Philippine College of Criminology, Inc. vs. Bautista

Forum shopping exists where two actions involve substantial identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought; absolute identity is not required, and identity of cause of action exists when the same evidence would support both actions. A subsequent action may therefore be dismissed as forum shopping even if it asks for a relief nominally different from that sought in the earlier pending case.

Petitioner Philippine College of Criminology, Inc. is an educational institution founded in 1953 by Supreme Court Associate Justice Felix Angelo Bautista, who served as its President and Board Chairperson until his death in 1985; his son Eduardo J. Bautista then took over. Five parties are Eduardo Sr.’s children: respondent Gregory Alan F. Bautista and petitioners Ma. Cecilia Bautista-Lim, Rodolfo Valentino F. Bautista, Ma. Elena F. Bautista, and Eduardo F. Bautista, Jr. The dispute concerns control of the institution and membership in its Board of Trustees.

Eduardo J. Bautista, Sr. issued Presidential Order No. 1 on May 18, 2006, providing that in the event of his demise or permanent incapacity to act as President and Board Chairperson, or whenever he chose to relinquish his position, respondent Gregory Alan F. Bautista, then EVP, would become President and Board Chairperson. It also stipulated that Gregory’s siblings “shall render full and unconditional support to the incumbent in accordance with the above-stated line of succession.” In conformity with the order, Gregory, Cecilia, Rodolfo, Elena, and Eduardo Jr. signed a Certificate of Acquiescence stating that they had read, understood, and were in full accord with the order, and obligating themselves to obey and follow its provisions under pain of sanctions and other sanctions which the President Board Chairman had legal authority to impose.

On September 26, 2006, Eduardo Sr. issued a Memorandum Order indicating that on September 13, 2006, he had relinquished the position of President in favor of Gregory. No one opposed this. What merely followed was the execution of the Bautista Family’s Memorandum of Agreement on July 30, 2007, which stated that management of the Philippine College of Criminology and Manila Law College would remain with Eduardo Sr.’s family; that majority of the members of the Philippine College of Criminology-Manila Law College Board of Trustees would be members of Eduardo Sr.’s family; and that Guia Bautista, Ma. Rosario B. Villegas, Cesar J. Bautista, and Carmen Bautista would be members of the Board, with their direct descendants taking their respective places in the event of their demise or permanent incapacity. On July 26, 2008, Eduardo Sr. passed away, and Gregory then took over as Chairperson of the Board of Trustees.

On January 12, 2010, Rodolfo wrote to Gregory inquiring when a general membership and/or board meeting would be called. On January 21, 2011, Rodolfo and Cecilia again wrote to Gregory impressing the need for meetings and informing him that they were calling for a Special Joint General Membership, Board of Trustees, and Organizational Meeting on January 31, 2011. The special meeting proceeded but Gregory did not attend. In that meeting, the Board of Trustees was reorganized: the incumbent board memberships of Gregory, Cecilia, Rodolfo, and Elena, as well as petitioners Jean-Paul Bautista Lim and Marco Angelo Bautista Lim, were confirmed; four new board members were elected—petitioners Eduardo Jr., Corazon Bautista Javier, Sabrina Bautista-Panlilio, and Ma. Ines V. Almeda. The same meeting called for the election of executive officers, including the position of President. The minutes indicated that Cecilia was elected President, in lieu of Gregory, and Cecilia likewise took over as Board Chairperson.

Gregory took issue with Cecilia’s takeover and, on March 25, 2011, filed a Petition for Quo Warranto. He alleged that his removal was “not valid since the attendance of the board members did not meet the required quorum and [petitioners] violated his right over [the position of Chairperson of the Board of Trustees and President] as mandated by Presidential Order No. 1.” This action was docketed as Civil Case No. 11-125408 and raffled to RTC Manila, Branch 24. Gregory’s Quo Warranto Petition was subsequently dismissed by the RTC “for being insufficient in form and substance,” and he appealed the dismissal to the CA and subsequently to the SC.

In the meantime, Cecilia caused the audit of the Philippine College of Criminology’s books. The findings of the special audit suggested that several sums had been unduly disbursed to Gregory. Acting on the special audit, a resolution authorizing Cecilia to undertake legal action against Gregory was passed in the Board’s June 1, 2011 meeting. At another Board meeting scheduled on August 10, 2011, the Board was due to discuss Gregory’s suspension or expulsion as board member. This matter was, however, shelved as the Board opted to negotiate with Gregory in the interim. The Board then maintained that Gregory should return the amounts that were noted to have been unduly disbursed to him. Gregory, however, did not comply. Thus, in a November 17, 2011 meeting, the Board resolved to file actions against Gregory. At another meeting on January 11, 2012, the Board passed Resolution No. 25 expelling Gregory from the Board of Trustees.

In response to Resolution No. 25, on February 9, 2012, Gregory filed a Complaint against petitioners identified as an action for “Specific Performance, Intra-Corporate Controversy, and Damages.” This Complaint expressly acknowledged the pendency of the quo warranto case. Asking that petitioners honor the commitment made in the Certificate of Acquiescence vis-a-vis Presidential Order No. 1, the Complaint specifically prayed for the invalidation of Resolution No. 25 and a declaration that Gregory was still a Board Member. This Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 12-127276 and raffled to RTC Manila, Branch 24, the same branch that had earlier dismissed Gregory’s Quo Warranto Petition. Petitioners filed an Answer which, apart from raising substantive arguments, sought the Complaint’s dismissal on account of forum shopping. On June 10, 2016, the RTC rendered a Decision by way of a summary judgment, dismissing Gregory’s Complaint on account of forum shopping and lack of merit; according to it, considering its prior dismissal of Gregory’s original Quo Warranto Petition, nothing stood in the way of the Board’s exercise of its prerogatives, including the selection of its members, so the Board was well within its competence to issue Resolution No. 25.

• Forum Shopping: Petitioners argued that Gregory’s Complaint should be dismissed on account of forum shopping, and they challenged the CA’s ruling that he did not engage in forum shopping and its remand of the case.

• Forum Shopping: Respondent countered that he did not engage in forum shopping.
• Presidential Order No. 1 and Certificate of Acquiescence: Respondent maintained that Presidential Order No. 1, coupled with his siblings’ acquiescence embodied in the Certificate of Acquiescence, created a valid obligation on petitioners’ part to honor his right over the positions of Chairperson of the Board of Trustees and President.
• Removal as Board Member: Respondent maintained that his removal as Board Member violated the Philippine College of Criminology’s Articles of Incorporation and the July 30, 2007 Memorandum of Agreement.

• Forum Shopping: Whether the CA erred in ruling that respondent Gregory Alan F. Bautista did not engage in forum shopping and in remanding the case to the RTC for continuation of proceedings.

• Forum Shopping: Yes. The CA erred. Respondent committed forum shopping because the quo warranto and specific performance actions involved substantially the same parties, causes of action, and evidence, even if the reliefs were not absolutely identical. The RTC’s dismissal was reinstated.

• Forum Shopping: The SC applied the settled test: forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another; the inquiry is whether there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. Absolute identity is not required. Litis pendentia requires (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. Res judicata requires a final judgment by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates another’s right; its elements are a right in favor of the plaintiff, an obligation of the defendant to respect or not violate that right, and an act or omission violating the right or breaching the obligation. Identity of causes of action does not require absolute identity; the test is whether the same evidence would support and establish both actions, or whether there is identity in the facts essential to maintenance of the two actions. Applying these rules, the SC found that Gregory pursued two successive actions: a quo warranto petition seeking Cecilia’s ouster and his restoration as President and Board Chairperson, and a specific performance complaint seeking his restoration as Board Member. Both arose from the same larger narrative of his conflict with his siblings and relatives; both involved substantially the same set of facts, parties, and causes of action; both were anchored on his supposed rights from the Certificate of Acquiescence vis-a-vis Presidential Order No. 1 and the same siblings’ supposed default; both involved the same right-duty correlative and were premised on his ouster as a violation of his rights and breach of petitioners’ duty. Even in the present petition, Gregory still relied on Presidential Order No. 1 and the Certificate of Acquiescence to claim the positions of Chairperson and President. Both actions were against his siblings and those who, with them, allegedly denied him positions he insisted were due him. The same basic factual considerations and evidence would be needed to ascertain the parties’ rights and duties and any violation. Although the two actions asked for distinct reliefs, the grant of relief in each was rooted in its cause of action; the nature of the right and duty and the manner of breach were the bases of judicial relief. The causes of action were predominantly similar and would ultimately concern the same questions: whether Presidential Order No. 1 should be upheld, whether the new Board was legitimate, and whether its actions were legitimate. The supervening event of Gregory’s ouster as Board Member may have prompted him to seek further relief, but his proper remedy was not to initiate a nominally distinct proceeding; he should have manifested new facts while the appeal from his Quo Warranto Petition was pending and, eventually, filed supplemental pleadings if warranted. His course of action risked the dangers the anti-forum shopping rules prevent: diverging interpretations on fundamentally the same incidents and unnecessary conflict, duplication, and expenditure of judicial resources. The CA therefore erred in ruling that he did not engage in forum shopping and in remanding the case.

• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping exists when, between two actions, there is identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought; absolute identity is not required. The SC applied it to hold that Gregory committed forum shopping by filing the specific performance complaint while his quo warranto appeal was pending, because both actions involved substantially the same parties, facts, causes of action, and evidence.
• Litis Pendentia — It refers to a situation where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, making the second action unnecessary and vexatious. Requisites: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. The SC used these requisites as the test for forum shopping.
• Res Judicata — A prior judgment bars a subsequent case when (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions. The SC cited these requisites in explaining the forum shopping test.
• Cause of Action — It is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. Its elements are: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff’s right or constituting a breach of the defendant’s obligation for which the plaintiff may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. The SC used this definition to compare the two actions.
• Same Evidence Test / Identity of Causes of Action — Identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise, a party could escape res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test is whether the same evidence would support and establish both the former and the present causes of action, or whether there is identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. The SC applied this test to find that the quo warranto and specific performance actions shared the same cause of action.
• Proper Remedy for Supervening Event During Pending Appeal — A supervening event may prompt a party to seek further relief, but the proper remedy is not to initiate a nominally distinct proceeding; the party should manifest the new facts while the appeal is being considered and, if warranted, file supplemental pleadings. The SC applied this to Gregory’s ouster as Board Member.

• “There is forum shopping when, between two (2) actions, there is identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought. Absolute identity is not required.” — The SC’s opening formulation of the forum shopping rule, emphasizing that absolute identity is unnecessary.
• “Identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought.” — Quoted from Heirs of Arania and adopted by the SC to explain why a change in the form of the action or relief does not avoid the bar.
• “The test of identity of causes of action rests on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the present causes of action.” — From Riviera Golf Club, the SC used this as the ultimate test for identity of causes of action.
• “A supervening event may very well have ensued-respondent's ouster as Board Member-inciting respondent to seek further legal relief. But his proper remedy was not to imprudently initiate a nominally distinct proceeding, but rather, to manifest new facts while the appeal emanating from his Quo Warranto Petition was being considered and, eventually, to file supplemental pleadings, if warranted.” — The SC held that Gregory’s proper remedy for his supervening ouster was to raise it in the pending quo warranto appeal, not to file a new complaint.

• City of Taguig vs. City of Makati, 787 Phil. 367 (2016) — Explained the standards for evaluating forum shopping, including the litis pendentia and res judicata tests; relied on by the SC.
• Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc. vs. Chiongbian, 738 Phil. 773 (2014) — Held that absolute identity of parties is not required for forum shopping; substantial identity is enough; relied on by the SC.
• Swagman Hotels & Travel Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 495 Phil. 161 (2005) — Defined cause of action and its elements under Section 2, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; relied on by the SC.
• Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation, 669 Phil. 427 (2011) — Explained the same evidence test and the rule that a suit may be instituted for a single cause of action; relied on by the SC.
• Riviera Golf Club, Inc. vs. CCA Holdings, B.V. — Elaborated the “ultimate test” for identity of causes of action, namely whether the same evidence would support and establish both causes of action; relied on by the SC.
• Heirs of Arania vs. Intestate Estate of Sangalang, G.R. No. 193208, December 13, 2017, 848 SCRA 474 — Held that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity and that changing the form of the action or relief does not escape res judicata; quoted and applied by the SC.

• Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners to challenge the CA Decision and Resolution.
• Section 2, Rule 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Defines cause of action as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another; the SC used it to set out the elements of a cause of action in comparing the two suits.