G.R. No. 242486 , June 10, 2020
Philippine College of Criminology, Inc., Ma. Cecilia Bautista-Lim, Rodolfo Valentino F. Bautista, Ma. Elena F. Bautista, Jean-Paul Bautista Lim, Marco Angelo Bautista Lim, Eduardo F. Bautista, Jr., Corazon Bautista-Javier, Sabrina Bautista-Panlilio, Ma. Ines V. Almeda, Rosario R. Diaz, and Atty. Ramil G. Gabao, Petitioners, vs. Gregory Alan F. Bautista, Respondent.

FACTS

The Philippine College of Criminology was founded by Justice Felix Angelo Bautista. Upon his death in 1985, his son Eduardo J. Bautista (Eduardo Sr.) assumed the presidency. Among Eduardo Sr.’s children are respondent Gregory Alan F. Bautista (Gregory) and petitioners Ma. Cecilia Bautista-Lim, Rodolfo Valentino F. Bautista, Ma. Elena F. Bautista, and Eduardo F. Bautista, Jr. On May 18, 2006, Eduardo Sr. issued Presidential Order No. 1, designating Gregory as his successor as President and Board Chairperson upon his demise or incapacity. Gregory’s siblings signed a Certificate of Acquiescence, expressing full accord with the order. On September 26, 2006, Eduardo Sr. relinquished the presidency in favor of Gregory. Eduardo Sr. died on July 26, 2008, and Gregory assumed the chairmanship.
On January 31, 2011, a special meeting was held without Gregory, wherein the Board of Trustees was reorganized, and Cecilia was elected President and Board Chairperson, replacing Gregory. On March 25, 2011, Gregory filed a Petition for Quo Warranto (Civil Case No. 11-125408) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 24, challenging his removal, alleging violation of Presidential Order No. 1 and lack of quorum. The RTC dismissed the petition for insufficiency in form and substance, a decision appealed to the Court of Appeals and subsequently to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Board conducted a special audit suggesting undue disbursements to Gregory. On January 11, 2012, the Board passed Resolution No. 25, expelling Gregory from the Board. On February 9, 2012, Gregory filed a Complaint for “Specific Performance, Intra-Corporate Controversy, and Damages” (Civil Case No. 12-127276) before the same RTC Branch 24, seeking invalidation of Resolution No. 25 and a declaration that he remained a Board Member, while acknowledging the pending quo warranto case. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of forum shopping. On June 10, 2016, the RTC granted a summary judgment, dismissing the complaint for forum shopping and lack of merit. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC in its April 12, 2018 Decision, finding no forum shopping and remanding the case for further proceedings. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on October 8, 2018.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent did not engage in forum shopping and in remanding the case to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the RTC’s June 10, 2016 Decision dismissing the complaint for forum shopping.
The Court held that forum shopping exists when there is identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought between two actions, and absolute identity is not required. Here, the test for forum shopping was satisfied. First, there was substantial identity of parties, as the parties in the quo warranto petition and the specific performance complaint represented the same interests. Second, there was identity of rights asserted and causes of action. Both actions fundamentally involved Gregory’s right to the positions of President and Board Chairperson under Presidential Order No. 1 and his status as a Board Member. The quo warranto petition challenged his removal from office, while the specific performance complaint sought to invalidate Resolution No. 25 expelling him from the Board, both arising from the same factual milieu—the January 31, 2011 meeting and its aftermath. The reliefs sought were also identical: restoration of Gregory’s corporate positions and rights. The Court emphasized that filing the specific performance complaint while the quo warranto petition was pending on appeal constituted forum shopping, as it risked conflicting rulings and wasted judicial resources. Gregory should have pursued supplemental pleadings in the existing appeal rather than initiating a separate action. Thus, the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for forum shopping.