Case Summary (G.R. No. 214526)
Factual and Procedural Background
Inocentes and Raymundo Mampo initially filed a complaint in 2000 before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) seeking recovery of possession of five parcels of land occupied by Nelida and Alex Severo. Paradoxically, their complaint was dismissed but later reversed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in 2008, which ordered respondents to vacate the lands and restore possession to the Mampos’ heirs. The DARAB decision became final and executory in August 2008.
Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued in November 2008 but was recalled upon the filing of a Third-Party Claim by Morada in May 2009. The PARAD granted her claim in 2010, recognizing her as the actual tiller entitled to possession, and ordered respect for her peaceful cultivation of the property. The Heirs of Mampos’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
Jurisdictional Controversy and Subsequent Actions
The heirs moved to DARAB for enforcement of the 2008 decision, which was initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but later granted in 2011. DARAB reinstated the writ of execution and ruled that Morada’s third-party claim was effectively a protest improperly filed, thus lacking jurisdiction. Morada’s motion for reconsideration of this ruling was denied.
Morada then filed two separate actions before the Court of Appeals (CA): a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (filed January 2012) seeking to annul the DARAB 2011 resolution, and a Petition for Review under Rule 43 (filed February 2012) contesting the same resolution. The heirs moved to dismiss both actions based on forum shopping.
Forum Shopping and Court of Appeals Actions
The CA Sixth Division dismissed the Rule 65 petition for certiorari in September 2012, finding that both petitions involved identical parties, issues, and reliefs, constituting a breach of the rule against forum shopping. The dismissal became final and executory in November 2012. However, the CA 12th Division, hearing the Rule 43 petition, proceeded to rule in favor of Morada and nullified the DARAB 2011 resolution, affirming the PARAD's 2010 order allowing Morada’s possession.
Petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the Rule 43 action should have also been dismissed for forum shopping given that Morada had already been found guilty of the act in the Rule 65 action, especially since the issues and parties were substantially the same.
Legal Issue
The central issue is whether the CA erred in nullifying the DARAB resolution and reinstating the PARAD order despite the existence of a prior final and executory dismissal of Morada’s Rule 65 petition for violation of the rule against forum shopping. Specifically, whether the CA should have dismissed the Rule 43 petition for the same reason.
Legal Analysis: Forum Shopping Defined and Proscribed
Forum shopping is defined as the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties or causes of action, either simultaneously or successively, to increase the chance of a favorable decision by trying different courts or modes, contrary to the interest in efficient and fair administration of justice. It is prohibited by Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which requires a certification that no similar pending cases exist and mandates dismissal for violations.
The test for forum shopping considers whether litis pendentia (pending action involving the same cause of action and parties) or res judicata (final judgment on the same case) exists, focusing on the identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. Forum shopping is regarded as a serious abuse warranting dismissal of all actions involved.
Findings on Improper Multiplicity of Actions
The Court found that Morada deliberately filed two separate actions before different divisions of the CA involving the same parties and seeking identical reliefs: the nullification and reversal of the DARAB resolution of 2011, which concerned the DOT ruling on the 2008 land possession award to the Heirs of Mampos. These petitions involved the same fundamental facts and would result in res judicata, hence constituting forum shopping as defined under the Rules.
Morada’s argument that the two proceedings raised different legal issues and involved different sets of parties was rejected. The Court emphasized that substantial identity of parties representing the same interests suffices. Moreover, the reliefs sought in both actions effectively overlapped in preventing the implementation of the DARAB decision awarding the land to the petitioners.
False Certifications and Failure to Observe Undertakings
Morada further violated the rule against forum shopping by submitting false certifications of non-forum shopping in her pleadings—denying having filed related cases while simultaneously failing to notify the courts of the other pending action within the prescribed period.
Such conduct is a separate violation that mandates dismissal of the cases and may constitute direct contempt of court and administrative sanctions. The Court noted that Morada’s counsel, Atty. Godofredo B. Guzman, who filed both petitions and is knowledg
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 214526)
Facts of the Case
- The petitioners are the surviving wives and children (Heirs) of deceased Inocentes Mampo and Raymundo Mampo.
- Inocentes and Raymundo filed a complaint on August 28, 2000, before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for recovery of possession of five parcels of land in Baras, Canaman, Camarines Sur, covered by Emancipation Patents.
- The complaint was initially dismissed by PARAD but reversed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Central Office in a decision dated January 16, 2008, which ordered respondents to vacate the land and restore possession to the Heirs of Mampos.
- The decision of DARAB became final and executory on August 9, 2008. A Writ of Execution was issued on November 14, 2008.
- Josefina Mampo Morada filed a Third-Party Claim on May 7, 2009, which was granted by PARAD in February 26, 2010, ordering respect for her possession and cultivation of the land, and recalling the Writ of Execution.
- PARAD credited Morada’s claim of actual tiller and preferred it over Inocentes’s tenancy claim.
- The Heirs filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by PARAD.
- DARAB initially dismissed Heirs' motion for implementation but on September 19, 2011, DARAB reversed course, reinstated the Writ of Execution, and ruled Morada’s third-party claim to be essentially a protest beyond its jurisdiction.
- Morada’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
- Morada filed two cases before the Court of Appeals (CA): a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari filed on January 6, 2012 (dismissed later for forum shopping) and a Rule 43 Petition for Review filed on February 9, 2012.
- The Heirs filed a Motion to Dismiss both cases for violating the rule against forum shopping.
- The CA Sixth Division dismissed the Rule 65 action for forum shopping on September 28, 2012.
- The CA 12th Division issued a decision on December 20, 2013, granting Morada’s Rule 43 petition and nullifying the DARAB Resolution dated September 19, 2011.
- Petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision primarily for failing to dismiss the Rule 43 petition for forum shopping despite final dismissal of the Rule 65 petition.
Issue
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the DARAB Resolution dated September 19, 2011 and affirming the PARAD Order dated February 26, 2010 despite Morada’s violation of the rule against forum shopping.
- Specifically, whether the CA should also have dismissed Morada’s Rule 43 petition for review pursuant to the rule against forum shopping following the dismissal of her Rule 65 petition.
Ruling
- The Supreme Court found merit in the petition and ruled that the CA erred in failing to dismiss the Rule 43 petition for forum shopping.
- Forum shopping was committed when a party institutes two or more suits involving the same parties and the same cause of action either simultaneously or successively to secure a favorable decision.
- Forum shopping is prohibited because it wastes judicial resources, clogs court dockets, and threatens the proper administration of justice.
- The rule against forum shopping is embodied in Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court requiring certifications of no prior or pending actions involving the same issues.
- The test for forum shopping involves whether litis pendentia or res judicata exist, that is, whether there is identity of parties, causes of action or rights asserted, and reliefs sought.
- Forum shopping can arise from:
- Multiple cases on the same cause and relief while a prior case is pending (lit pendens).
- Multiple cases on the same cause and relief after final judgment (res judicata).
- Filing cases with the same cause but different prayers (splitting causes of action).
- Morada committed forum shopping by filing two actions before different CA divisions (Rule 65 and Rule 43) on practically the same facts and reliefs, resulting in duplication of litigation.
- The CA’s dismissal of the Rule 65 petition for forum shopping became final and executory, conclusi