Sierra vs. Alejandro

The body or agency that first takes cognizance of a complaint or issue shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of others, including all incidents or ancillary remedies arising from the main case. Consequently, where a trial court has already resolved the issue of forum shopping with finality, the IBP has no jurisdiction to entertain an administrative complaint predicated on the same issue.

Complainant Teresa P. Sierra agreed to sell a townhouse unit to respondent Atty. Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro. A dispute arose regarding the property's status and the refund of payments. Atty. Alejandro, through his counsel Atty. Carmina A. Abbas, initially filed a petition for declaratory relief (later converted to specific performance) in Quezon City, which included a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. After that case was dismissed without prejudice on procedural grounds, respondents filed a new action for specific performance with damages in Makati City, again praying for a writ of preliminary injunction. Sierra raised forum shopping as an affirmative defense in the Makati case and subsequently filed the present administrative complaint against the lawyers before the IBP.

• Nature of the Dispute: Sierra filed an administrative complaint alleging that Attys. Alejandro and Abbas committed willful and deliberate forum shopping, constituting abuse of court processes, in relation to two civil cases involving a property sale.
• The First Civil Case (Quezon City): Atty. Alejandro, represented by Atty. Abbas, filed a petition for declaratory relief (later converted to specific performance) with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The injunction was denied. The case was later dismissed upon respondents' notice, based on improper venue.
• The Second Civil Case (Makati City): After the dismissal of the first case, respondents filed an action for specific performance with damages in Makati City, again praying for a writ of preliminary injunction. The Makati court granted the writ.
• The Administrative Complaint: Sierra filed the instant complaint with the IBP-CBD, arguing that seeking the same injunctive relief in the second case after its denial in the first constituted forum shopping.
• Respondents' Defense: Attys. Alejandro and Abbas argued that the issue of forum shopping was for the Makati court to decide, as Sierra had raised it as a defense there. They also contended that since the first case was dismissed without adjudication on the merits, there was no forum shopping.
• IBP Findings: The IBP-CBD and IBP-BOG found that respondents committed forum shopping because the denial of the injunction in the first case constituted res judicata on the matter.
• Supervening Event: During the Supreme Court proceedings, respondents disclosed that the Makati RTC had already issued a final decision (dated June 25, 2010) explicitly ruling that no forum shopping was committed.

• Jurisdiction of the IBP: Petitioner (complainant below) Sierra maintained that the IBP had jurisdiction to determine administrative liability for forum shopping, independent of the civil court's resolution of the same issue as a defense.
• Existence of Forum Shopping: Sierra argued that respondents committed forum shopping by seeking a preliminary mandatory injunction in the second case after the same relief had been denied in the first case.

• Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: Respondents countered that the Makati City RTC, having first taken cognizance of the forum shopping issue raised by Sierra in her answer, had exclusive jurisdiction over it. The IBP could not divest the court of this jurisdiction.
• No Forum Shopping: Respondents argued that no forum shopping occurred because the first case was dismissed via a notice of dismissal under Rule 17 before the second case was filed, so there was no simultaneous pendency of cases or attempt to seek a favorable opinion after an adverse judgment.
• Complainant's Own Forum Shopping: Respondents claimed that Sierra herself committed forum shopping by raising the forum shopping issue before both the Makati court and the IBP.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the IBP-CBD or IBP-BOG had jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of forum shopping when the same issue had been first raised before and was pending resolution by the trial court.
• Forum Shopping by Complainant: Whether complainant Teresa P. Sierra committed forum shopping by filing the present administrative complaint while the same issue was pending before the trial court.

• Jurisdiction: The IBP acted without jurisdiction. The trial court that first takes cognizance of a case acquires jurisdiction over it and all its incidents to the exclusion of all other tribunals. Here, the Makati RTC first acquired jurisdiction over the second civil case and the ancillary issue of forum shopping raised therein. Its final judgment on that issue is binding. The IBP could not pre-empt or reverse that judicial disposition.
• Forum Shopping by Complainant: Complainant Sierra was guilty of contempt of court. By raising the forum shopping issue before the Makati RTC and then filing a separate administrative complaint based on the same allegation before the IBP, she engaged in the very act she accused the respondents of, thereby trifling with the Court's processes.

• Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Incidents: The body or agency that first takes cognizance of a complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of others. This jurisdiction extends not only to the principal remedies but also to all incidents or ancillary remedies sought within the case.
• Forum Shopping Defined: Forum shopping exists when a party institutes 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 is absent where a prior case has been dismissed without an adjudication on the merits before the subsequent case is filed.

• "It is settled that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. Such jurisdiction does not only apply to the principal remedies prayed for, but also to all the incidents or ancillary remedies sought."
• "Surely, neither the IBP-CBD nor the IBP-BOG has jurisdiction to pre-empt the aforesaid disposition of the trial court, much less reverse the same."

• Begnaen v. Spouses Caligtan, 793 Phil. 289 (2016) — Cited as controlling authority for the principle that the court which first takes cognizance of a complaint exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of others, including all incidents.
• Rizalado v. Presiding Judge Bollozos, 811 Phil. 20 (2017) — Cited as precedent for imposing a fine for contempt on a party who filed multiple cases against the same respondent arising from the same judicial action.

• Rule 17, Section 1, Rules of Court — Governs dismissal of actions by the plaintiff via notice. Applied to confirm the dismissal of the first civil case in Quezon City prior to the filing of the second case in Makati City.

• Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Chairperson)
• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
• Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting