G.R. No. 221781 - ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Revillame

Case Summary (G.R. No. 221781)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Relevant contract: Agreement dated September 11, 2008 (term until September 10, 2011, subject to earlier termination). Critical procedural events: May–August 2010 incidents and withdrawals; filing of rescission and damages action August 23, 2010 (Civil Case No. Q‑10‑67770); TRO application and bond posting October 2010; motions and orders through 2011–2013; appellate rulings through 2017; Supreme Court resolution April 17, 2023. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is 2023). Governing rules: Rules of Court, in particular Section 5, Rule 7 (certification against forum shopping) and doctrines on res judicata, conclusiveness of judgment, and mootness.

Facts and Origins of the Dispute

ABS‑CBN engaged Revillame to host the program “Wowowee” under a three‑year talent agreement. In May 2010 Revillame publicly demanded the dismissal of an ABS‑CBN talent, threatened to resign, and subsequently ceased hosting for a period and sought release; ABS‑CBN suspended him and later replaced the program. Revillame publicly declared rescission of the contract in August 2010 and filed a rescission and damages action (Civil Case No. Q‑10‑67770). ABS‑CBN answered with compulsory counterclaims and later filed an amended answer alleging substantial liquidated damages. ABS‑CBN also sought injunctive relief to restrain Revillame from appearing on TV5’s “Willing Willie”; the RTC denied the TRO but required Revillame to post a bond as security for potential damages. Revillame posted a surety bond through Asia Insurance Philippines (AIPC).

Parallel Proceedings and the Bond Examination Motion

While the rescission case proceeded, ABS‑CBN filed a separate Copyright Infringement complaint in RTC‑Makati against Revillame, ABC Corporation, and others (Civil Case No. 10‑1155). ABS‑CBN later sought judicial examination of Revillame’s signatures on the AIPC bond (Motion for Examination filed February 4, 2011) after suspecting falsified signatures. The RTC‑Quezon City, Branch 217 issued successive orders (March 25, May 19, and August 22, 2011) authorizing ABS‑CBN to examine the signatures under specified conditions and later conditioning the examination on the finality of the Amended Order.

RTC Orders and Their Modifications

The March 25, 2011 order allowed ABS‑CBN and law‑enforcement representatives to examine signatures within specified limits. A May 19, 2011 order denied reconsideration but modified the dispositive paragraph to require ABS‑CBN representatives to conduct the examination in the presence of Revillame’s representatives and the Branch Clerk, and to do so immediately upon notice. On August 22, 2011, the RTC further amended the order to provide that the examination be made when that Amended Order attained finality, among other clarifications. These Examination Orders were the subject of subsequent petitions.

Court of Appeals Decisions on Multiple Petitions

Three separate petitions reached the Court of Appeals: (1) Revillame’s petition (CA‑G.R. SP No. 122086) challenging the Examination Orders was dismissed by the CA as moot (May 22, 2015), the CA noting recall of the Amended Order by RTC Branch 76 and changed circumstances; (2) ABS‑CBN’s petition (CA‑G.R. SP No. 122154) contesting the timing and issuance of the Amended Order was dismissed (July 26, 2013) for failure to show a legal issue or grave abuse of discretion and for procedural infirmities; and (3) ABS‑CBN’s appeal (CA‑G.R. CV No. 100369) challenging the dismissal of its compulsory counterclaims in the RTC‑QC Branch 76 was granted by the CA (May 30, 2017), which partially reversed the RTC and reinstated ABS‑CBN’s compulsory counterclaims.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petitions to the Supreme Court raised, respectively: (a) whether the CA erred in dismissing Revillame’s petition as moot and in refusing to decide the merits; (b) whether ABS‑CBN was required to file a motion for reconsideration before seeking certiorari, whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion by conditioning ABS‑CBN’s right to examine the bond on the finality of the Amended Order, and whether Revillame’s admission of authorship of the signatures negated the need for examination; and (c) whether ABS‑CBN’s compulsory counterclaims were properly dismissed by the RTC as penalty for forum shopping and whether the CA’s reinstatement of those counterclaims was proper.

Supreme Court’s Disposition—Overview

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by ABS‑CBN (G.R. Nos. 221781 and 225095) and partially granted Revillame’s petition (G.R. No. 236167). The Court affirmed that ABS‑CBN’s compulsory counterclaims in Civil Case No. Q‑10‑67770 are dismissed with prejudice because ABS‑CBN engaged in deliberate and willful forum shopping when it filed the separate copyright infringement complaint while counterclaims based on the same operative facts were pending in the rescission case. The Court also held that the challenges concerning examination of the AIPC bond and signatures are moot and academic because the bond has been discharged by RTC Branch 76.

Res judicata and Conclusiveness of Judgment Principles Applied

The Court applied settled doctrines of res judicata, particularly the concept of conclusiveness of judgment: when an issue has been actually and directly resolved in a former suit between the same parties, it cannot be relitigated in a subsequent case even if the later suit involves a different cause of action. The Court relied on Heirs of Mampo v. Morada and Ley Construction & Development Corp. to articulate that conclusiveness of judgment requires identity of parties and identity of subject matter (or identity of issues), not necessarily identity of causes of action.

Forum Shopping Rule and Its Consequences

Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, certification against forum shopping is mandatory, and deliberate and willful forum shopping is ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and may trigger contempt or administrative sanctions. The Court emphasized that dismissal of all cases involved is a punitive measure to prevent litigants from seeking the same relief in multiple fora and to prevent contradictory judgments and docket congestion.

Application of Forum Shopping Doctrine to the Present Facts

The Court found that ABS‑CBN’s filing of the copyright infringement complaint in RTC‑Makati after being denied a TRO in the rescission action and while its counterclaims were pending constituted deliberate and willful forum shopping. ABS‑CBN sought the same relief (to enjoin and obtain damages for alleged violations of the talent agreement) in different tribunals, apparently to obtain a favorable outcome after an earlier denial. Given the deliberate nature, the Court determined dismissal of ABS‑CBN’s compulsory counterclaims in the rescission case was

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221781)

Court and Dockets

Three consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 221781, G.R. No. 225095, and G.R. No. 236167, all decided together by the Third Division on April 17, 2023.
Parties and titles as reflected in the source:
- G.R. No. 221781 — ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN), petitioner, vs. Willie B. Revillame, respondent.
- G.R. No. 225095 — ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN), petitioner, vs. Willie B. Revillame and ABC Development Corp. (ABC Corporation), respondents.
- G.R. No. 236167 — Willie B. Revillame, petitioner, vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and ABC Development Corp., respondents.
Decision of the Supreme Court penned by Justice Singh, with concurrence by Justices Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Zalameda, and Gaerlan; an additional member was designated per raffle due to recusal (Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao).

Procedural Posture (high-level)

The petitions arise from multiple proceedings in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) — primarily Civil Case No. Q-10-67770 (Rescission and Damages Case) — and from related proceedings including a Complaint for Copyright Infringement filed before the RTC-Makati, Branch 66 (Civil Case No. 10-1155).
The Court of Appeals (CA) issued three material rulings at issue in the petitions:
- CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 122086 (challenging RTC Branch 217 Examination Orders) — dismissed as moot (May 22, 2015; motion for reconsideration denied Dec. 2, 2015).
- CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 122154 (challenging same Examination Orders by ABS-CBN) — dismissed (July 26, 2013; motion for reconsideration denied July 13, 2016).
- CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 100369 (appeal from RTC Branch 76 orders dismissing ABS-CBN's compulsory counterclaims) — CA reinstated ABS-CBN's compulsory counterclaims (May 30, 2017; res. Nov. 27, 2017).
Supreme Court’s dispositive rulings: Petitions in G.R. Nos. 221781 and 225095 dismissed; petition in G.R. No. 236167 partly granted — CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 100369 reversed insofar as it reinstated ABS-CBN's compulsory counterclaims, which were declared dismissed with prejudice.

Material Facts (chronology and key factual details)

September 11, 2008: ABS-CBN and Willie B. Revillame entered into a Talent Agreement for Revillame to host "Wowowee" for three years (Sept. 11, 2008–Sept. 10, 2011), subject to cancellation/earlier termination under specified grounds.
May 4, 2010: On a live "Wowowee" episode, Revillame publicly demanded ABS-CBN fire talent Jobert Sucaldito for criticizing "Wowowee," threatening resignation if ABS-CBN did not comply.
May 5–24, 2010: Revillame withdrew from hosting; subsequently requested release from ABS-CBN; ABS-CBN instead suspended him for three months without pay.
July 26, 2010: ABS-CBN informed Revillame it was replacing "Wowowee" and offered him a one-hour weekly show.
August 9, 2010: Revillame announced he rescinded the Agreement for breach due to cancellation/early termination; announced rescission publicly at a press conference the same date.
August 16, 2010: ABS-CBN notified rival networks that Revillame's rescission was ineffectual and advised them to refrain from contracting with him.
August 23, 2010: Revillame filed Civil Case No. Q-10-67770 (Rescission and Damages) before RTC-Quezon City, Branch 84 seeking judicial confirmation of rescission and damages.
Sept. 15, 2010: ABS-CBN filed Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims in Civil Case No. Q-10-67770.
Nov. 10, 2010: ABS-CBN filed an Amended Answer praying for liquidated damages of P707,670,587.84, plus P426,917,646.96 for each further violation or week of violation.
Oct. 4, 2010: Reports surfaced that Revillame would work with TV5 (owned by ABC Development Corp.); ABS-CBN filed a Verified Application/Motion for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to prevent Revillame from performing on TV5's "Willing Willie."
Oct. 22, 2010: RTC-Quezon City, Branch 84 denied ABS-CBN’s TRO application for lack of merit but ordered Revillame to post a bond of P426,917,646.96 as security for potential damages.
Oct. 27–28, 2010: Revillame filed compliance and posted a surety bond — Asia Insurance Philippines (AIPC) Bond No. G(16)-09314/NSMKT2 — which the RTC approved.
Nov. 3, 2010: ABS-CBN, on receiving a copy of the compliance, observed that Revillame’s signatures on the bond appeared falsified and unlike his known signatures.
Nov. 9, 2010: ABS-CBN filed a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition; the presiding judge granted inhibition and the case was re-affraffled to RTC-Quezon City, Branch 217.
Nov. 24, 2010: ABS-CBN filed a Complaint for Copyright Infringement (Civil Case No. 10-1155) before RTC-Makati, Branch 66, naming Revillame, ABC Corporation, Ray Espinosa, and Wilproductions, Inc.
Feb. 4, 2011: ABS-CBN filed a Motion in RTC-Quezon City, Branch 217 to examine AIPC Bond No. G(16)-09314/NSMKT2 and the Joint Declaration to determine the authenticity of Revillame’s signatures; Revillame opposed, citing lack of notice and irrelevance, and attached an affidavit attesting to signature authenticity.

RTC Orders (Branch 217 and Branch 76)

RTC-Quezon City, Branch 217 — March 25, 2011 Order (granted examination of signatures with conditions):
- Examination to be conducted by two representatives of defendant from NBI or PNP, two representatives of plaintiff, in presence of Branch Clerk of Court.
- Examination to be completed in one working day in the Court's Office.
- Examination within ten days from receipt unless restrained by other courts.
RTC-Quezon City, Branch 217 — May 19, 2011 Order (denying reconsideration and modifying March 25 Order):
- Examination to be made by two representatives of ABS-CBN in presence of two representatives of Revillame and the Branch Clerk of Court.
- Examination to be made immediately upon receipt of the Order and with notice to the plaintiff and the Court.
- Examination in the Office of the Court.
RTC-Quezon City, Branch 217 — August 22, 2011 Amended Order (further amended dispositive portion):
- Examination of signature to be made by two representatives of ABS-CBN in the presence of two representatives of Revillame and the Branch Clerk.
- Examination to be made when the Amended Order attains finality, and with notice to the plaintiff and the Court.
- Examination to be made in the Office of the Court.
RTC-Quezon City, Branch 76 — September 7, 2012 Order (following motions to dismiss and omnibus motion):
- Declared moot various scheduled injunction hearings.
- Dismissed ABS-CBN's application for preliminary injunction.
- Discharged AIPC Bond No. G(16)-09314/NSMKT2 posted by Revillame.
- Recalled the August 22, 2011 Amended Order.
- Granted ABC Development Corporation's Motion to Dismiss.
- Denied ABS-CBN's Motion for Reconsideration from Order dated Aug. 24, 2011.
- Proceedings suspended pending finality of CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 117063.

Court of Appeals Rulings (three CA rulings at issue)

CA-G.R. SP No. 122086 (Revillame’s Rule 65 petition attacking Examination Orders) — May 22, 2015 Decision:
- Dismissed the petition on ground of mootness; court declined jurisdiction because the RTC-Quezon City, Branch 76 had recalled the August 22, 2011 Amended Order and Bond issues were moot.
- CA took judicial notice that Revillame’s contract with TV5 had expired and that on March 20, 2015 he signed with GMA for "Wowowin"; thus nothing further to review.
- Motion for reconsideration denied Dec. 2, 2015.
CA-G.R. SP No. 122154 (ABS-CBN's Rule 65 petition attacking Examination Orders) — July 26, 2013 Decision:
- Dismissed the petition and affirmed the Amended Order dated Aug. 22, 2011.
- Held ABS-CBN's direct recourse to the CA via Rule 65 without first filing a motion for reconsideration unjustified.
- Found the petition failed to raise a legal issue or show due process violation; the true issue was timing, not ABS-CBN’s inherent right to examine the bond.
- Noted Revillame admitted signing the bond, constituting an implied admission of genuineness and due execution, undermining ABS-CBN’s concern the bond was spurious.
- Motion for reconsideration denied July 13, 20