G.R. No. 205002, April 20, 2016.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF BATANGAS, and THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Petitioners, vs. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (PSPC), WILLIE J. SARMIENTO, PSPC Vice-President for Finance and Treasurer and ATTY. CIPRIANO U. ASILO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) was issued a demand letter on January 30, 2009, by the Collector of Customs of the Port of Batangas for unpaid excise and value-added taxes on its importation of catalytic cracked gasoline and light catalytic cracked gasoline from 2006 to 2008. PSPC refused to pay and appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, who denied the appeal on November 11, 2009. On December 3, 2009, PSPC filed a Petition for Review (CTA Case No. 8004) with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) assailing the Commissioner’s denial and filed a Verified Motion for a Suspension Order/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against tax collection. The CTA First Division initially granted a 60-day TRO but later denied the request for a suspension order on February 9, 2010. On the same day, the Collector issued a Memorandum ordering the hold of PSPC’s import shipments to satisfy the tax liabilities. The following day, February 10, 2010, PSPC filed a Complaint for Injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas (Civil Case No. 8780) to enjoin the implementation of the February 9 Memorandum, attaching a Verification and Certification stating the CTA case involved different issues/reliefs. The RTC issued a TRO. Petitioners then filed a Motion to Cite respondents for Direct Contempt of Court before the CTA, alleging willful forum shopping. A criminal complaint for Perjury against respondent Sarmiento was also filed but was dismissed by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities for lack of probable cause. The CTA Third Division denied the contempt motion, finding no forum shopping. The CTA En Banc affirmed this ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the CTA committed a reversible error in ruling that respondents did not commit willful and deliberate forum shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Petition, affirming the CTA’s ruling. Forum shopping requires: (1) identity of parties or interests; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) identity such that a judgment in one case would result in res judicata or litis pendentia in the other. The Court found that while the CTA case (Petition for Review) and the RTC case (Complaint for Injunction) shared the same parties and originated from the same factual antecedents, their subject matters, causes of action, issues, and reliefs were not identical. The CTA case assailed the Commissioner’s Letter-Decisions demanding payment of unpaid taxes, while the RTC case sought to enjoin the implementation of the Collector’s subsequent Memorandum that withheld PSPC’s import shipments. The reliefs prayed for were different: the CTA case sought a suspension of tax collection and a declaration of non-liability, whereas the RTC case sought an injunction against the hold on shipments. A decision in one would not constitute res judicata in the other. Therefore, the elements of forum shopping were not present, and respondents could not be cited for direct contempt. The dismissal of the perjury case did not bar the contempt proceeding, as the elements differ, but on the merits, no forum shopping was committed.