Principle of forum non conveniens

§ Forum Shopping, Sec 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court

1. Spouses Carpio v Rural Bank of Sto, Tomas Batangas, GR No153171

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Before us for resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the
Decision2 dated September 28, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58995,
and its Resolution dated April 2, 2002, denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

The facts are:

On May 17, 1999, spouses Rodolfo Carpio and Remedios Orendain, petitioners, filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 83, Tanauan, Batangas, a Complaint (for
annulment of foreclosure sale and damages) against the Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas,
Batangas, Inc., respondent, and Jaime Ozaeta, clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff of
the same court. In their Complaint, petitioners alleged that they are the absolute
owners of a parcel of land with an area of 19,405 square meters, more or less, located
at Barangay San Vicente, Sto. Tomas, Batangas. On May 30, 1996, they obtained a
loan from respondent bank in the amount of P515,000.00, payable on January 27,
1996. To secure the loan, they executed on May 30, 1996 a real estate mortgage over
the same property in favor of respondent bank. On July 26, 1996, without prior demand
or notice to petitioners, respondent bank filed a Petition for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of
Mortgage. On September 26, 1996, sheriff Jaime Ozaeta conducted a public auction
sale of the mortgaged property. Respondent bank was the only bidder for P702,889.77.

Petitioners further alleged that the sale was conducted without proper publication as the
sheriff's notice of sale was published in a newspaper which is not of general circulation.
On the same day the property was sold, the sheriff issued a certificate of sale in favor
of respondent bank. On February 25, 1999, respondent bank executed an affidavit of
consolidation of ownership over petitioners' property. They claimed that they were not
notified of the foreclosure sale and were not given an opportunity to redeem their
property.

On August 9, 1999, respondent bank filed its Answer with Counterclaim, denying
specifically the material allegations of the complaint. It alleged inter alia that oral and
written demands were made upon petitioners to pay their loan but they ignored the
same; that they were properly notified of the filing of the petition for extra-judicial
foreclosure of the mortgage; that there was proper publication and notices of the
scheduled sale through public auction; and that petitioners were actually given more
than two (2) years to redeem the property but they failed to do so.

By way of counterclaim, respondent bank alleged that it suffered: (a) actual damages
of P100,000.00; (b) compensatory damages of P100,000.00; (c) moral damages
of P500,000.00; and (d) litigation expenses of not less than P50,000.00.
On September 8, 1999, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the
ground that respondent bank's counterclaim was not accompanied by a certification
against forum shopping. ςηαñrοblεš  Î½Î¹r† Ï…αl  lαω  lιbrαrà ¿

Respondent bank filed an opposition to the motion, contending that its counterclaim,
which is compulsory in nature, is not a complaint or initiatory pleading that requires a
certification against forum shopping.

On November 3, 1999, the RTC issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss the
counterclaim for lack of merit, thus:

xxx

Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the same requires the plaintiff or
principal party to certify under oath the complaint or other initiatory pleading purposely
to prevent forum shopping.

In the case at bar, defendant Rural Bank's counterclaim could not be considered a
complaint or initiatory pleading because the filing of the same is but a result of
plaintiffs' complaint and, being a compulsory counterclaim, is outside the coverage of
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion is hereby denied for lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order but it was likewise
denied by the RTC in its Order dated April 4, 2000.

Thereafter, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under

Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, alleging that the RTC acted
with grave abuse of discretion in holding that respondent bank's counterclaim need not
be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping.

In its Decision3 dated September 28, 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed
twin Orders of the RTC denying petitioners' motion to dismiss the counterclaim and
dismissed the petition. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied in a
Resolution dated April 2, 2002.

Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari.

The petition must fail.

Section 5, Rule 74 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if
he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and
after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to
the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his
counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as
well as a cause for administrative sanctions. (Underscoring supplied) cralawlibrary

The rationale of the above provisions is to curb the malpractice commonly referred to
as forum shopping - "an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been
rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another
forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of
two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition
that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition." 5

Petitioners contend that the trial court and the Court of Appeals gravely abused their
discretion in not dismissing respondent bank's counterclaim for lack of a certification
against forum shopping.

Petitioners' contention is utterly baseless. It bears stressing that the Rule distinctly
provides that the required certification against forum shopping is intended to cover an
"initiatory pleading," meaning an "incipient application of a party asserting a claim for
relief."6 Certainly, respondent bank's Answer with Counterclaim is a responsive
pleading, filed merely to counter petitioners' complaint that initiates the civil action. In
other words, the rule requiring such certification does not contemplate a
defendant's/respondent's claim for relief that is derived only from, or is necessarily
connected with, the main action or complaint. In fact, upon failure by the plaintiff to
comply with such requirement, Section 5, quoted above, directs the "dismissal of the
case without prejudice," not the dismissal of respondent's counterclaim.

In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in issuing the
challenged Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 58995.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58995 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

2. Multinational Village Homeowners Association v Court of Appeals, GR No 98023 (1991)

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION; DETERMINED BY THE

ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT. — A study of Section 1 of P.D. 957 shows that the
contention of the Association is untenable. It disregards the fact that the Corporation
has directly asserted a claim of ownership over the subject property, which is why it
filed its complaint not with the HLURB but with the regional trial court. The mere
contention by the defendant that the road is subject to the exclusive use of the Village
will not remove the case from the jurisdiction of the trial court and transfer it to the
administrative agency. It is elementary that jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations in the complaint, not the allegations in the complaint, not allegations in the
answer. As we have held often enough — Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is
determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the
plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein — a matter
resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Neither can the jurisdiction of the court
be made to depend upon the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion
to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost
entirely upon the defendant. (Magay v. Estiandan, 69 SCRA 456)

2. ID.; ID.; MOTION TO DISMISS; LITIS PENDENTIA; REQUISITES. — The requisites of

litis pendentia are the following: a. Identity of parties, or at least such as representing
the same interests in both actions. b. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same facts. c. The identity in the two cases should be
such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res adjudicata in the other. (Olayvar v. Olayvar, 98 Phil. 52)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER; NOT PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR.
— It must be noted that there is no clear identity of subject-matter in the
administrative and civil cases. The HLURB now under appeal referred only to "the road
lots and the sites for parks, playgrounds and recreational uses that (were) still vacant
for preparation and/or levelling," without definitely specifying if it included the disputed
road. No less importantly, it cannot be said that the causes of action in the two cases
are identical. The administrative case is an action filed by the Association for the
specific performance by the Corporation of its legal obligations whereas the civil case is
an action for the enforcement of a claimed property right of the Corporation against the
Association. The wrongful act of the Association alleged in the civil action commenced in
1989 could not have been litigated in the earlier administrative action, which was filed
against the Corporation in 1987.

4. ID.; ID.; FORUM SHOPPING; NOT PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — As we held in

Villanueva v. Adre 172 SCRA 876: There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal
or certiorari) in another, and the principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in
the courts while an administrative proceedings is pending, in order to defeat
administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and
a favorable court ruling. It is noted that the private respondent found the decree in the
administrative case acceptable and has not seen fit to ask for its modification or
reversal. The Association has not shown that the Corporation apprehends an adverse
opinion in the appeal now before the Office of the President and seeks at this time "to
defeat administrative processes" with "a favorable court ruling." In fact, the action
commenced by the Corporation in the regional trial court was precipitated by the
refusal of the Association to allow the use of the road in question by the complainant.
The Corporation would not have filed its complaint at all had it not been denied access
to the said road.
 DECISION

CRUZ, J.:

The subject of this controversy is a stretch of road connecting the Multinational Village
in Parañaque, Metro Manila, with the Ninoy Aquino Avenue. The use of this road is
disputed between the Multinational Village Homeowners’ Association, Inc., the herein
petitioner, and private respondent Multinational Realty and Development Corporation.

The issue arose when the Corporation filed a complaint on March 15, 1989, against the
Association and the G-Man Security Agency in the Regional Trial Court of Makati for
"Enforcement of Rights of Property Ownership, Injunction with Temporary Restraining
Order and Damages." The Corporation alleged that, as owner, it had allowed the
Association to use the road and set up thereon a guardhouse manned by the Agency,
but the defendants were now preventing the plaintiff from using the road for
transporting construction materials needed to develop its other lots adjacent to the
Village. The plaintiff prayed that it be placed in peaceful possession of the said road
with full exercise and enforcement of the attributes and rights of ownership plus
damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

On April 4, 1989, Judge Job B. Madayag, after hearing, granted the writs of preliminary
prohibitory and mandatory injunctions prohibiting the defendants from preventing the
plaintiff from using the road and ordering them to remove the guardhouse and transfer
it inside the Village. The defendants filed their answer on April 13, 1989, and on July
20, 1989, a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and litis pendentia.
This motion was denied on October 3, 1989. The Association went to the Court of
Appeals on certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction, which was also denied in
a decision dated January 29, 1991. 1 The Association then came to this Court to
question that decision. cralawnad

Specifically, the petitioner alleges that the complaint of the Corporation comes under
the jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board under PD 957, as
amended; that there is a pending administrative case between the parties before the
said agency that barred the filing of the civil case; and that the civil case is a form of
forum-shopping. The private respondent has submitted its comment, and the Court is
now ready to decide.

We deal first with the question of jurisdiction.

The position of the petitioner is that the subject-matter of Civil Case No. 89-3446
comes under the jurisdiction of the HLURB conformably to PD 957, providing as
follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate trade and business
and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National
Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the
following nature: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. Unsound real estate business practices.

B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision, lot or condominium
unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and

C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by

buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman.

Parenthetically, exclusive jurisdiction over these cases was originally vested in the
National Housing Authority but was transferred by EO 648 dated February 7, 1981, to
the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, which was renamed Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board by EO 90 on December 17, 1986.

A study of the above-quoted section shows that the contention of the Association is
untenable. It disregards the fact that the Corporation has directly asserted a claim of
ownership over the subject property, which is why it filed its complaint not with the
HLURB but with the regional trial court. The mere contention by the defendant that the
road is subject to the exclusive use of this Village will not remove the case from the
jurisdiction of the trial court and transfer it to the administrative agency. It is
elementary that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not the
allegations in the answer. As we have held often enough —

Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is determined upon the allegations made in the
complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover upon
the claim asserted therein — a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial.
Neither can the jurisdiction of the court be made to depend upon the defenses made by
the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant. 2

Significantly, the Association has admitted in its answer to the complaint of the
Corporation that the latter is the owner of the disputed road. The Association insists,
however, that the said road forms part of the Village and is reserved by agreement with
the Corporation for the exclusive use of the residents. True or not, that argument may
be — as it has been — asserted as a defense to resist the demands of the Corporation.
But such a submission surely cannot have the effect of transferring the controversy to
the HLURB as the complaint is not among the cases subject to its exclusive jurisdiction
under Section 1 of P.D. 957 as amended. The matter is clearly resoluble by the courts
of justice under the provisions of the Civil Code.

Invocation by the petitioner of Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal 3 does not advance its
cause. That case involved a complaint for the delivery of title to a subdivision lot and
clearly came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB pursuant to the abovequoted
Section 1 of PD 957. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The administrative case referred to by the petitioner is the complaint it filed with the
HLURB against the private respondent on May 28, 1987, for the latter’s alleged failure
to provide the facilities, improvements and constructions in the Village as promised in
its brochures and advertisements. The decision of the Board was apparently satisfactory
to the Corporation, which moved for its immediate implementation, but was opposed by
the Association, which moved for its reconsideration. Reconsideration having been
denied, the Association filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was also
denied. The Association then appealed to the Office of the President, where the case is
still pending. 4

The submission that the civil case is barred by the pending appeal of the administrative
decision to the Office of the President is unacceptable. The requisites of litis pendentia
are the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. Identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both

actions.

b. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts.

c. The identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered
in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicatain the
other. 5

It must be noted in the first place that there is no clear identity of subject-matter in the
administrative and civil cases. The HLURB decision now under appeal referred only to
"the road lots and the sites for parks, playgrounds and recreational uses that (were)
still, vacant for preparation and/or levelling," 6 without definitely specifying if it
included the disputed road. No less importantly, it cannot be said that the causes of
action in the two cases are identical. The administrative case is an action filed by the
Association for the specific performance by the Corporation of its legal obligations
whereas the civil case is an action for the enforcement of a claimed property right of
the Corporation against the Association. The wrongful act of the Association alleged in
the civil action commenced in 1989 could not have been litigated in the earlier
administrative action, which was filed against the Corporation in 1987.

Finally, the charge of forum-shopping must also be rejected, in light of the

considerations above discussed. As we held in Villanueva v. Adre: 7

There is forum-shopping whenever, as result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a

party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, and the
principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts while an administrative
proceeding is pending, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of
an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling.

It is noted that the private respondent found the decree in the administrative case
acceptable and has not seen fit to ask for its modification or reversal. The Association
has not shown that the Corporation apprehends an adverse opinion in the appeal now
before the Office of the President and seeks at this time "to defeat administrative
processes" with "a favorable court ruling." In fact, the action commenced by the
Corporation in the regional trial court was precipitated by the refusal of the Association
to allow the use of the road in question by the complainant. The Corporation would not
have filed its complaint at all had it not been denied access to the said road.
We are satisfied that the complaint filed by the Corporation against the Association
comes under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Makati and is not barred by
the earlier administrative case filed by the Association against the Corporation before
the HLURB. The two actions can stand and proceed separately and each may be
decided either by the judicial tribunal or the administrative agency in the exercise of
their respective jurisdictions.

3. Bernardo Zamora v Emmanuel Quinan et al, GR No 216139

(2017)

PERALTA, J.:

Before this Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court dated January 16, 2015 of petitioner Bernardo S. Zamora that seeks to reverse
and set aside the Resolution1 dated July 31, 2014 and Resolution2 dated November 27,
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) granting respondents Emmanuel Z. Quinan, Jr.,
Emmanuel J. Quinan, Sr., Efrem Z. Quinan and Emma Rose Q. Quimbo's motion to
dismiss on account of petitioner's act of forum shopping.

The facts follow.

Petitioner, on June 19 2006, filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of Real

Properties fraudulently obtained with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City,
Branch 19 and docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-32448 claiming that he is in possession
of the original of the Transfer Certificate of Titles, against respondents, who earlier filed
a Petition for the Issuance of New Duplicate Certificate of Title, which was granted by
the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 9, in a Resolution dated April 11, 2006.

Pending the resolution of petitioner's complaint, he commenced another action before

the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, on November 4, 2008, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No.
03830 for the Annulment of Judgment of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 9, which was
dismissed based on technicalities in a Resolution dated April 22, 2009.

Then, again, on June 5, 2009, petitioner commenced another civil action before the CA
for the Annulment of Judgment of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 9, and docketed as CA
G.R. SP. No. 04278.

On September 1, 2010, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19 dismissed Civil Case No. CEB-
32448 on the ground of forum shopping.

Thereafter, the respondents filed with the CA a motion to dismiss CA G.R. SP. No.
04278 claiming that petitioner has resorted to forum shopping, which was granted by
the CA in its Resolution dated July 31, 2014, the dispositive portion of which reads, as
follows:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. On account of

petitioner Zamora's act of forum shopping, he and his counsel are hereby admonished
that a repetition of this abhorrent act shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.
According to the CA, petitioner committed forum shopping because there is identity of
causes of action, parties and reliefs sought in the action filed by him for reconveyance
of real properties instituted before the RTC and the petition for annulment of judgment
instituted before the CA.

Thus, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the CA in its
Resolution dated November 27, 2014.

Hence, the present petition.

Petitioner assigns the following errors:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CEBU CITY, EIGHTEENTH (18TH) DIVISION SERIOUSLY

AND FATALLY ERRED IN DISMISSING CA G.R. CEB SP NO. 04278 FOR ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU CITY, BRANCH 9, ETC. ON MERE
TECHNICALITIES THAT IMPEDED THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND THE PARTIES' RIGHT TO
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

II

THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY AND FATALLY ERRED IN IGNORING AND

DISREGARDING THE JURISPRUDENTIAL RULING IN CAMITAN V. FIDELITY INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, 551 SCRA 540, APRIL 16, 2008, WHICH STATES THAT IF AN OWNER'S
DUPLICATE COPY OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HAS NOT BEEN LOST BUT IN FACT IN
THE POSSESSION OF ANOTHER PERSON, THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE IS VOID, AS THE
COURT RENDERING THE DECISION NEVER ACQUIRES JURISDICTION.
It is the contention of petitioner that the CA should have relaxed the procedural rules so
as to give him an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner further argues and insists that the
subject owner's duplicated copies of transfer certificate of titles are still in his
possession and were never lost as alleged by the respondents and as such, the
reconstituted transfer certificate of titles in the name of respondents should be declared
void because the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 9 never acquired jurisdiction over the case
as held by this Court in Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation.3

In a Resolution dated March 18, 2015, this Court denied the present petition for failure
of the petitioner to show any reversible error in the challenged resolutions as to warrant
the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration reiterating the arguments he raised in his
petition and, on July 29, 2015, this Court ordered the respondents to file their comment
on the said motion for reconsideration.

Respondents, in their Comment dated October 2, 2015, insist that petitioner committed
forum shopping.

On January 18, 2016, this Court granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration and set
aside its Resolution dated March 18, 2015.

After careful consideration, this Court finds no merit in the petition. The rule against
forum shopping is embodied in Rule 7, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court:
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if
he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and
after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to
the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his
counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as
well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
In City of Taguig v. City of Makati,4 this Court was able to thoroughly discuss the
concept of forum shopping through the past decisions of this Court, thus:
Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development
Corporation5 explained that:
Forum shopping is committed by a party who 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 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
First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals 7 recounted that forum shopping
originated as a concept in private international law:
To begin with, forum-shopping originated as a concept in private international law,
where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein
to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses, including to secure procedural
advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to
select a more friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the
principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court, in conflicts of law
cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient"
or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.

In this light, Black's Law Dictionary says that forum-shopping "occurs when a party

attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he
will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict." Hence, according to Words and
Phrases, "a litigant is open to the charge of 'forum shopping' whenever he chooses a
forum with slight connection to factual circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants
should be encouraged to attempt to settle their differences without imposing undue
expense and vexatious situations on the courts." 8
Further, Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank and Trust Co.9 recounted that:
The rule on forum-shopping was first included in Section 17 of the Interim Rules and
Guidelines issued by this Court on January 11, 1983, which imposed a sanction in this
wise: "A violation of the rule shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for
the summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate
action against the counsel or party concerned." Thereafter, the Court restated the rule
in Revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Ultimately, the
rule was embodied in the 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court. 10

Presently, Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
Certification against Forum Shopping be appended to every complaint or initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief. x x x

xxxx
Though contained in the same provision of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the rule
requiring the inclusion of a Certification against Forum Shopping is distinct from the
rule against forum shopping. In Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales:11
The general rule is that compliance with the certificate of forum shopping is separate
from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. Forum
shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of both initiatory pleadings without
prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned.12
Top Rate Construction discussed the rationale for the rule against forum shopping as
follows:
It is an act of malpractice for it trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades
the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets. What is
critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks
different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting
decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues, regardless of
whether the court in which one of the suits was brought has no jurisdiction over the
action.13
Jurisprudence has recognized that forum shopping can be committed in several ways:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer,
the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same
prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal
is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but
with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is
also either litis pendentia or res judicata).14 (Emphasis in the original)
Similarly, it has been recognized that forum shopping exists "where a party attempts to
obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after failing to obtain the same from the
original court."15

The test for determining forum shopping is settled. In Yap v. Chua, et al.:16
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most
important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or
whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another; otherwise
stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases
pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.17
For its part, litis pendentia "refers to that situation wherein another action is pending
between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action
becomes unnecessary and vexatious."18 For litis pendentia to exist, three (3) requisites
must concur:
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as
representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and
relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the
two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other.19
On the other hand, res judicata or prior judgment bars a subsequent case when the
following requisites are satisfied:
(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4)
there is between the first and the second actions - identity of parties, of subject
matter, and of causes of action.20 (Emphasis in the original)
These settled tests notwithstanding:
Ultimately, what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping
exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks
different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes
and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the
possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same
issue.21
A review of the cases, as well as the remedies sought by petitioner in the RTC, as well
as in the CA shows that petitioner has, indeed committed forum shopping. There is
identity of causes of action, parties and reliefs sought in the action he filed for the
reconveyance of properties before the RTC and the petition for annulment of judgment
filed before the CA. As correctly observed and ruled by the CA:
There exists between the two actions identity of parties which represent the same
interest in both. In petitioner's action for reconveyance, he seeks to recover the
property which is wrongfully registered in respondents' name by postulating that
respondent Quinan knew fully that petitioner was in possession of the originals of the
owner's duplicate copies of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-90102 and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 90096 for Lot No. 98-F by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale
signed by all respondents. Thus petitioner prays for the reconveyance of the said
parcels of land in his name and he likewise seeks to be awarded of mOral and
exemplary damages, litigation expenses and attorney's fees in his favor.

The rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner were reiterated in his
petition for annulment of judgment filed before this Court. The petition hinges on the
contention that the lower court which renders the decision for the issuance of new
owner's duplicate Certificate of Title in respondents' favor never acquires jurisdiction
because the reconstituted title is void considering that the duplicate copy of the
Certificate of Title has not been lost but it is in fact in the possession of the petitioner.
Hence, he is seeking for the nullification of the decision rendered by RTC Branch 9 of
Cebu City.
A comparison of the reliefs sought by petitioner in the reconveyance case and the
annulment of judgment case under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court confirms that they are
substantially similar on two points: (1) revocation and cancellation of the new
certificate of titles granted in the name of herein respondents and (2) the recovery or
consolidation of title in petitioner's favor. In other words, the rights asserted and the
reliefs prayed for are being founded on the same facts. The identity of the two cases
filed is such that a favorable judgment rendered in the lower court for the case of
reconveyance will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration of this
Court.

There is a clear violation of the rules on forum-shopping, as this Court is being asked to
grant substantially similar reliefs as those that may also be granted by the court a quo
while the case was still pending with the latter. In the process, this creates a possibility
of creating two separate and conflicting decisions.22
Prudence should have dictated petitioner to await first the decision of the RTC in the
reconveyance as it was the first case he filed before seeking other remedies. This Court
reminds the petitioner and his lawyer that forum shopping constitutes abuse of court
processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, to wreak havoc upon
orderly juridical procedure, and to add to the congestion of the already burdened
dockets of the courts.23 Further, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to foster
candor and transparency between lawyers and their clients in appearing 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 possibility of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting
resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.24

Thus, the CA did not commit an error in outrightly dismissing petitioner's petition. It
must be remembered that the acts of a party or his counsel, clearly constituting willful
and deliberate forum shopping shall be ground for the summary dismissal of the case
with prejudice, and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as be a cause for
administrative sanctions against the lawyer.25 Also, SC Circular No. 28-9126 states that
the deliberate filing of multiple complaints by any party and his counsel to obtain
favorable action constitutes forum shopping and shall be a ground for summary
dismissal thereof and shall constitute direct contempt of court, without prejudice to
disciplinary proceeding against the counsel and the filing of a criminal action against the
guilty party. In Spouses Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank,27 this Court further
reiterated that once there is a finding of forum shopping, the penalty is summary
dismissal not only of the petition pending before this Court, but also of the other case
that is pending in a lower court.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
dated January 16, 2015 of petitioner Bernardo S. Zamora is DENIED for lack of merit.
Consequently, the Resolution dated July 31, 2014 and Resolution dated November 27,
2014 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

3. Gil Puyat v Ron Zabate, GR No 141536 (2001)

Manila Hotel Corp and Manila Hotel Int’l Ltd v NLRC, GR No 120077
(2000)

Issue: w/n NLRC is a convenient forum for the case

I. Forum Non-Conveniens

The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.

We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case
involves purely foreign elements. The only link that the Philippines has with the case is that
respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not
all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.

The employment contract. — Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign
employer, through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was
then employed. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized recruitment
agency of the government. 36

Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over
the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as
to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its
decision. The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.
37 

Not Convenient. — We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the incidents of
the case — from the time of recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred outside the
Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants, the Palace
Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither .are they "doing business in the
Philippines." Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the
Philippines.

No power to determine applicable law. — Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law
governing the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the
application of the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was made). 38

The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines. Respondent Santos signified his
acceptance by writing a letter while he was in the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to the
Palace Hotel in the People's Republic of China.

No power to determine the facts. — Neither can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the
alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing, People's Republic of China.
The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the Tiannamen Square incident truly
adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify respondent Santos' retrenchment.

Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision. — Even assuming that a proper decision
could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have any binding effect against the employer, the
Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not
even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired.

This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have no power to solve controversies involving
foreign employers. Neither are we saying that we do not have power over an employment contract
executed in a foreign country. If Santos were an "overseas contract worker", a Philippine forum,
specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him. He is not an "overseas contract worker" a
39 

fact which he admits with conviction.40

Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper forum, even on the merits, the NLRC's decision
cannot be sustained.

Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc., Pioneer Philippines Holdings, and

Philip J. Klepzig v Antonio Todaro, GR No 154830 (2007)