G.R. No. 164153 ; June 13, 2011
JOHN ANTHONY B. ESPIRITU, for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact for Westmont Investment Corporation, Sta. Lucia Realty and Development Corporation, Golden Era Holdings, Inc., and Exchange Equity Corporation, Petitioners, vs. MANUEL N. TANKIANSEE and JUANITA U. TAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners (the Espiritu Group) and the Tan Group filed a Petition for Issuance of Shares of Stock and/or Return of Management and Control (Civil Case No. 02-103160) against the UOBP Group. Respondents (the Tankiansee Group) intervened. The intervenors filed a Motion for Production of Documents and a Notice to Take Depositions of certain individuals, which the trial court initially denied as time-barred but later granted via Orders dated November 25 and December 18, 2002. Subsequently, on January 31, 2003, petitioners filed a Notice to Take Depositions of respondents Manuel Tankiansee and Juanita U. Tan. On February 4, 2003, the trial court disallowed this deposition-taking as time-barred. Petitioners’ Motion for Protective Orders regarding the depositions of their own members was denied on February 17, 2003, and later modified on February 26, 2003. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals challenging these three Orders. The CA denied the petition. Meanwhile, on February 2, 2004, the trial court rendered a Decision in the main case. From this judgment, petitioners (except Westmont Investment Corporation) filed a notice of appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 83161). Westmont Investment Corporation filed an Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam Notice of Appeal and a separate Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus.

ISSUE

1. Whether the disallowance of the deposition-taking of Manuel Tankiansee and Juanita U. Tan is contrary to the mandate of liberality in the availment and interpretation of the Rules on Discovery.
2. Whether petitioners were deprived due process when they were denied resort to the modes of discovery.
3. Whether petitioners are guilty of forum shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the issue of forum shopping, the Court found petitioners guilty thereof. Forum shopping exists when two or more actions are instituted by a party on the same cause, hoping one court will rule favorably. Here, petitioners’ certiorari petition (the instant case) and their subsequent appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 83161) sought to achieve the same purpose: to annul the trial court’s February 2, 2004 Decision. The certiorari petition challenged interlocutory orders (the disallowance of depositions) which were inherently related to the main case. By appealing the main decision, petitioners effectively sought review of all errors, including those related to the discovery process. The splitting of these causes of action constituted forum shopping, warranting the dismissal of the certiorari petition. Given this finding, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the substantive issues on discovery and due process.