Forum Shopping Prohibition Filing Separate Actions FOR THE Same Relief Results IN Dismissal

The Supreme Court has long prohibited forum shopping—the practice of filing multiple cases involving the same parties, issues, and reliefs to increase the chances of a favorable ruling. In a 2008 decision, the Court clarified that this prohibition applies even when the two actions are filed in different divisions of the same court. Filing both an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari to question the same trial court orders constitutes forum shopping, and both cases must be dismissed.

The Facts

The dispute began in August 1999 when Chinatrust (Phils.) Commercial Bank Corporation demanded payment of the spouses Zosa's outstanding loan of over P89 million. When the spouses failed to pay, the bank extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgaged property. To stop the public auction, the spouses filed Civil Case No. 67620 for injunction, specific performance, and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 67.

The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction. However, on June 26, 2000, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute. The court also clarified that the dismissal automatically dissolved the injunction, and later denied the spouses' motion for reconsideration.

The Two Remedies Filed

On December 4, 2000, the spouses filed a Notice of Appeal questioning the trial court's orders. This appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69892 with the Court of Appeals.

Less than two months later, on January 28, 2001, the spouses also filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, assailing the exact same orders. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62915.

The appellate court dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of merit. Later, it also dismissed the appeal—this time citing the spouses' forum shopping and the absence of page references in their brief as required by the Rules of Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the spouses committed forum shopping by filing both an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari to question the same trial court orders.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court answered yes. Citing Young v. Sy, the Court held that the successive filing of a notice of appeal and a petition for certiorari to assail the same dismissal order constitutes forum shopping.

The Court explained that forum shopping exists when three elements are present: (1) identity of parties, or at least parties representing the same interests; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) any judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. All three elements were present here.

The remedies of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive, not alternative or cumulative. A party cannot "hedge" a case by filing two or more actions and later claim that one was merely a "precautionary measure." As the Court warned in Guaranteed Hotels, Inc. v. Baltao, the evil sought to be avoided is the rendition of two separate and contradictory decisions by two competent tribunals.

The Court noted that the spouses questioned the same three RTC orders through both an appeal and a certiorari petition, filed barely a month apart, in different divisions of the same appellate court. They were clearly seeking the same relief in two forums, hoping that one would yield a favorable result. Both petitions were dismissed.

Practical Takeaways

• Appeal and certiorari are not interchangeable. A party who has the remedy of appeal cannot file a petition for certiorari as an alternative or cumulative remedy. Choose the correct remedy and pursue it exclusively.
• Filing in different divisions does not excuse forum shopping. The prohibition applies even when the two actions are filed in different divisions of the same court.
• Timing matters. Filing a second action shortly after the first—even with a month's interval—will not avoid a finding of forum shopping when the parties, issues, and reliefs are identical.
• A dismissed case for forum shopping is a final disposition. The dismissal is a ground for dismissal of the case, and the party cannot simply refile or pursue the other remedy.
• Follow the Rules of Court strictly. Technical defects, such as missing page references in an appellant's brief, can also be a ground for dismissal, independent of the forum shopping issue.

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