GR 143562; (October, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143562 ; October 23, 2006
CATALINA L. SANTOS, represented by her attorney-in-fact, LUZ PROTACIO and DAVID A. RAYMUNDO, petitioners, vs. PARAÑAQUE KINGS ENTERPRISES, INC., respondent.
FACTS
This case originated from a complaint for breach of contract filed by respondent Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. (PKE) against petitioners, involving the sale of leased properties. The Supreme Court previously remanded the case for trial. During proceedings, the trial judge denied PKE’s motion to strike an allegation from petitioners’ answer. PKE assailed this denial via a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 48214 (first CA petition). Subsequently, the trial judge dismissed PKE’s complaint for failure to prosecute during pre-trial and later denied its notice of appeal. PKE filed a second Petition for Certiorari, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 50570 (second CA petition), challenging these dismissal and denial orders.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent PKE committed forum shopping by filing two separate petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that PKE did not commit forum shopping. Forum shopping requires identity of transactions and causes of action. Here, the two petitions involved different orders of the trial court and distinct transactions. The first petition (CA G.R. SP No. 48214) assailed the orders denying the motion to strike allegations from the answer. The second petition (CA G.R. SP No. 50570) challenged the orders dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute and denying the notice of appeal. These subject matters are not essentially or intimately related; they address separate incidents and stages of the proceedings. The causes of action—alleged grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge—arose from different judicial actions. Consequently, the elements for forum shopping were not present. The Court also noted that the petitioners’ failure to timely appeal the CA’s decision on the first petition rendered it final, precluding further review. The petition was dismissed.