G.R. No. 208393 - City of Taguig vs. City of Makati

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208393)

Petitioner’s substantive claim and RTC judgment

Taguig filed a territorial-dispute complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. 63896) asserting title and jurisdiction over specific areas in Fort Bonifacio (Parcels 3 and 4, PSU‑2031) and the EMBOs. The Regional Trial Court (Judge Ygaña) rendered a decision dated July 8, 2011 in Taguig’s favor, confirming those parcels as part of Taguig, declaring Proclamations No. 2475 (1986) and No. 518 (1990) unconstitutional insofar as they altered Taguig’s boundaries without plebiscite, and making a prior writ of preliminary injunction permanent.

Respondent’s procedural attacks and parallel remedies

Makati filed (a) a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 120495) on July 28, 2011, alleging the July 8, 2011 judgment was void because it was promulgated by a judge who had already retired, and (b) a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam in the RTC dated the same day and later a Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelam (docketed CA‑G.R. CV No. 98377). Makati’s Rule 47 petition contained a verification and a certification of non‑forum shopping signed by the Mayor of Makati.

Factual points relevant to the jurisdictional allegation

Makati’s Rule 47 petition recounted that on July 12, 2011—after the judge’s retirement—its counsel requested certification from the Branch Clerk of Court regarding whether a decision had been promulgated; the Clerk issued a certification indicating a draft decision existed as of July 8, 2011 but remained under review. Makati received a copy of the July 8, 2011 decision on July 13, 2011 and protested its validity based on the Clerk’s certification.

Court of Appeals and RTC treatment of Makati’s dual remedies

Taguig moved to dismiss Makati’s Rule 47 petition, arguing procedural defects (failure to satisfy Rule 47 prerequisites), prematurity because an RTC motion for reconsideration was pending, and forum shopping. The RTC (Judge Suarez) denied Makati’s motion for reconsideration (December 19, 2011) and, in a February 13, 2012 order, affirmed the July 8, 2011 decision’s findings. The Court of Appeals initially denied Taguig’s motion to dismiss (May 16, 2012), then—after reconsideration—dismissed Makati’s Rule 47 petition on grounds of being functus officio/moot, premature, and forum shopping (December 18, 2012). Thereafter the Court of Appeals vacillated: in its April 30, 2013 resolution it denied Makati’s motion for reconsideration, abandoned the determinations that Makati committed forum shopping and that the petition was functus/moot, but held the petition premature; on Taguig’s Motion for Clarification the Court issued a July 25, 2013 resolution clarifying that the pending appeal rendered the petition moot and academic, but did not expressly resolve the forum‑shopping charge.

Legal issue presented to the Supreme Court

Whether Makati engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing a Rule 47 Petition for Annulment of Judgment in the Court of Appeals and a Motion for Reconsideration (and later appeal) in the RTC and Court of Appeals; and, if so, whether sanctions (including contempt fines) should be imposed on the counsel responsible.

Applicable law and governing principles (1987 Constitution as the constitutional basis)

Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Civil Procedure: certification against forum shopping, consequences of submission of false certification, and sanctions for willful and deliberate forum shopping (summary dismissal with prejudice, direct contempt, administrative sanctions).
Rule 47 (Annulment of Judgments): governs petitions to annul final and executory RTC judgments where ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner; effect of judgment of annulment is to render the questioned judgment null and void and permit refiling.
Rule 37 (New Trial or Reconsideration) and Rule 15 (Omnibus motion), Rule 9 Section 1 (defenses and exceptions not waived): permits a motion for reconsideration within the appeal period and preserves certain defenses (including lack of jurisdiction) from being deemed waived.
Rule 65 (Certiorari) jurisprudence on availability of extraordinary relief for jurisdictional excesses.
Rule 71, Section 1: penalties for direct contempt (imprisonment up to 10 days and/or fine up to P2,000).
Jurisprudential tests and precedents cited and applied: definitions and rationales from Top Rate Construction, First Philippine International Bank, Ley Construction, Tiu, Nazareno, Alaban, Yap v. Chua, and others concerning forum shopping, litis pendentia, res judicata, and the practical‑legal‑effect test.

Legal standard for forum shopping and related doctrines

Forum shopping occurs when a party institutes two or more actions in different fora—simultaneously or successively—seeking rulings on the same or related causes or substantially the same reliefs to increase chances of a favorable result, causing vexation and potential conflicting decisions. The functional test is whether there is identity of parties (or representative interests), identity of rights or causes of action, and identity or such similarity of reliefs that judgment in one case would be res judicata in the other. Litis pendentia and res judicata have well‑established requisites; moreover, courts look to the practical legal effect of coexisting remedies (i.e., whether different procedural vehicles would, in substance, accomplish the same outcome).

Court’s analysis of the remedies Makati invoked

The Court examined the nature and purpose of Rule 47 petitions vis‑à‑vis motions for reconsideration/appeals. Rule 47 is available to attack final and executory RTC judgments on narrow grounds (extrinsic fraud; lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process) where ordinary remedies are no longer available. Motions for reconsideration and appeals, governed by Rule 37 and related provisions, can raise lack of jurisdiction and may directly result in immediate amended judgments or reversal. The Court emphasized that lack of jurisdiction may be raised in a motion for reconsideration or in an appeal and need not be pursued exclusively via Rule 47. The Court relied on Ley Construction to stress that a litigant cannot select different remedies in separate fora if they will, in practical effect, accomplish the same relief; similarly, Nazareno and Tiu were distinguished because those cases involved petitions properly pursued in contexts where the extraordinary remedy was not employed contemporaneously with ordinary remedies in a way that produced conflicting or duplicative proceedings.

Application of the legal standard to the facts

Makati pursued a Rule 47 petition in the Court of Appeals while simultaneously pursuing a Motion for Reconsideration (and subsequently an appeal ad cautelam) at the RTC/Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court found the identity of parties and the practical equivalence of the reliefs sought: each procedure aimed ultimately at setting aside the July 8, 2011 decision and securing relief favorable to Makati. The Court rejected Makati’s formalistic distinction that Rule 47 attacked jurisdiction while the motion/appeal addressed merits, concluding that jurisdictional objections could properly be and were available in the ordinary remedies and that pursuit of both avenues simultaneously created the very vexation and risk of conflicting rulings that the rule against forum shopping seeks to avoid.

Assessment of precedents relied upon by parties

While Makati invoked Tiu and Nazareno to argue Rule 47 may be used without exhausting ordinary remedies where a judgment is void, the Court distinguished those cases on facts and timing: Tiu involved a Rule 47

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 208393)

Facts of the Case

On November 22, 1993, the Municipality (now City) of Taguig filed a Complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for judicial confirmation of territory and boundary limits, and for declaration of invalidity of Proclamations Nos. 2475 (1986) and 518 (1990), with prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 63896 and raffled to Branch 153.
Taguig alleged that the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and Inner Fort (Fort Bonifacio Parcels 3 and 4, PSU-2031) were within Taguig’s territory and jurisdiction.
On July 8, 2011, Judge Briccio C. Ygaña rendered a Decision in favor of Taguig, confirming Parcels 3 and 4 as part of Taguig’s territory, declaring Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518 unconstitutional and invalid insofar as they altered Taguig’s boundaries without plebiscite, making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining DENR, LMB and Makati from certain acts, and ordering defendants to pay costs.
Makati filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure with the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 28, 2011 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 120495), alleging the July 8, 2011 RTC Decision was rendered without jurisdiction and in violation of due process because Judge Ygaña had retired and the Decision was antedated.
Makati alleged its counsels (Atty. Pio Kenneth I. Dasal, Atty. Glenda Isabel L. Biason, Atty. Gwyn Gareth T. Mariano) visited Branch 153 on July 12, 2011, found no promulgated Decision in the clerk’s records, requested and obtained a Certification from Branch Clerk Atty. Jerome T. Victor dated July 12, 2011 stating the draft decision was finished on July 8, 2011 but still under review by Judge Ygaña.
Makati received a copy of the July 8, 2011 Decision on July 13, 2011 “under protest” (registry return receipt annotated by counsel Pio Kenneth I. Dasal).
Makati also filed, dated July 28, 2011, a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam with the RTC (Branch 153).
Taguig filed a Motion to Dismiss Makati’s Rule 47 Petition (Aug. 8, 2011) asserting defects including failure to comply with Rule 47 prerequisites, prematurity because a Motion for Reconsideration was pending in the RTC, absence of certification of non‑forum shopping, and forum shopping for pursuing Rule 47 petition and RTC motion simultaneously.
Makati filed comments, invoked authority (Tiu, Nazareno) to argue that judgments rendered without jurisdiction are void and may be assailed anytime, and attached a verification and certificate of non‑forum shopping signed by Makati’s Mayor.

Procedural History in the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals

Pairing Judge Leili Cruz Suarez assumed Branch 153 and on December 19, 2011 denied Makati’s Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam.
On February 13, 2012, Judge Suarez (in an order on Taguig’s motion for clarification) stated the findings and conclusions in the July 8, 2011 Decision were in order.
Makati filed a Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelam dated January 3, 2012 (docketed CA‑G.R. CV No. 98377) and filed its appellant’s brief (Oct. 5, 2012).
In the CA: May 16, 2012 Resolution denied Taguig’s Motion to Dismiss Makati’s Rule 47 petition; Dec. 18, 2012 Resolution granted Taguig’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed Makati’s Rule 47 petition on grounds of being functus officio/moot, premature, and for forum shopping; Makati moved for reconsideration of the CA’s Dec. 18, 2012 Resolution.
In the CA’s April 30, 2013 Resolution, the CA denied Makati’s motion for reconsideration, abandoned its prior conclusions that the Rule 47 petition was functus officio/moot and that Makati engaged in forum shopping, but held the Rule 47 petition was premature because an appeal ad cautelam remained pending.
Taguig filed a Motion for Clarification asking the CA to state explicitly that Makati committed forum shopping and that the petition was mooted by the RTC subsequent orders; the CA responded by a July 25, 2013 Resolution interpreting "unnecessary and/or premature" to mean the appeal pending in the Sixth Division rendered the Rule 47 petition moot/academic, and the CA did not pronounce on forum shopping in that clarification.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether respondent City of Makati engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing a Rule 47 Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals and a Motion for Reconsideration (and later an appeal ad cautelam) before the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, and if so, whether sanctions for willful and deliberate forum shopping should be imposed on the persons liable.

Legal Rules and Doctrines Applied

Rule 7, Section 5, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: requires certification against forum shopping to be appended to initiatory pleadings and prescribes consequences for failure and for willful and deliberate forum shopping (dismissal, indirect or direct contempt, administrative or criminal action, summary dismissal with prejudice as ground for direct contempt and administrative sanctions).
Rule 47, Section 1 and Section 7 (Annulment of Judgments): Rule 47 governs annulment by the CA of judgments/final orders of RTCs where ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner; remedies by annulment are based only on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction/denial of due process; Section 7 provides that a judgment of annulment renders the questioned judgment null and void and permits renewal of litigation.
Rule 37 (New Trial or Reconsideration), Sections 1–3 and Section 2: Governs motions for new trial or reconsideration within period for appeal; grounds include insufficient evidence, judgment contrary to law, or excessive damages; grant of motion effects an amended judgment that supersedes the original.
Rule 15, Section 8 (Omnibus Motion Rule): requires a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding to include all objections then available; Rule 9, Section 1 exceptions (lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, prescription) are not waived if not incl