G.R. No. 134171 November 18, 1998
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY and ARTURO C. LOMIBAO, petitioners, vs. RICHARD J. GORDON, ANACLETO M. DIAS, and ORLANDO E. MENDIOLA, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition to declare respondents Richard J. Gordon, Anacleto M. Diaz, and Orlando E. Mendiola in contempt of court. Respondents Diaz and Mendiola are the counsels of respondent Gordon in G.R. No. 134071, entitled “Richard J. Gordon v. The Hon. Executive Secretary, Felicito Payumo and Senior Superintendent Arturo C. Lomibao.” The petitioners in this case are the respondents in that case. The aforesaid case was filed on June 29, 1998 because of respondent Gordon’s apprehension that he would be removed and replaced as chairman of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) upon the change of administration from President Fidel V. Ramos to President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. As apprehended, upon assuming office on June 30, 1998, President Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 1, recalling Gordon’s appointment. On July 1, 1998, at 9:21 A.M., instead of pressing his motion for a temporary restraining order, respondent Gordon filed a “Notice of Withdrawal of [his] Petition” in the Supreme Court. At 11:30 A.M. of that same day, he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City. The filing of the case in the Olongapo court gave rise to the present petition for contempt. Petitioners charge that the act of respondents in filing two petitions involving the same issues before the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court constitutes forum-shopping and contempt of court.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondents are guilty of forum-shopping and contempt of court for filing a petition in the Regional Trial Court after filing a notice of withdrawal of a substantially similar petition in the Supreme Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court found for the respondents and dismissed the petition for contempt. The Court held that forum-shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. In this case, although respondent Gordon filed a petition before the Supreme Court and, after two days, filed substantially the same petition before the Regional Trial Court, the fact remains that (1) before filing his petition in the Olongapo court he first filed a notice of withdrawal of his petition which this Court later granted and (2) he withdrew his petition in this Court due to the policy requiring parties to adhere strictly to the hierarchy of courts. No adverse decision had been rendered by the Supreme Court against respondent Gordon. The Court distinguished this case from E. Razon, Inc. v. The Philippine Port Authority, where petitioners were found guilty of forum-shopping. In contrast, here, respondent Gordon filed a notice of withdrawal prior to filing in the Regional Trial Court. The Court understood their predicament, as an Administrative Order ousting Gordon had been issued and a writ of preliminary injunction was urgently needed. Citing PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, the Court noted that condemnation for contempt should not be made lightly, and the power should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. The Court found no willful disregard or defiance of its orders, or forum-shopping, by the respondents.