VERONIQUE
T. HUIBONHOA, G.R. No. 153785
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
-
versus - Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
ANGEL
D. CONCEPCION, VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
and
HON. RAYMUNDO Z.
ANNANG,
in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of the
Regional Promulgated:
Branch 86,
Respondents. August 3, 2006
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
65718 promulgated on March 12, 2002 and its Resolution dated May 27, 2002,
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said Decision. The CA
Decision denied the petition for certiorari filed by Veronique T. Huibonhoa,
herein petitioner, which assailed the Orders dated
The
instant petition stemmed from a complaint for accounting and damages filed by
respondent Angel D. Concepcion, Sr. against petitioner Veronique T. Huibonhoa.
The complaint was filed with the RTC of Cabanatuan City on
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, temporary restraining order is hereby issued effective for
seventy two hours from this order restraining and prohibiting defendant
Veronique T. Huibonhoa from occupying and performing her position as Manager of
the Poulex Supermarket and from suppressing, concealing and falsifying the
records; and, further, said defendant is hereby ordered to submit formal
turn-over of all cash and other cash items and all management and accounting records
accruing for the business operation of the [sic] Poulex Supermarket for the
period of, from November, 2000 up to the present. Further, defendant Sphinx
Security Agency is hereby ordered to allow the plaintiff or his authorized
representative/s to enter the [sic] Poulex Supermarket as Director of the CHAS,
Inc., among others, until further order from this Court. Likewise, Sphinx
Security Agency is hereby restrained from interfering and/or preventing the
implementation of the orders of Angel D. Concepcion, Sr. in his capacity as
Chairman-President of CHAS, Inc.[1]
On
July 16, 2001, Huibonhoa, along with fellow stockholders of CHAS, Inc., CHAS
Enterprise Corporation and CHAS Realty and Development Corporation, filed an
intra-corporate and derivative suit and complaint for injunction with a prayer
for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to
prevent respondent Concepcion, Sr. and his agents from interfering with the
management and operations of the Poulex Supermarket. The complaint was docketed
as Civil Case No. 4068-AF.
On
For
being meritorious, it is hereby declared that the seventy-two (72) hour TRO
effective for only seventy-two hours from its issuance has already expired on
Considering the fact that the [sic] Poulex Supermarket
had already been padlocked on
On
On
On
Hence, Huibonhoa filed the instant
petition for review on certiorari imputing the following errors to the Court of
Appeals:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE GROUNDS THAT: (A) PETITIONER FAILED TO MOVE FOR
THE DISSOLUTION OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH THE TRIAL COURT UNDER
SECTION 6, RULE 58 OF THE RULES OF COURT; AND THAT (B) PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF
FORUM SHOPPING, CONSIDERING THAT:
A.
SECTION 6, RULE
58 OF THE RULES OF COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE.
B.
THE FILING OF THE
COMPLAINT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 4068-AF COULD NOT, AS IT DID NOT, CONSTITUTE FORUM
SHOPPING.
C.
THE FILING OF THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI COULD NOT, AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE FORUM SHOPPING.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ISSUING
THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO ANNUL THE
After respondent Concepcion and
petitioner Huibonhoa filed a Comment and a Reply, respectively, the Court
issued a Resolution on
Huibonhoa submitted a Compliance with
Motion to Clarify dated October 25, 2005, conveying the following: (1)
Huibonhoa had proposed a settlement for the parties to dismiss their respective
claims against each other; (2) upon a Joint Motion to Dismiss by both
petitioner Huibonhoa and respondent Concepcion, the trial court issued an order
dismissing Civil Case No. 4065, the complaint for accounting and damages filed
by respondent Concepcion; (3) notwithstanding the dismissal of the pending
cases, the parties did not agree to cause the dismissal of the instant
petition; (4) petitioner Huibonhoa is still seeking the reversal of the CA
Decision insofar as it ruled that she was guilty of forum shopping and a
clarification on whether her counsel will be exposed to administrative
liability should the instant petition be dismissed.[4]
In dismissing the petition for
certiorari, the Court of Appeals found petitioner Huibonhoa guilty of forum
shopping when she filed Civil Case No. 4068-AF with the trial court and,
thereafter, a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65718, with
the Court of Appeals. The appellate court believed that the two actions had the
same object of nullifying the TRO issued by Judge Annang in Civil Case No.
4065. Petitioner Huibonhoa urges the Court to evaluate the Court of Appeals’
finding that she engaged in forum shopping, especially that the appellate court
characterized said act as “deliberate.” She stresses that said finding and the
accompanying characterization have exposed her and her counsel to sanctions.[5]
In her defense, Huibonhoa insists
that Civil Case No. 4068-AF was filed not for the purpose of defeating the TRO
issued by Judge Annang on
Furthermore, Huibonhoa contends that
in contrast, the petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals to
enjoin or prohibit acts pursuant to the implementation of the July 13 and 17
Orders of Judge Annang, although the TROs separately prayed for in the
complaint for injunction and in the petition for certiorari effectively sought
to address the interference in the operations of the supermarket by respondent
Concepcion.
There is forum shopping when, as a
result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion,
other than by appeal or certiorari in another. There can also be forum shopping
when a party institutes two or more suits in different courts, either
simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same
or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs on
the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition
or increase a party’s chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action.[6]
The rationale against forum shopping
is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two
different fora. Filing multiple
petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to
degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial
procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the
courts. Thus, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and
transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases
before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent
undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the
courts. It also aims to prevent the
embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting
resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.[7]
To determine whether a party violated
the rule against forum shopping, the most important question to ask is whether
the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment
in one case will result to res judicata in another. Otherwise stated, to
determine forum shopping, the test is to see whether in the two or more cases
pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs
sought.[8]
A plain reading of the allegations in
the complaint in Civil Case No. 4068-AF and those in the petition for
certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals would preclude the Court from
affirming the Court
of Appeals’ finding that Huibonhoa had
engaged in forum shopping. Not all the elements of litis pendentia
concur. There is no identity of parties, rights or causes of action between
Civil Case No. 4068-AF and the petition for certiorari. Civil Case No. 4068-AF
is a derivative suit and complaint for injunction instituted by the
stockholders of the aforementioned corporations while the petition for
certiorari was instituted by petitioner in her capacity as manager of Poulex
Supermarket. The complaint in Civil Case No. 4068-AF alleges different causes
of action, including those relating to interference by respondent Concepcion in
the operations of the supermarket and causing damages to the corporations and
the stockholders arising from such unlawful interference. The petition for
certiorari aims to nullify the two orders of Judge Annang on the ground that
they were issued with grave abuse of discretion since only the designated
special commercial court has jurisdiction to hear and decide intra-corporate
controversies. A resolution on the merits of the petition for certiorari would
necessarily have to discuss the authority of respondent Judge Annang to take
cognizance of the case, which was allegedly an intra-corporate matter, and the
issuance of the mandatory injunction, which was allegedly not sanctioned by any
rule. These are the main issues raised in the petition for certiorari but are
not raised as issues in Civil Case No. 4068-F.
The reliefs sought in the two actions
are also different. In Civil Case No. 4068-F, aside from the main action for a
permanent injunction, complainants therein also claimed damages. In the
petition for certiorari, Huibonhoa sought the prevention of the implementation
of the assailed orders of
Judge Annang. The only
common thread
between the two actions is with
respect to the TRO sought to prevent respondent Concepcion from interfering
with the operations of the supermarket, but said relief is only incidental and
does not constitute the main cause of action in both cases.
All the foregoing points favorable to
petitioner’s cause notwithstanding, the Court cannot take favorable action on
her petition. In the light of the supervening events, particularly the dismissal
of Civil Case No. 4065, the instant petition has clearly become moot and
academic and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. With the termination of the
case wherein the assailed orders were issued, it is no longer necessary for this Court to
resolve whether the Court of Appeals had correctly upheld said orders. In
addition, one of said orders directed the issuance of a TRO, which, by sheer
force of law, should have expired and did expire after 72 hours, without need
of a judicial declaration to that effect.
Likewise, with the settlement reached
by the parties which culminated in the
dismissal of the cases filed by them against each other, petitioner and her
counsel have been liberated from any risk of sanction for their supposed forum
shopping.
Courts of justice constituted to pass
upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests
are involved. Thus, the well-settled rule
that courts will
not determine a moot question.
Where the issues have become moot and
academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, thus rendering the
resolution of the same of no practical value. Courts will decline jurisdiction
over moot cases because there is no substantial relief to which petitioner will
be entitled and which will anyway be negated by the dismissal of the petition.
This Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where
no legal relief is needed or called for.[9]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for
review on certiorari is DENIED for being moot and academic. No pronouncement as
to costs.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[5]Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 28-91, (1994), paragraph
2 states:
Any
violation of this revised Circular will
entail the following sanctions; (a) it shall be a cause for the summary
dismissal of the multiple petitions or complaints; (b) any willful and
deliberate forum shopping by any party and his counsel through the filing of
multiple petitions or complaints to ensure favorable action shall constitute
direct contempt of court; and (c) the submission of a false certification shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the filing of
criminal action against the guilty party and the institution of disciplinary
proceedings against the counsel.
[8]Villaluz v. Ligon, supra note at 499.