G.R. No. 158917 ; March 1, 2004
EVELYN T. PARADERO, petitioner, vs. HON. ALBERT B. ABRAGAN, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Branch 4, Iligan City and VICTOR B. JARABA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Victor Jaraba filed an ejectment suit against petitioner Evelyn Paradero before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iligan City, alleging she occupied his titled lot without consent. The MTCC ruled for Jaraba, ordering Paradero to vacate and pay rentals. Paradero appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jaraba moved for execution pending appeal, which the RTC granted. Paradero’s subsequent motions, including one to fix a supersedeas bond to stay execution, were denied. The RTC later issued a writ of demolition, and Paradero’s house was demolished. The RTC subsequently affirmed the MTCC decision in full.
Paradero filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC’s affirmance and the execution pending appeal. Simultaneously, she filed the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC’s grant of execution pending appeal and the writ of demolition. Jaraba moved to dismiss the Supreme Court petition, alleging forum shopping.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping, warranting the dismissal of her petition for certiorari.

RULING

Yes, the petition must be dismissed for forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought between two or more cases, such that a judgment in one would constitute res judicata in the other. All these elements are present here. The parties in the petition before the Supreme Court and the petition for review before the Court of Appeals are identical. The rights asserted—to maintain possession and to challenge the propriety of the execution pending appeal and demolition—are the same. The reliefs prayed for are founded on the same facts. A ruling by this Court on the validity of the execution pending appeal and the writ of demolition would constitute res judicata on the identical issues pending with the Court of Appeals.
The petitioner’s admission in her certification against forum shopping regarding the pendency of the CA case does not cure the violation. The doctrines of res judicata and litis pendentia cannot be avoided by varying the form of the action. Furthermore, even assuming the certiorari petition was proper, it is dismissible for disregarding the hierarchy of courts. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is concurrent with lower courts, but direct invocation is allowed only for special and important reasons, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The petition was correctly dismissed.