Digest Author: Camille Sapnu denied the Notice of Appeal and Petition for Relief.

(First CA
MADAR V PERELLO (2008) case)
Petitioners: Madara, Roa and Venus (plaintiff PIRC)
Respondents: Hon. Perello, PAGCOR, and PIRC (Provident) 11. Respondents assail the petitioners committed forum shopping.
Ponente: Brion, J.
12. While the case in CA for certitorari was pending, RTC denied the
DOCTRINE: Test of Forum Shopping: Whether the two (or more) pending MR of petitioners.
cases have identity of parties, of rights or causes of action, and of the reliefs
sought. 13. Petitioners in their own and individual capacities filed another
Petition for Certiorari with the CA assailing the same RTC
FACTS: Orders. (Second CA case)

1. Two groups claim to represent the PIRC. To distinguish, one is
named as plaintiff PIRC while the other is the real PIRC.
2. Plaintiff PIRC filed a case against PAGCOR alleging that
PAGCOR should pay its lease rentals to plaintiff PIRC (new
corporate officers of PIRC) instead of the real PIRC (former
officers).
3. RTC ruled in favor of the real PIRC.
4. Plaintiff PIRC filed a Notice of Appeal. Real PIRC (herein
respondents) opposed on the ground that they had taken a
wrong mode of review. As a response, plaintiff PIRC filed a
Manifestation asking RTC to consider its Notice of Appeal as
withdrawn.
5. Plaintiff PIRC filed a Petition for Review with the CA. Then asked
CA to consider it withdrawn.
6. Petitioners then filed before RTC a Petition for Relief from
Judgment (basically to set aside its decision).
14. CA denied the first case on the ground of forum shopping.
ISSUE: WoN the petitioners committed forum shopping
RULING + RATIO: YES with CA and SC.
Forum Shopping with CA
While its Motion for Reconsideration with RTC was pending, petitioners filed
a Petition for Certiorari with CA on the same RTC Order. This is a clear case
of forum shopping since they sought, at the same time, two separate
remedies with two different judicial venues to obtain the same relief.
Forum Shopping with SC
Despite their sworn certification against forum shopping, they have never
disclosed to the SC the pendency of the second CA case or any of its
material developments. As far as the SC knows, there are two pending cases
the second CA case and the present petition before the SC. This is forum
shopping. Moreover they filed a false certification of non-forum shopping.
DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED.

7. RTC denied both the Notice of Appeal and Petition for Relief
from Judgment (two separate Orders).

8. Meanwhile, CA granted the withdrawal of Petition for Review.

(So RTC denied it while CA granted)

9. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with RTC.

10. While these RTC incidents are still pending, petitioners filed a
Petition for Certiorari assailing on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion the orders of RTC among which are those which