passage supplies the test the Court used to hold that the contempt and forfeiture resolution was final and appealable, not interlocutory.
• "In this case, the identity of parties in the Dissolution case and in the Motion to Account (filed in the PPO case) cannot be denied. Both of these cases involved herein petitioner and respondent. Moreover, the rights and reliefs asserted by petitioner in the Dissolution case pertained to the same ones that he declared in the Motion to Account." — This is the Court's application of the forum-shopping rule to the two proceedings, showing the identity of parties and reliefs that warranted dismissal.

• Arriola, et al. vs. Arriola, 566 Phil. 654 (2008) — The Court relied on this case for the rule that indirect contempt not initiated by the court motu proprio must be commenced by a verified petition, and that the petition must be treated independently of the principal action even if the contempt proceedings stemmed from it.
• Regalado vs. Go, 543 Phil. 578 (2007) — Quoted in Arriola vs. Arriola, this case supplied the pronouncement that all indirect contempt charges, except those initiated motu proprio by order or formal charge of the offended court, must be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements.
• Gomeco Metal Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 793 Phil. 355, 379 (2016) — Cited for the recognized exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of judgment.
• Pavlow vs. Mendenilla, 809 Phil. 24, 50 (2017) — Cited for the definition of forum shopping and the rule that any disposition in interrelated actions would amount to res judicata.
• Brown-Araneta vs. Araneta, 719 Phil. 293, 316-317 (2013) — Cited for the purpose of the rule against forum shopping: to avoid separate and opposing rulings from competent courts and to prevent a party from taking advantage by seeking relief until a favorable result is obtained.
• Heirs of Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao vs. Atty. Alug, et al., 754 Phil. 236, 244-245 (2015) — Cited for the distinction between a final judgment, which is appealable, and an interlocutory order, which is not.
• Capitol Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. et al. vs. Sanchez, 728 Phil. 58, 73-74 (2014) — Cited for the rule that a ruling in a contempt charge under Section 11, Rule 71 may be contested by appeal under Rule 41.

• Section 3, Rule 71, Rules of Court — Enumerates the acts constituting indirect contempt, including disobedience or resistance to a lawful court order. The Court cited it as the basis for the possible contempt charge against respondent.
• Section 4, Rule 71, Rules of Court — Provides that indirect contempt proceedings may be initiated motu proprio by the court or, in all other cases, by a verified petition with supporting particulars, certified true copies of relevant documents, and full compliance with the requirements for initiatory pleadings; if related to a principal action, the petition must be docketed, heard, and decided separately unless consolidated. The Court applied it to hold that petitioner's motion did not satisfy the mandatory procedure.
• Section 11, Rule 71, Rules of Court — Provides that a ruling in a contempt charge may be contested by appeal under Rule 41. The Court applied it to hold that respondent's remedy from the contempt conviction was appeal, not a denial of due course.
• Rule 41, Rules of Court — Governs appeals from final judgments or orders. The Court cited it as the proper remedy to challenge the RTC-Tagum's contempt and forfeiture resolution.
• Republic Act No. 9262 — The PPO case was filed under this law. The Court of Appeals noted that settlement and distribution of properties are not among the objectives and reliefs specified under RA 9262; the Supreme Court's affirmance, however, rested on immutability of judgment, forum shopping, indirect contempt procedure, and appealability.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Hernando, and Zalameda, JJ., concur. A. Reyes, Jr., J., on leave.