G.R. No. 124724 December 22, 1997
RENE UY GOLANGCO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CANDIDO VILLANUEVA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY AND LUCIA GOLANGCO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Lucia Carlos Golangco filed a petition for annulment of marriage against petitioner Rene Uy Golangco. During the proceedings, the trial court issued an order dated July 21, 1994, awarding custody pendente lite of their two children to Lucia, with Rene given visitation rights of at least one week per month. Rene questioned this order before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed it. He then appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 120831), which dismissed the petition on July 17, 1995. Subsequently, on August 15, 1995, Lucia filed a motion for reconsideration with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging an incident on July 5, 1995, where Rene physically abused their son Justin, leading to a criminal complaint for slight physical injuries. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and, after a hearing where both parties presented evidence and witnesses, granted the writ of preliminary injunction in an order dated October 4, 1995, restraining Rene from seeing his children. Rene filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 38866) before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition for violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 on forum-shopping, ruling that the petition and the earlier G.R. No. 120831 dealt with the same issue of whether Rene should be prohibited from seeing his children.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner violated the rule on non-forum shopping.

RULING

No, the petitioner did not violate the rule on non-forum shopping. The Supreme Court held that the issues raised in the two petitions were distinct and different. The petition in G.R. No. 120831 questioned the July 21, 1994 order regarding the award of custody pendente lite and visitation rights. The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 38866 questioned the October 4, 1995 order granting the writ of preliminary injunction, which was based on a new incident of alleged abuse and sought to enjoin Rene from seeing the children entirely. The Court applied the test from First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, emphasizing that forum-shopping exists when a party seeks favorable opinions from different courts on the same or related causes and reliefs, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. Here, two different orders were questioned, with distinct causes of action, issues, and objectives. Consequently, the Court of Appeals’ dismissal on the ground of forum-shopping was set aside. The Supreme Court, in the interest of justice and to prevent further delay, also resolved the propriety of the writ of injunction, affirming the trial court’s order dated October 4, 1995, as it found that an adequate hearing was conducted and the trial court’s factual findings on the necessity of the injunction were entitled to great weight. The petition was partially granted.