G.R. No. 150905 - Citibank vs. Teodoro

Petitioners, the Executive Secretary and Arturo C. Lomibao, initiated the present petition to declare respondents—Richard J. Gordon, Anacleto M. Diaz, and Orlando E. Mendiola—in contempt of court.
The underlying controversy arose from a prior case (G.R. No. 134071) where petitioners alleged that respondent Gordon, then-chairman of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), faced an imminent ouster due to an administrative order issued by President Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
Respondent Gordon’s earlier petition for prohibition sought to forestall his removal on the ground that he had a fixed term of office lasting until February 10, 2004, based on his appointment by former President Fidel V. Ramos.

Respondent Gordon initially filed a petition for prohibition in the Supreme Court.
On learning of the enforcement of Administrative Order No. 1—which recalled, withdrew, and canceled his six-year appointment—Gordon filed a Notice of Withdrawal of his petition in the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, on the same day, he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 255-0-98.
The filing in the lower court, after the withdrawal in the Supreme Court, served as the basis for the petitioners’ contention that there had been forum-shopping.

Petitioners charged that filing two petitions relating to essentially the same issues—one in the Supreme Court and another in the Regional Trial Court—constituted forum-shopping.
They further asserted that such conduct was in violation of Rule 7, A5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates a certification against forum-shopping.
The rule requires that a party must certify, under oath, that no other action involving the same issues is pending in another forum; failure to do so, or the submission of a false certification, may amount to indirect contempt and even direct contempt if done willfully.

Respondents maintained that they complied with Rule 7, A5 by attaching a certification of non-forum shopping to their petition filed before the Regional Trial Court.
They explained that prior to the filing in the lower court, a formal Notice of Withdrawal had been submitted in the Supreme Court, thereby removing the concurrent pending status.
Respondents referenced the principle enunciated in PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, emphasizing that filing in the appropriate forum following a withdrawal does not, in itself, amount to forum-shopping.
They clarified that the withdrawal was motivated by the Court’s requirement to adhere strictly to the hierarchy of courts, ensuring that the petition be heard in the proper forum where it could be adjudicated on its merits.

The petitioners contrasted the present case with another decision (E. Razon, Inc. v. The Philippine Port Authority) where filing similar petitions in different courts without proper withdrawal was deemed forum-shopping and was punished.
In contrast, here the respondents promptly withdrew their petition in the Supreme Court before re-filing in the Regional Trial Court, emphasizing the absence of an adverse decision from the Supreme Court and a genuine need to secure a timely preliminary injunction.
The Court took into account the practical difficulties and imminent threat created by the enforcement of Administrative Order No. 1, underscoring that time was of the essence.

Whether the actions of respondent Gordon and his counsel—filing a petition in the Supreme Court followed by a similar petition in the Regional Trial Court after a withdrawal—constitute forum-shopping as defined under Rule 7, A5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether the proper and timely filing of a Notice of Withdrawal in the Supreme Court before refiling in another forum negates the charge of abusing judicial processes or committing contempt of court.
Whether the respondents’ actions, despite the filing of two petitions, demonstrate willful disregard of court processes or are merely a strategic maneuver to obtain prompt judicial relief in light of an impending administrative action.
How the established hierarchy of courts and precedents relating to forum-shopping should be applied to determine whether the respondents’ conduct merits a finding of contempt.