Forum Shopping Dismissal of Multiple Petitions in the Philippines Explained

---

The Supreme Court has long condemned the practice of forum shopping—the filing of multiple cases involving the same parties, issues, and reliefs to increase the chance of obtaining a favorable ruling. In Municipality of Taguig v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 142619, September 13, 2005), the Court clarified that the prohibition applies even when the petitions are filed before the same court, as long as they are raffled to different divisions.

The case arose from a property dispute between the Municipality of Taguig and Barangay Hagonoy over the Hagonoy Multi-Purpose Hall. After the trial court issued orders favoring the barangay, the municipality filed two separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals—each assailing a different trial court order but seeking the same ultimate relief: to prevent the judge from stopping the municipality from taking over the hall.

The Facts

On December 8, 1999, Barangay Hagonoy filed a complaint for damages and injunction against the municipality before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. The trial court issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order (TRO) against the municipality, later extended to 20 days.

On December 13, 1999, the municipality filed its first petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 56211), which was raffled to the Fourteenth Division. The CA issued a cease and desist order against the trial court, but later lifted it after finding that the barangay had been in possession of the hall since 1996.

On December 17, 1999, the trial court granted the barangay's application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Five days later, the municipality filed a motion to withdraw its first petition and, on the same day, filed a second petition for certiorari and prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 56369) assailing the December 17 order. The second petition was raffled to the Fourth Division.

The Issue

The central question was whether the municipality committed forum shopping by filing two petitions before different divisions of the Court of Appeals, even though the first petition was still pending when the second was filed.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the municipality indeed committed forum shopping. While the two petitions assailed different trial court orders—one involving the TRO extension and the other the preliminary injunction—both sought the same relief: to prevent the trial court from enjoining the municipality from taking over the multi-purpose hall and from further hearing the case.

The Court emphasized that what matters is not whether the orders are technically different, but whether the party is seeking the same or substantially the same reliefs in different forums, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions.

Key Principles on Forum Shopping

Forum shopping defined. It exists when a party, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when a party institutes two or more actions grounded on the same cause, gambling that one court will rule favorably.

Same court, different divisions still counts. The Court rejected the argument that forum shopping cannot exist when both petitions are filed with the same court. Since the petitions were raffled to different divisions, the municipality effectively approached two different fora.

Relief, not just issues, determines forum shopping. Although the two petitions raised different trial court orders, the relief sought was identical—preventing the judge from enjoining the municipality from taking over the hall and from continuing the case. This made the actions based on the same cause.

No valid reason for a second petition. Unlike in Executive Secretary v. Gordon, where the second filing was justified by the policy on hierarchy of courts, the municipality offered no valid reason for filing a second petition. It could have simply filed a supplemental pleading to its first petition.

Forum shopping is contumacious. The Court described forum shopping as an act of malpractice that trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. It is punishable by summary dismissal of the actions, as mandated by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91.

Practical Takeaways

• File one petition, not several. If a new order is issued after you file a petition, consider filing a supplemental pleading instead of a new petition.
• Check the reliefs, not just the issues. Even if you assail different orders, if the ultimate relief sought is the same, you risk a forum shopping dismissal.
• Do not race to another division. Having your case raffled to a different division after an adverse ruling is a classic sign of forum shopping.
• Withdrawing the first petition does not cure the defect. The filing of the second petition while the first was still pending already constituted forum shopping.
• Sanctions are severe. Aside from dismissal, forum shopping can result in contempt of court and administrative sanctions against the counsel involved.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.