G.R. No. 150107 - Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Valdez

Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company Incorporated, a domestic corporation engaged in the insurance business;
Its corporate officers—Alma Peaalosa, Kimio Hosaka, Sumitomi Nishida, and Teresita H. Quiambao;
Antonio B. Lapid, a consultant associated with Tokio Marine.

Jorge Valdez, a former unit manager of Tokio Marine under a Unit Management Contract.

The Unit Management Contract was executed on August 16, 1977, establishing the relationship between respondent and Tokio Marine.
Dispute arose over alleged non-payment of commissions, bonuses, and other benefits due under the contract.

On October 15, 1998, respondent filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Manila (Civil Case No. 98-91356).
Allegations in the complaint:

Respondent also filed an "Urgent Ex Parte Motion For Authority To Litigate As Indigent Plaintiff" which led the trial court to allow him to proceed without paying the docket fee, the amount of which would later form a lien if judgment was rendered in his favor.

December 11, 1998 – Petitioners filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint.
December 17, 1998 – Respondent informed the court of filing various criminal complaints against petitioners with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City.
January 20, 1999 – The trial court issued an Order denying the petitioners’ motions to dismiss.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration by petitioners were also denied.
March 12, 1999 – Petitioners filed an Answer Ad Cautelam in the underlying civil case.

May 24, 1999 – Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court’s January 20, 1999 Order.
October 15, 1999 – The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution ordering the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain further proceedings in the trial court pending the appeal.
December 7, 1999 – Respondent filed an “Urgent Notice of Taking of Deposition Upon Oral Examination” before the Court of Appeals.

Notable factors: respondent was 75 years old and in ill health, raising issues regarding the appropriateness of the deposition.

December 14, 1999 – Respondent’s deposition was taken by a Notary Public (Atty. Alberto A. Aguja) and subsequently filed with the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners later filed a petition for contempt, alleging that the deposition violated the preliminary injunction.

The petitions for review (CA-G.R. SP No. 52914 and CA-G.R. SP No. 56579) were consolidated by the appellate court.
On September 13, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision:

Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing respondent’s complaint for nonpayment of the docket fee.
The sufficiency of respondent’s evidence supporting his claim as an indigent litigant, particularly in regard to the affidavit requirements under Section 19, Rule 141.

Whether respondent engaged in forum shopping by failing to report his filing of separate criminal cases against petitioners in different courts.
Analysis of the adequacy of the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping submitted with respondent’s complaint.

Whether the taking of respondent’s deposition on December 14, 1999, contravened the preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals.
Whether such act constituted indirect contempt of court, considering the procedural safeguards and requirements for charging contempt.

Whether the trial court’s and appellate court’s rulings adhered to the rules governing indigent litigants, proper docket fee payment, and the certification against forum shopping.
The extent to which the appellate court was entitled to defer to the trial court’s findings rather than reweigh the factual evidence anew.