G.R. No. 149984 & G.R. No. 154991; November 28, 2008
SPOUSES ROLANDO M. ZOSA and LUISA Y. ZOSA, petitioners, vs. HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 67, CHINATRUST (PHILS.) COMMERCIAL BANK CORPORATION, NOTARY PUBLIC JAIME P. PORTUGAL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR PASIG CITY, and CHAILEASE FINANCE CORPORATION, respondents. ( G.R. No. 149984 )

SPOUSES ROLANDO M. ZOSA and LUISA Y. ZOSA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 67, CHINATRUST (PHILS.) COMMERCIAL BANK CORPORATION, NOTARY PUBLIC JAIME P. PORTUGAL FOR PASIG CITY, and CHAILEASE FINANCE CORPORATION, respondents. (G.R. No. 154991)

FACTS

The controversy began when respondent Chinatrust demanded payment from petitioners for an outstanding loan and subsequently extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgaged property. Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 67620 for injunction, specific performance, and damages before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 67. The trial court initially issued a TRO and later a writ of preliminary injunction. However, on respondent Chinatrust’s motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint on June 26, 2000, for petitioners’ failure to prosecute. It later issued an August 21, 2000 Clarificatory Order stating that the dismissal automatically dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction, and a November 23, 2000 Omnibus Order denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. On December 4, 2000, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 69892) questioning these three RTC Orders. Subsequently, on January 28, 2001, petitioners also filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (CA-G.R. SP No. 62915) assailing the same RTC Orders. The Court of Appeals, in its June 22, 2001 Decision, dismissed the petition for extraordinary writ for lack of merit. Later, on May 16, 2002, the CA dismissed the ordinary appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 69892) for forum shopping and for non-compliance with the page reference requirement in the appellants’ brief under Rule 44. Petitioners then filed two separate petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which were consolidated.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners engaged in forum shopping by successively filing an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari, both assailing the same orders of the trial court.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioners engaged in forum shopping. The Court held that the successive filing of a notice of appeal and a petition for certiorari, both seeking to assail the trial court’s dismissal order, constitutes forum shopping. The elements are present: identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for founded on the same facts, and the identity is such that any judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. The remedies of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive, not alternative or cumulative. By filing both actions in different divisions of the Court of Appeals within a month of each other, petitioners were seeking the same relief in two different fora, which is the very evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping. Following the precedent set in Young v. Sy and Candido v. Camacho, both the appeal and the certiorari petition were correctly dismissed. The petitions for review were therefore DENIED.