Pulido vs. Abu

A lawyer commits forum shopping when, after failing to secure a desired relief in one proceeding, the lawyer institutes another action grounded on the same facts, seeking the same ultimate relief, and deliberately fails to disclose the pendency of the first action in the certification against forum shopping; the second action shall be dismissed and the lawyer may be sanctioned. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present—identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for founded on the same facts, and such identity that a judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.

On 27 July 2003, 321 junior officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, including Philippine Navy enlisted men Cezari Gonzales and Julius Mesa, took over the Oakwood Premiere Luxury Apartments in Makati City, declared withdrawal of support from President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and demanded her resignation. The President declared a state of rebellion and directed the AFP to quell the uprising. After negotiations, the soldiers surrendered and returned to barracks. Gonzales and Mesa were taken into military custody, charged with coup d’etat before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, and later discharged from military service on 8 December 2003. The RTC admitted them to bail on 8 July 2004 and issued release orders on 20 July 2004; they posted bail but were not released. The prosecution moved for reconsideration and, upon denial, filed a petition for certiorari before the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 88440) to annul the bail order. No temporary restraining order or injunction was issued. While that certiorari case was pending, the soldiers’ counsel, Atty. Roberto Rafael Pulido, filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Third Division of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 90546) on 22 July 2005, seeking immediate release on the strength of the very bail order under attack in the Seventh Division.

• The Oakwood Mutiny and Subsequent Custody: At about 1:00 a.m. on 27 July 2003, 321 AFP junior officers and enlisted personnel, including Philippine Navy enlisted men Cezari Gonzales and Julius Mesa, took over the Oakwood Premiere Luxury Apartments in Makati City, disarmed security guards, and planted explosives. They declared withdrawal of support from President Arroyo and demanded her resignation. President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 declaring a state of rebellion and General Order No. 4 directing the AFP and PNP to suppress the rebellion. After negotiations, the soldiers ended the occupation. Gonzales and Mesa were taken into military custody by their Service Commander under an AFP directive dated 2 August 2003.
• Criminal Charges, Discharge, and Bail: Gonzales and Mesa were charged with coup d’etat under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code before the RTC Makati City (Criminal Case No. 03-2784, later consolidated with Criminal Case No. 03-2678). A Commitment Order dated 18 November 2003 placed their custody with the Commanding Officer of Fort San Felipe Naval Base, Cavite City. They were discharged from military service on 8 December 2003. After the custodian sought to be relieved, the RTC ordered their transfer to the Philippine Marine Brigade Headquarters in Fort Bonifacio. On 8 July 2004, the RTC granted their petition for bail, fixing bail at ₱100,000.00 each; Gonzales and Mesa posted bail on 19 July 2004, and the RTC issued release orders on 20 July 2004. Despite service of the orders, the Philippine Marine Corps refused to release them.
• Prosecution’s Challenge to the Bail Order: The People moved for partial reconsideration of the bail order. The Chief State Prosecutor advised the Judge Advocate General to defer release pending resolution. The RTC denied reconsideration on 26 October 2004. The People then filed a special civil action for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 88440) before the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals on 4 February 2005, seeking to nullify the bail and release orders. No TRO or writ of preliminary injunction was issued.
• The Habeas Corpus Petition: On 22 July 2005, Atty. Roberto Rafael Pulido, counsel for Gonzales and Mesa in the criminal case, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus (CA-G.R. SP No. 90546) before the Third Division of the Court of Appeals. The petition argued that since the soldiers had been discharged from military service and were not charged before a court martial, military authorities had no jurisdiction to detain them; the RTC’s orders granting bail and directing release remained valid and unmodified; and no legal ground existed for their continued detention.
• Concealment of the Certiorari Case: In the certification against forum shopping attached to the habeas corpus petition, Atty. Pulido stated that he had not commenced any action involving the same issues and that, to the best of his knowledge, no similar action was pending, except for two named cases pending before the Supreme Court. He did not disclose the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 88440 before the Seventh Division, nor did he mention the People’s motion for reconsideration. He likewise failed to report the certiorari case within five days as required by the undertaking in his certification. The certiorari case was brought to the Third Division’s attention only through the respondents’ Return of the Writ.
• Resolution of the Certiorari and Subsequent Release: On 9 September 2005, the Seventh Division dismissed the certiorari petition and ordered the release of the soldiers on bail. Shortly after, during the Supreme Court proceedings, the Philippine Marines surrendered custody of Gonzales and Mesa to the RTC, and they obtained temporary liberty under the original release orders.

• Absence of Forum Shopping: Petitioner maintained that the issues in the petitions for certiorari and habeas corpus were not identical; the certiorari case challenged the validity of the bail order, while the habeas corpus petition sought enforcement of a subsisting and unmodified release order. The pendency of the certiorari case had no legal relevance because no TRO or injunction had been issued to stay the release orders, rendering the habeas corpus petition a proper remedy to vindicate the right to liberty.
• Error in Imposing Censure: Petitioner argued that censure was unwarranted because he acted in good faith, believing there was no conflict between the two cases, and that his non-disclosure did not amount to willful and deliberate forum shopping.
• Failure to Resolve the Merits of Detention: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in limiting its decision to the forum-shopping issue without passing upon the existence or absence of valid grounds for the continued detention of Gonzales and Mesa.

• Forum Shopping and Deliberate Concealment: Respondents (the AFP Chief of Staff and the Flag Officer in Command) asserted that the habeas corpus petition should be dismissed because petitioner committed forum shopping. The ultimate relief sought in both the certiorari case and the habeas corpus petition was the release of the same individuals. Petitioner’s deliberate failure to disclose the pendency of the certiorari case violated the certification against forum shopping and warranted dismissal of the petition. Petitioner, as counsel for the soldiers in the criminal case and as their representative in the certiorari case, could not feign ignorance of the pending case.
• Mootness: The Solicitor General emphasized that the release of Gonzales and Mesa rendered the habeas corpus petition moot and academic; in the absence of an actual controversy, it was impractical to resolve the legality of their detention.

• Forum Shopping: Whether petitioner was guilty of forum shopping by filing a petition for habeas corpus while a certiorari case seeking to annul the order granting bail to the same detainees was pending before another division of the Court of Appeals, and whether his failure to disclose that pendency in the certification against forum shopping justified dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Censure: Whether the Court of Appeals properly imposed the penalty of censure on petitioner as counsel.
• Mootness: Whether the subsequent release of Gonzales and Mesa rendered the resolution of the other issues unnecessary.

• Forum Shopping: Petitioner was guilty of forum shopping. The elements of litis pendentia were present: both the certiorari case and the habeas corpus petition involved substantially the same parties (Gonzales and Mesa as the detainees/accused, with the State as the opposing party), asserted the same ultimate relief—the release of Gonzales and Mesa—and were founded on the same set of facts concerning the validity and enforceability of the bail order. Any judgment in the certiorari case would have amounted to res judicata in the habeas corpus case. The petition for habeas corpus was designed to implement the very bail order that was under attack in the certiorari proceeding; thus, the cases were “two sides of the same coin.” By seeking a favorable ruling on the release from a different division of the appellate court after failing to obtain immediate release in the certiorari case and in the trial court, petitioner committed forum shopping.
• Censure: The imposition of censure was proper. Petitioner deliberately omitted from his certification against forum shopping and from the body of the habeas corpus petition the material facts of the People’s motion for reconsideration and the pending certiorari case. The certification mentioned only two Supreme Court cases and failed to disclose CA-G.R. SP No. 88440. Petitioner also did not report the pendency of that case within five days as required by Section 5(c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Such deliberate withholding of information critically required by the rules constituted a violation of the certification against forum shopping and warranted the disciplinary sanction of censure.
• Mootness: The release of Gonzales and Mesa from military custody rendered the principal prayer of the habeas corpus petition moot and academic; consequently, there ceased to be a justiciable controversy requiring a ruling on the legality of their detention. The Court thus confined its resolution to the questions regarding the violation of the rule against forum shopping and the disciplinary measure imposed on counsel.

• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping is the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment or ruling has been rendered in one forum, seeking a favorable opinion in another forum other than through appeal or certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. It may be committed in three ways: (1) when, after an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision in another; (2) after filing a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files a motion before the Court of Appeals, thereby splitting appeals; or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after failing to obtain it from the original court. The yardstick for its determination is the presence of the elements of litis pendentia: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) identity in the two preceding particulars such that any judgment in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. In this case, all three elements were present because both the certiorari and habeas corpus cases sought the release of the same individuals based on the same bail order.

• “Forum shopping is 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), or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.”
• “The Court has laid down the yardstick to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, as where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Stated differently, there must be between the two cases: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.”

• Philippine Radiant Products, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Inc., G.R. No. 163569, 9 December 2005 — Cited as authority for the definition of forum shopping and its three recognized modes.
• Velasquez v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 150732, 31 August 2004 — Cited for the test of litis pendentia as the yardstick for determining violation of the rule against forum shopping.
• Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-54558, 22 May 1987 — Cited for the principle that a petition for habeas corpus becomes moot and academic upon the release of the persons in whose behalf it was filed.
• Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 139460, 31 March 2006 — Cited for the rule that courts will not determine moot questions where no actual interests remain involved.

• Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Certification against forum shopping. Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath (a) that no similar action or claim has been commenced or is pending, (b) if there is such action, a complete statement of its status, and (c) an undertaking to report the same within five days. Non-compliance is cause for dismissal, and submission of a false certification or non-compliance with the undertakings constitutes indirect contempt, without prejudice to administrative and criminal actions. The rule was applied to hold that petitioner’s deliberate omission of the pending certiorari case and failure to report it within five days violated the certification requirement, justifying dismissal and the imposition of censure.

Chief Justice Puno, Justices Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., concurred. Justice Quisumbing was on official leave; Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez was on leave; Justice Nachura took no part, having filed pleadings as Solicitor General.

None.