GR 218771; (June, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 218771 & 220689, June 3, 2019
VILLAMOR & VICTOLERO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL. vs. SOGO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
FACTS
Sogo Realty filed a complaint for defective construction work against Villamor, et al. before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). The contractor moved to dismiss, arguing the CIAC lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a valid arbitration agreement. The CIAC denied the motion, asserting jurisdiction based on a handwritten arbitration clause signed by Lawrence Villamor, VVCC’s Estimation and Marketing Manager. Villamor, et al. then filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 125273) before the Court of Appeals, challenging the CIAC’s order and alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Subsequently, the CIAC proceeded with arbitration and rendered a Final Award in favor of Sogo Realty. Villamor, et al. then filed a separate Petition for Review (CA-G.R. SP No. 126320) before the Court of Appeals, assailing the CIAC’s Final Award and again raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction. This resulted in two pending petitions before different divisions of the appellate court involving the same core issue.
ISSUE
Whether Villamor, et al. are guilty of forum shopping for filing two separate petitions before the Court of Appeals challenging the CIAC’s jurisdiction and its subsequent final award.
RULING
Yes, Villamor, et al. are guilty of forum shopping. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the CA Special Tenth Division which dismissed their Petition for Review. Forum shopping exists when a party files multiple cases based on the same cause of action, with the same relief, before different courts or tribunals, to increase the chances of a favorable decision. The elements are present here: the parties in both petitions are identical; the fundamental issue raised in both is the CIAC’s lack of jurisdiction; and a judgment in the first Petition for Certiorari would constitute res judicata on the jurisdictional issue in the second Petition for Review.
The legal logic is grounded in the policy to prevent the vexation of the other party and to avoid the possibility of conflicting rulings from co-equal divisions of the same court. By filing two distinct petitions, Villamor, et al. created a situation where one CA division could uphold the CIAC’s jurisdiction while another could nullify it, leading to contradictory decisions on the same matter. This is precisely the mischief that the rule against forum shopping seeks to avert. The dismissal of the later Petition for Review is therefore warranted to ensure orderly administration of justice and prevent undue congestion of court dockets.