G.R. No. 192901 & 192903, February 01, 2023
CEZAR QUIAMBAO AND OWEN S. CARSI-CRUZ, and ANTHONY K. QUIAMBAO, PETITIONERS, VS. BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA AND ADERITO Z. YUJUICO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents, members of the Board of Directors of Pacifica, Inc., filed three separate but identical complaints against petitioners and Pacifica, Inc. to declare invalid the Annual Stockholders’ Meeting held on August 23, 2007, and to nullify the election of the new Board of Directors. The complaints were filed in Pasig City (SEC Case No. 07-95), Manila (Civil Case No. 07-117901), and Makati City (Civil Case No. 07-831). Respondents filed these three cases simultaneously because Pacifica’s corporate records with the SEC showed conflicting addresses for its principal place of business (Pasig per recent GIS, Manila per Articles of Incorporation, and Makati per Amended Articles). Prior to filing, respondents sought clarification from the SEC via a letter dated August 30, 2007, but filed the cases on September 7, 2007, within the 15-day prescriptive period for election contests, to avoid foreclosing their remedy. In their complaints and certifications against forum shopping, respondents expressly stated they were filing multiple cases due to the confusion and would withdraw the inappropriate ones once the SEC clarified the proper venue. On November 19, 2007, the SEC responded that Pacifica’s principal place of business was Makati City. Respondents immediately filed Notices of Withdrawal for the Pasig and Manila cases before any responsive pleadings were filed therein. The Makati case proceeded, and the RTC granted respondents’ Motion to Render Judgment by Default. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, arguing improper service of summons and that respondents were guilty of forum shopping. The CA partially granted the petition, finding improper service of summons but ruling that respondents were not guilty of forum shopping. Petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court on the forum shopping issue.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that respondents are not guilty of forum shopping.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that respondents did not engage in forum shopping. The Court held that the elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) identity such that any judgment would amount to res judicata. While these elements were present, the Court emphasized that forum shopping requires a willful and deliberate intent to obtain a favorable judgment by filing in multiple fora. Respondents’ actions negated such intent. They exercised due diligence by: (1) seeking clarification from the SEC on the proper venue before filing; (2) disclosing the filing of all three cases in their certifications against forum shopping attached to each complaint; and (3) promptly withdrawing the two improperly venued cases upon receiving the SEC’s clarification, before any responsive pleadings were filed. Their simultaneous filing was a reasonable, cautious measure to prevent their election protest from being time-barred, given the conflicting corporate records and the 15-day prescriptive period. Therefore, there was no deliberate intent to shop for a favorable forum, and the CA correctly refused to dismiss the Makati case on this ground. The petition was denied.