G.R. No. 234812 - Uematsu vs. Balinon

The case is a Petition Review on Certiorari challenging several orders and resolutions rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City (RTC-Tagum) and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 07775-MIN.
The petition challenged the RTC-Tagum Resolution dated August 15, 2016, which found respondent guilty of indirect contempt and ordered the forfeiture of certain co-owned properties in favor of petitioner; it also challenged subsequent orders dated September 6, 2016 and September 28, 2016, as well as the CA’s Resolution dated August 25, 2017 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The genesis of the dispute traces back to a Petition for a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) and a plea for a Temporary Protection Order under Republic Act No. 9262 filed by Alma N. Balinon (respondent) against Masakazu Uematsu (petitioner).
The RTC-Tagum, relying on respondent’s allegations of physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuses committed by petitioner (a common-law spouse and drug dependent), granted the PPO on October 7, 2011 and issued an entry of judgment on November 29, 2011, which later became final and executory.

Nearly three years after the PPO case became final, petitioner initiated a Complaint for the dissolution of co-ownership, partnership, liquidation, and accounting (the Dissolution case) against respondent on July 23, 2014, seeking the winding up, accounting, and eventual distribution of their properties.
While the Dissolution case was pending at the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, petitioner filed a Motion to Account before the RTC-Tagum on June 30, 2015, seeking an order directing respondent to render an accounting of the proceeds of their closed businesses and sold properties.
Despite granting respondent a 15-day extension to file a comment, she failed to do so. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Direct respondent to comply with the court’s previous order, invoking her alleged disobedience.
On December 2, 2015, the RTC-Tagum ordered respondent to explain her non-compliance and set a period for her to render an accounting, warning that her failure to comply would lead to the court admitting the allegations in petitioner’s motion.

On June 8, 2016, petitioner reiterated that respondent continued to be unable to comply, leading to his further motion for resolution.
Eventually, on August 15, 2016, the RTC-Tagum issued a Resolution finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt, imposing a penalty of 15 days imprisonment and a fine of ₱30,000.00, and ordering the forfeiture of the properties listed in petitioner’s Motion to Account.
Respondent moved for reconsideration, which was denied on September 6, 2016. She then filed a notice of appeal, only to have it dismissed in an order dated September 28, 2016 on the ground that the Resolution was interlocutory.
Consequently, respondent advanced a petition for certiorari before the CA, which rendered its Decision on May 23, 2017.

Petitioner contended that he did not commit forum shopping, arguing that his reliefs in the Motion to Account and the Dissolution case were different in nature—the former involving business proceeds and the latter involving community property dissolution and distribution.
Conversely, respondent maintained that filing the Motion to Account alongside the pending Dissolution case constituted forum shopping and an improper attempt to alter an already final and executory judgment, violating the doctrine of immutability of judgments.
Petitioner further argued that the RTC properly found respondent guilty of indirect contempt and that the denial of respondent’s notice of appeal was proper, contesting the CA’s findings.

Whether the RTC-Tagum exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing petitioner’s Motion to Account after the final and executory judgment in the PPO case.
Whether the doctrine of immutability of judgment precludes the alteration of the final PPO judgment through subsequent motions.

Whether petitioner committed forum shopping by pursuing two separate actions (the Dissolution case and the Motion to Account) involving the same parties, facts, and reliefs.
Whether the simultaneous or successive filing of these cases amounted to an abuse of the judicial process by seeking multiple remedies for the same cause of action.

Whether the RTC-Tagum properly initiated indirect contempt proceedings against respondent, especially given the absence of a verified petition as required by law.
Whether the court’s reliance solely on petitioner’s motion satisfied the mandatory procedural requirements for filing an indirect contempt proceeding.

Whether the orders imposing indirect contempt and property forfeiture constitute final judgments, thereby rendering them appealable despite being labeled as interlocutory by the RTC-Tagum.