G.R. No. 68109 - Gayapanao vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

On November 22, 1993, petitioner City of Taguig (then municipality) filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City against respondent City of Makati (then municipality) and government officials seeking judicial confirmation of its territorial boundaries, particularly over Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation parcels and the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs).
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 63896, raffled to RTC Branch 153. Taguig claimed areas covered by certain Presidential Proclamations were actually part of its territory.
On July 8, 2011, RTC Branch 153 ruled in favor of Taguig, confirming Fort Bonifacio parcels as part of Taguig’s territory, declaring Proclamations 2475 and 518 unconstitutional for diminishing Taguig’s area without plebiscite, and making permanent the preliminary injunction prohibiting Makati from exercising jurisdiction over these areas.

On July 28, 2011, Makati filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals, challenging the July 8, 2011 RTC decision for lack of jurisdiction and violation of due process; alleging the judge had already retired when he promulgated the decision.
Makati’s counsels went to the RTC on July 12, 2011 to check if the decision was promulgated, receiving a certification from the Clerk of Court stating the decision was still undergoing review, implying it was not yet promulgated.
On July 13, 2011, Makati received a copy of the judgment and filed a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam before the RTC.
Taguig moved to dismiss Makati’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment on grounds of defectiveness, prematurity, lack of certification against forum shopping, and accused Makati of forum shopping for pursuing the Petition and Motion for Reconsideration simultaneously.
Makati maintained that the Petition and Motion raised different causes of action and reliefs and included a certification of non-forum shopping.

RTC, through Judge Leili Cruz Suarez (pairing judge), denied Makati’s Motion for Reconsideration on December 19, 2011 and in February 13, 2012 clarified that the findings in the disputed July 8, 2011 decision were sound and affirmed the judgment's validity.
Makati filed a Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelam on January 3, 2012 (docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 98377).
Court of Appeals denied Taguig’s Motion to Dismiss on May 16, 2012, accepting that the Petition for Annulment of Judgment was not premature and that Makati did not engage in forum shopping.
Taguig’s Motion for Reconsideration was granted by the Court of Appeals on December 18, 2012, dismissing Makati’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment due to being functus officio, premature, and for forum shopping.
Makati moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated April 30, 2013. This Resolution:

Abandoned the functus officio and forum shopping rulings;
Declared the Petition for Annulment premature because an ordinary remedy was still available (appeal);
Stated no forum shopping occurred as the two remedies raised different issues.

Taguig filed a Motion for Clarification, praying for a pronouncement of forum shopping and mootness of the Petition, which resulted in the Court of Appeals’ July 25, 2013 Resolution clarifying the Petition was moot but remained silent on forum shopping.

Declaration of respondent Makati’s guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping for simultaneously pursuing Petition for Annulment of Judgment and Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal;
Imposition of appropriate sanctions on Makati’s counsels.

Makati filed a Comment denying allegations of forum shopping and defending the propriety of their remedies pursued.

Whether respondent City of Makati committed forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and a Motion for Reconsideration (later Appeal) on the same case.
If forum shopping is committed, whether sanctions should be imposed on Makati’s counsels for willful and deliberate forum shopping.