G.R. No. 126322 - Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals under Hon. Urbano C. Victorio, Sr.,
RTC Branch 50, Manila represented by Judge Rodrigo Sy Mendoza,
Samahang Manggagawa ng ArtEx (Samar-Anglo) represented by its local president Rustico Cortez, and
Western Guaranty Corporation.

The case is a petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition.
The dismissal was on the ground of forum shopping and that the proper remedy was an appeal in due course instead of certiorari or mandamus.

Filed a notice of third-party claim with the Labor Arbiter on May 4, 1995.
Submitted an Affidavit of Adverse Claim with the NLRC on July 4, 1995, which was dismissed on August 30, 1995, by the Labor Arbiter.
Filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RCT) of Manila, Branch 49, on October 6, 1995 (Civil Case No. 95-75628); dismissed on October 11, 1995 for lack of merit.
Appealed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal before the NLRC on December 8, 1995.
Filed an original petition for a mandatory injunction with the NLRC on November 16, 1995 (Case No. NLRC-NCR-IC. 0000602-95), which remains pending.
Instituted a complaint in the RCT of Manila (Civil Case No. 95-76395) for recovery of property and damages.

The petitioner asserted ownership of the properties located in the compound and buildings of Artex Development Corporation, properties that were erroneously levied upon by the NLRC Sheriff.
The levy was executed as a consequence of a decision in a labor case (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-02960-90) involving other parties, and petitioner was not a party to that labor dispute.

On March 29, 1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground of forum shopping.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals on April 18, 1996, arguing that:

The complaint for accion reinvindicatoria filed in the RCT was a proper remedy under Section 17 (now 16) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The relief sought in the civil case was distinct and separate from the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC.
Neither the NLRC nor the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over matters concerning property ownership.

The motion for reconsideration was denied on August 27, 1996.
The petitioner eventually elevated the case to the Court of Appeals for review of the decision.

The petitioner sought recovery of the property illegally levied and sold at a public auction by the NLRC Sheriff.
Argued for damages resulting from such wrongful seizure.

Relied on Section 17 (now 16) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Cited related jurisprudence such as Sy v. Discaya, Santos v. Bayhon, and Manliguez v. Court of Appeals, which discuss the availability of remedies for third-party claimants whose property is erroneously subject to execution.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner was guilty of forum shopping.

Consideration: Did the filing of actions in different forums, each raising distinct issues and causes of action, amount to forum shopping?

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner’s accion reinvindicatoria on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court.

Consideration: Is the trial court the proper forum for the recovery of property and damages, given that the petitioner's claim involves a third-party whose property was subject to a mistaken levy?