G.R. No. 234812 , November 25, 2019
MASAKAZU UEMATSU, PETITIONER, VS. ALMA N. BALINON, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case originated from a Petition for the issuance of a permanent protection order (PPO) under Republic Act No. 9262 filed by Alma N. Balinon (respondent) against her common-law spouse, Masakazu Uematsu (petitioner). The RTC of Tagum City granted the petition and issued a PPO in a Decision dated October 7, 2011, which became final and executory on November 29, 2011. Almost three years later, on July 23, 2014, petitioner filed a separate Complaint for dissolution of co-ownership, partnership, liquidation, and accounting (Dissolution case) against respondent before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City. While the Dissolution case was pending, petitioner filed a “Motion to Account” in the already concluded PPO case before the RTC-Tagum, praying that respondent be ordered to account for the proceeds of their former businesses and sold properties. The RTC-Tagum directed respondent to comment and later to explain her non-compliance. For her failure to comply, the RTC-Tagum, in a Resolution dated August 15, 2016, found respondent guilty of indirect contempt, imposed penalties, and ordered the forfeiture of the enumerated properties in favor of petitioner. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and her subsequent notice of appeal was also denied by the RTC-Tagum, which deemed its contempt resolution an unappealable interlocutory order. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari, thereby annulling the RTC-Tagum’s orders finding respondent in indirect contempt and ordering the forfeiture of properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court held:
1. The doctrine of immutability of judgment applies. The Decision in the PPO case had long been final and executory. Petitioner’s “Motion to Account” was an attempt to alter this final judgment, which is prohibited. None of the recognized exceptions to the rule on immutability were present.
2. Petitioner committed forum shopping. He instituted two actions (the Dissolution case in Lapu-Lapu and the Motion to Account in the PPO case in Tagum) involving the same parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for arising from the same facts (the winding up and accounting of their common properties). Any ruling in one would amount to res judicata in the other. The RTC-Tagum should have dismissed the Motion to Account outright.
3. The RTC-Tagum had no jurisdiction over the Motion to Account. The PPO case pertained solely to acts of violence under R.A. 9262. Settlement and distribution of properties are not among its objectives or reliefs. Furthermore, as the respondent in the PPO case, petitioner was not allowed to include any counterclaim therein.
4. The RTC-Tagum committed grave abuse of discretion in the indirect contempt proceedings. The charge was not initiated in accordance with the procedure under Rule 71, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. The court did not issue a formal charge or order to show cause motu proprio, nor was a verified petition filed. The basis was a mere motion from petitioner.
5. The RTC-Tagum erred in denying the notice of appeal. The Resolution dated August 15, 2016, which convicted respondent of indirect contempt and ordered the forfeiture of properties, was a final judgment on the contempt charge and the proprietary issue, not an interlocutory order. Hence, it was appealable.