Forum Shopping: Simultaneous Appeal and Annulment of Judgment Constitutes Abuse

The Supreme Court has clarified that a party who simultaneously pursues an appeal (or motion for reconsideration) and a petition for annulment of judgment commits forum shopping. In City of Taguig v. City of Makati (G.R. No. 208393, June 15, 2016), the Court explained that such conduct vexes courts and parties-litigants and may even border on contumacious abuse of legal processes. The ruling provides important guidance on the proper use of remedies under the Rules of Court.

The Territorial Dispute

The case arose from a long-standing territorial dispute between the cities of Taguig and Makati over the Fort Bonifacio area and the Enlisted Men's Barangays (EMBOs). In 1993, Taguig filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City seeking judicial confirmation of its territory and the declaration of unconstitutionality of certain presidential proclamations.

On July 8, 2011, the trial court ruled in favor of Taguig. Makati then took two simultaneous actions: it filed a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam before the trial court, and it filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition for annulment alleged that the decision was void because it was supposedly rendered by a judge who had already retired.

The Issue

The central question was whether Makati engaged in forum shopping by pursuing both remedies at the same time. Makati argued that its two actions were based on different causes of action: the petition for annulment challenged the validity of the decision for lack of jurisdiction, while the motion for reconsideration and subsequent appeal addressed the merits of the territorial dispute.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that Makati committed forum shopping. The Court explained that a petition for annulment of judgment is an extraordinary remedy available only when ordinary remedies like new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Since Makati had availed itself of an appeal, the petition for annulment was improper.

The Court rejected Makati's argument that its two actions sought different reliefs. While the immediate relief sought differed, the fundamental purpose of both remedies was the same: to set aside the trial court's decision and obtain a favorable one. The Court cited Ley Construction and Development Corp. v. Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp., which held that even if the specific reliefs differ, forum shopping exists when the remedies would have the same "practical legal effect."

The Test for Forum Shopping

The Court reiterated the settled test: forum shopping exists when there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought in two or more pending cases. What is critical is the vexation caused to courts and litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions.

The Court also noted that under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, willful and deliberate forum shopping is ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt of court, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

Practical Takeaways

• Do not file multiple remedies simultaneously. A party cannot pursue an appeal and a petition for annulment of judgment at the same time. The petition for annulment is available only when ordinary remedies are no longer available.
• The "practical legal effect" test applies. Even if two actions raise different legal theories, forum shopping exists if granting one remedy would effectively accomplish what the other seeks.
• Certification against forum shopping is separate from the act itself. Compliance with the certification requirement does not excuse the actual commission of forum shopping.
• Sanctions are severe. Willful and deliberate forum shopping can result in dismissal with prejudice, direct contempt, and administrative sanctions against the party and counsel.
• Consult counsel before choosing remedies. The proper remedy depends on the nature of the judgment and the stage of the proceedings.

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