G.R. No. 214526 - Heirs of Mampo vs. Morada

Petitioners are the surviving wives and children of deceased Inocentes Mampo and Raymundo Mampo (collectively "Heirs of Mampos").
Inocentes and Raymundo Mampo filed a Complaint dated August 28, 2000 before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) against Nelida and Alex Severo for recovery of possession of five parcels of land in Baras, Canaman, Camarines Sur (the subject lots), which were covered by Emancipation Patents (EPs).

The PARAD initially dismissed the complaint.
The Heirs of Mampos appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Central Office.
On January 16, 2008, the DARAB set aside the PARAD decision and ruled in favor of the Heirs of Mampos, ordering respondents to vacate the subject land and restore the complainants' possession.
This DARAB decision became final and executory on August 9, 2008.

On November 14, 2008, upon motion of the Heirs of Mampos, PARAD issued a Writ of Execution.
On May 7, 2009, respondent Josefina Mampo Morada (Morada) filed a Third-Party Claim, which PARAD granted on February 26, 2010, ordering parties to respect Morada's possession and recalling the Writ of Execution.
PARAD gave credence to Morada’s claim that she was the actual tiller and noted that Inocentes had at one point voluntarily relinquished tenancy over the land for a fee.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by PARAD.

Petitioners filed a Manifestation with Motion for Implementation of DARAB Decision dated January 16, 2008 which DARAB initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Later, on September 19, 2011, DARAB granted petitioners' motion for reconsideration, ordered revival of the Writ of Execution, and instructed its immediate implementation, ruling Morada's third-party claim was effectively a protest outside its jurisdiction.
Morada moved for reconsideration but was denied.

On January 6, 2012, Morada filed a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65 action) before the Court of Appeals (CA), assigned to the Sixth Division, seeking to annul the DARAB Resolution of September 19, 2011.
On February 9, 2012, Morada filed a Petition for Review (Rule 43 action) before the CA's 12th Division, praying for reversal of DARAB's September 19, 2011 decision and affirmation of PARAD's February 26, 2010 order.

On August 12, 2012, petitioners moved to dismiss both cases for violation of the rule against forum shopping.
Morada opposed, asserting different issues in the two cases (Rule 65 vs. Rule 43).
On September 28, 2012, the CA Sixth Division granted the motion and dismissed the Rule 65 action for forum shopping. The dismissal became final on November 15, 2012.

Morada notified the CA 12th Division of the dismissal of the Rule 65 action and pleaded for continuation of the Rule 43 action.
On December 20, 2013, the CA 12th Division rendered the assailed decision granting Morada’s Rule 43 petition, nullifying the DARAB Resolution dated September 19, 2011, and reinstating the February 26, 2010 PARAD Order.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on September 1, 2014.

Petitioners filed the present petition challenging the CA’s failure to dismiss the Rule 43 petition for forum shopping, based on the finality of the dismissal of Rule 65 action on the same ground.
Morada contends no forum shopping was committed because the cases involve different issues and legal remedies and that the dismissal of the Rule 65 action was not appealed.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the DARAB Resolution dated September 19, 2011 and reinstating the PARAD Order dated February 26, 2010 despite the violation of the rule against forum shopping.

Specifically, whether the CA should have dismissed the Rule 43 petition for review for forum shopping given Morada’s prior dismissal in the Rule 65 action for the same ground.