GR 159130; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159130; August 22, 2008
ATTY. GEORGE S. BRIONES, petitioner, vs. LILIA J. HENSON-CRUZ, RUBY J. HENSON, and ANTONIO J. HENSON, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a petition for the allowance of the holographic will of Luz J. Henson. Due to opposition among the heirs, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) appointed Atty. George S. Briones as Special Administrator of the estate. During his administration, the heirs submitted a project of partition. Atty. Briones then filed his final report, praying for an 8% commission based on the estate’s value. The heirs opposed this, requested an examination of his records, and later filed an audit request. The RTC granted the audit and appointed an independent accounting firm. In its subsequent Order dated April 3, 2002, the RTC, among other things, fixed Atty. Briones’s commission at 1.8% of the estate value.
The heirs assailed this April 3, 2002 Order through two simultaneous remedies. First, they filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 70349) specifically challenging the appointment of the external auditor. Second, they filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, seeking to appeal the same Order specifically on the issue of the commission awarded to Atty. Briones. The RTC denied and disapproved the appeal on the ground of forum shopping, prompting the heirs to file a Petition for Mandamus (CA-G.R. SP No. 71844) to compel the RTC to give due course to their appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents committed forum shopping by simultaneously filing a petition for certiorari and a notice of appeal from the same RTC Order dated April 3, 2002.
RULING
No, the respondents did not commit forum shopping. The Supreme Court clarified that forum shopping exists when a party seeks substantially the same relief in different courts or tribunals, based on the same cause of action and with the same objective, risking the possibility of conflicting decisions. The Court found no identity of causes of action or reliefs sought in the two proceedings initiated by the respondents.
The petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 70349) assailed the RTC’s interlocutory orders appointing an external auditor, raising issues of grave abuse of discretion. Its objective was to nullify the audit order. In contrast, the ordinary appeal (via the notice of appeal) sought review of the RTC’s final directive in the same Order fixing the administrator’s commission at 1.8%. This involved the correctness of the RTC’s appreciation of law and facts regarding compensation. The reliefs were distinct: one aimed to stop an audit, the other to recompute the commission. Since the causes of action and primary reliefs prayed for were different, no forum shopping was committed. Consequently, the RTC had a ministerial duty to approve the record on appeal and give due course to the ordinary appeal on the issue of the administrator’s fees.