G.R. No. 175730; July 5, 2010
Herminio T. Disini, Petitioner, vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, The Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Respondents.

FACTS

The Republic, through the PCGG, filed a civil case for reconveyance and damages against Herminio Disini and others for alleged ill-gotten wealth. Summons could not be served on Disini at his recorded address for years. In 2006, after the Republic moved to serve summons by publication, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion and eventually declared Disini in default for failure to answer. Disini filed a Motion to Lift the Default Order, arguing improper service and lack of jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion. Disini then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan’s orders and prohibit the ex-parte proceedings.
While this Supreme Court petition was pending, Disini also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of his Motion to Lift Default Order before the Sandiganbayan itself. The Republic argued that this constituted forum-shopping, as both actions sought the same relief—the setting aside of the default order—and involved the same issues regarding the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction and alleged grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner committed forum-shopping by simultaneously filing a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court and a Motion for Reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner committed forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists when a party seeks substantially the same relief from different courts or judicial bodies, creating the possibility of conflicting rulings. The Supreme Court found that Disini’s twin actions presented the same core issues: the validity of the service of summons, the propriety of the default order, and the Sandiganbayan’s alleged grave abuse of discretion. The relief sought in both was identical: to vacate the default order and to be allowed to file an answer. The Court emphasized that a Motion for Reconsideration in the lower court and a special civil action for Certiorari in a higher court are mutually exclusive remedies. One cannot pursue both simultaneously for the same cause. By doing so, Disini trifled with the judicial process. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright due to this clear act of forum-shopping, without delving into the substantive merits of his jurisdictional arguments.