G.R. No. 181353 . June 06, 2016.
HGL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, HENRY G. LIM, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RAFAEL O. PENUELA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 6TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 13, CULASI, ANTIQUE AND SEMIRARA COAL CORPORATION (NOW SEMIRARA MINING CORPORATION), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner HGL Development Corporation held a Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement (FLGLA) from the DENR over a 367-hectare land on Semirara Island. It discovered that respondent Semirara Mining Corporation, operating under a Coal Operating Contract from the DOE covering the entire island, had entered the land, constructed facilities, and conducted mining activities, leading to the decimation of HGL’s cattle. The DENR later cancelled HGL’s FLGLA. On November 17, 2003, HGL filed two simultaneous actions: one against the DENR for specific performance (Caloocan RTC) to compel recognition of its lease, and another against Semirara Mining for recovery of possession and damages (Culasi RTC, Civil Case No. C-146).
In the Caloocan case, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 166854 , ultimately ruled that the DOE and its contractor (Semirara Mining) had primary jurisdiction over coal-bearing lands, and the DENR’s cancellation of the FLGLA was valid. While the Caloocan case was pending appeal, the Culasi RTC, upon Semirara Mining’s motion, dismissed Civil Case No. C-146 with prejudice on July 18, 2007, on the ground of forum shopping. HGL filed the present petition, assailing this dismissal order as a blatant defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 166854 , which was still pending at the time of the Culasi RTC’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether public respondent Judge Penuela committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Civil Case No. C-146 on the ground of forum shopping.

RULING

Yes, the judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court clarified that forum shopping exists when a party files multiple cases based on the same cause of action, with the same reliefs, before different courts to increase the chances of a favorable decision. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. Here, HGL’s two actions involved different causes of action and sought distinct primary reliefs. The Caloocan case was an action for specific performance against the DENR to enforce the FLGLA contract. The Culasi case was a possessory action (recovery of possession) for damages against Semirara Mining for alleged forcible entry. The rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for were fundamentally different. Therefore, filing them simultaneously did not constitute forum shopping.
The Culasi RTC’s dismissal order was issued while G.R. No. 166854 (the appeal of the Caloocan case) was still pending before the Supreme Court. By dismissing the Culasi case for forum shopping, Judge Penuela effectively pre-empted the Supreme Court’s final ruling on the very issues intertwined with the possession claim. This was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, constituting grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the Culasi RTC’s dismissal order, and remanded Civil Case No. C-146 for further proceedings.