G.R. No. 272006 - Republic vs. Linney Jean L. Tangarorang and Ramer R. Tangarorang

Petitioner: St. Francis Square Realty Corporation (formerly ASB Realty Corporation), the developer of BSA Tower – a condominium building located in Legaspi Village, Makati City.
Respondent: BSA Tower Condominium Corporation, the condominium corporation owning and managing the BSA Tower.

On April 10, 1995, petitioner executed a Master Deed with Declaration of Restrictions which granted it the sole option to convert, make, or use certain residential units as a condotel or apartelle.
In 2001, petitioner agreed to respondent’s request to allow another entity to operate the condotel at the BSA Tower, authorizing Quantum Hotels & Resorts Inc. to commence such operations.

On July 13, 2005, petitioner sent a letter to respondent BSATCC declaring its desire to operate the condotel at the BSA Tower starting January 2007.
Despite the communication, Quantum continued its operations at the BSA Tower without cessation.

On April 25, 2007, petitioner filed a complaint for injunction with damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City (Civil Case No. MC07-3251) against Quantum.
The complaint sought to enforce petitioner’s exclusive right to operate a condotel at the BSA Tower and to enjoin Quantum from its condotel operations.
On July 11, 2011, the injunction court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, permanently enjoining Quantum and awarding attorney’s fees.
This decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 2, 2013, and eventually by the Supreme Court in a January 29, 2014 Resolution.
A writ of execution was issued on May 19, 2014, with Sheriff Nicanor A. De Ramos making a return on May 30, 2014 noting that Quantum had been replaced by Vander Build RE Holding Corporation as the condotel operator.

On June 4, 2014, petitioner filed a Petition [To Cite In Contempt] before the RTC, alleging that Quantum, Vander Build RE Holdings Corporation, Juaquin Mercado, and respondent BSATCC conspired to violate the final and executory decision and the writ of execution issued by the injunction court.
Respondent BSATCC filed a Special Appearance with a Motion to Dismiss the petition on several grounds, including:

Lack of jurisdiction over its person by the RTC Branch 211.
Not being impleaded as a party in the earlier injunction case and thus not bound by its decision and writ.
Absence of any contemptuous act on its part.
Not being covered by the commands contained in the writ of execution.
No act of disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, process, order, or judgment.

The RTC, in an Order dated December 17, 2014, denied respondent BSATCC’s motion to dismiss, deciding to allow the parties to prove their claims.
The RTC subsequently denied respondent BSATCC’s motion for reconsideration on January 28, 2015.

Respondent BSATCC elevated the matter to the CA, arguing grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction in denying its motion to dismiss.
On January 8, 2018, the CA set aside the RTC Order and dismissed the Petition [To Cite In Contempt] against respondent BSATCC, holding that:

The injunction case was instituted solely against Quantum, and respondent BSATCC was never properly impleaded.
An injunction suit, being in personam, binds only those parties who are either properly named or given an opportunity to be heard.
Respondent BSATCC, not being bound by the injunction court’s decision and subsequent writ, could not be found guilty of indirect contempt.

Petitioner SFSRC filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the CA, which was denied by the Resolution dated March 26, 2018.
Further, the pending appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 42808 was dismissed on December 13, 2019, and the alleged issues of forum shopping were raised by respondent BSATCC in a subsequent motion.

While the instant petition originated from respondent BSATCC’s motion to dismiss the contempt petition, the contempt court had already dismissed the contempt petition on the merits in its November 28, 2018 Order.
The CA later affirmed the contempt court’s dismissal, noting that Quantum had complied with the injunction and that BSATCC, Vanderbuild, and Mercado, not being parties to the original injunction suit, were not bound by its orders.
On petition for review on certiorari, petitioner SFSRC contended that respondent BSATCC might still be liable for indirect contempt.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the case was moot due to the finality and executory nature of the previous contempt dismissal, and that respondent BSATCC was not bound by the injunction court’s order.

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the contempt petition against respondent BSATCC on the ground that it was not impleaded as a party in the original injunction suit.
Whether respondent BSATCC could be held liable for indirect contempt for allegedly conspiring with Quantum and Vanderbuild in violating the injunction court’s decision and writ of execution, despite not being a party to the injunction case.
Whether the contention of forum shopping by petitioner SFSRC undermines the validity of the relief sought in the instant petition, given that the issues in the previous appeal and the current petition are different.