G.R. No. 214526 , November 03, 2020
THE HEIRS OF INOCENTES MAMPO AND RAYMUNDO A. MAMPO, REPRESENTED BY AZUCENA C. MAMPO, JRA., PETITIONERS, VS. JOSEFINA MORADA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of deceased agrarian reform beneficiaries, secured a final and executory DARAB decision for the recovery of possession of certain landholdings. A writ of execution was issued. The respondent, Josefina Morada, filed a third-party claim with the PARAD, asserting she was the actual tiller and should be preferred as beneficiary. The PARAD granted this claim and recalled the writ. The petitioners then filed a motion with the DARAB to implement its original decision. The DARAB granted this, ruling the third-party claim was essentially a protest against beneficiary qualification, a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary, not the PARAD. It ordered the revival of the writ.
Subsequently, Morada filed two separate petitions before the Court of Appeals challenging the DARAB’s revival order. The first was a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the Sixth Division, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The second was a Petition for Review (Rule 43) before the Twelfth Division, seeking a reversal on questions of fact and law. The petitioners moved to dismiss both for forum shopping. The CA Sixth Division dismissed the Rule 65 petition, finding it violative of the rule against forum shopping. However, the CA Twelfth Division, in the Rule 43 action, proceeded to rule on the merits, reversed the DARAB, and reinstated the PARAD order favoring Morada. The petitioners elevated this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Division, committed reversible error in taking cognizance of and deciding the Rule 43 petition despite a clear finding by another division of the same court that the filing of the two petitions constituted forum shopping.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA Decision. The Court held that the CA Twelfth Division should have dismissed the Rule 43 petition outright due to forum shopping. The test for forum shopping is whether the two actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances, and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues, such that a judgment in one would constitute res judicata in the other. Here, both of Morada’s petitions before the CA assailed the same DARAB Resolution dated September 19, 2011, sought the same relief—the affirmation of the PARAD order in her favor—and were grounded on the same factual milieu. The mere difference in the mode of appeal (Rule 65 vs. Rule 43) does not negate forum shopping when the core issues and objectives are identical. The CA Sixth Division had already authoritatively declared the existence of forum shopping and dismissed the Rule 65 petition. This finding was binding and should have prompted the Twelfth Division to dismiss the Rule 43 petition. By proceeding to decide the case on the merits, the CA committed a reversible error. The Supreme Court reinstated the DARAB Resolution which had ordered the implementation of the final and executory judgment in favor of the petitioners.