A.M. No. 00-7-299-RTC; August 31, 2001
REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO. R-1692 RTC BR. 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO with CIVIL CASE NO. 3640, RTC-BR. 49, CABANATUAN CITY

FACTS

Danilo R. Padiernos, through counsel Atty. Renato A. Martinez, filed three successive complaints against the same defendant, Pilar Alarcon-Paja, concerning the same property. On October 14, 1999, he filed Civil Case No. 3640 for “Declaration of Nullity of Title” in Cabanatuan City. On October 29, 1999, he filed Civil Case No. R-1169 for “Annulment of Contract” in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. The first case was dismissed on March 2, 2000, for forum shopping and lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping. Undeterred, Padiernos filed a third complaint, Civil Case No. 3789, on June 2, 2000, which was identical to the first dismissed case but now included the required certification. This third case was eventually dismissed with prejudice.
The defendant requested the consolidation and transfer of the cases. The Supreme Court, noting the pattern, required Padiernos to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for forum shopping. In his compliance, Padiernos argued there was no forum shopping because the actions had different natures (one in rem, one in personam), that the first dismissal was without prejudice allowing re-filing, and that he disclosed the related cases in his pleadings, proving no intent to deceive.

ISSUE

Whether Danilo R. Padiernos and his counsel, Atty. Renato A. Martinez, are guilty of forum shopping and direct contempt of court.

RULING

Yes, both petitioner and his counsel are guilty of forum shopping and direct contempt. The Court rejected Padiernos’s arguments as hollow. The legal logic centers on the prohibition against forum shopping, which exists when a party files multiple cases grounded on the same cause, with the same parties, and expecting the same relief, to increase the chances of a favorable decision. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. Here, the core objective in all three complaints was to challenge the defendant’s title to the property, whether by attacking the title directly or the deed of assignment that led to it. Trying these cases separately could yield conflicting rulings—one court declaring the defendant the owner and another annulling the source document—which would disrupt the orderly administration of justice.
The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the first case (Civil Case No. 3640) was with prejudice because it was based on forum shopping, a willful violation. The subsequent filing of the identical third case (Civil Case No. 3789) was a blatant attempt to revive a dead case and seek a more sympathetic forum, constituting forum shopping regardless of the disclosure in the certification. The act of filing multiple suits in courts of concurrent jurisdiction over the same matter is itself contemptuous as it trifles with judicial processes. Consequently, the Court found both the client and his counsel liable, as the lawyer clearly conspired in this scheme, filing all three complaints and thereby aiding in confusing the courts and abusing their processes. The remaining cases were dismissed, and fines were imposed.