G.R. No. 116910 October 18, 1995
International Container Terminal Services, Inc., et al., petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Angel V. Colet, Manila Pilots Association, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) issued Administrative Order No. 02-88, opening pilotage services to all licensed pilots. Manila Pilots Association (MPA) and United Harbor Pilots Association challenged this order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 88-44726, which declared the PPA order null and void and upheld the pilots’ exclusive right. This decision became final and executory after appeals were denied by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Despite the final judgment, petitioner International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) took over pilotage services at the Manila International Port under a contract with the PPA.
Consequently, MPA filed contempt petitions in the original case (Civil Case No. 88-44726) and a separate action for damages (Civil Case No. 93-66024) for ICTSI’s operations in other ports. MPA also filed a new petition for mandamus and prohibition (Civil Case No. 93-66143) to specifically stop ICTSI’s operations at the Manila International Port and restore MPA’s exclusive rights there. The RTC granted this petition, issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. ICTSI appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that MPA engaged in forum shopping by filing multiple cases involving the same core issue.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Manila Pilots Association committed forum shopping by instituting Civil Case No. 93-66143 (for mandamus and prohibition) while other related proceedings (contempt petitions and a damages case) were pending.

RULING

The Supreme Court, affirming the Court of Appeals, ruled that there was no forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when a party, seeking a more favorable ruling, files multiple cases involving the same essential facts and reliefs in different courts or tribunals. The Court held that the actions filed by MPA did not constitute forum shopping because they sought different reliefs based on distinct causes of action, all anchored on the enforcement of the same final judgment in Civil Case No. 88-44726.
The contempt petitions aimed to punish ICTSI for defiance of the court’s final order. The damages case sought compensation for past losses. The mandamus/prohibition case (Civil Case No. 93-66143) sought a judicial command to specifically cease ongoing operations and restore MPA’s exclusive rights. These are separate remedies available to a prevailing party for the enforcement and protection of a final judgment. Since MPA was not shopping for a favorable opinion after an adverse ruling but was instead pursuing various judicial avenues to enforce a judgment already in its favor, no forum shopping was committed. The petition was denied.