G.R. No. 170924 - Pulido vs. Abu

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170924)

Facts and Procedural Background

On July 27, 2003, 321 junior AFP officers and enlisted personnel, including Gonzales and Mesa, occupied Oakwood, disarmed security, and planted explosives, denouncing President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s administration. President Arroyo declared a state of rebellion and authorized AFP and PNP forces to suppress the mutiny. After negotiations, the mutineers returned to barracks. Gonzales and Mesa were taken into custody per AFP directives, discharged from service on December 8, 2003, and charged in the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) with Coup D'etat under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code.

Detention Orders and Bail Proceedings

The RTC committed Gonzales and Mesa to military custody initially. In 2004, the RTC consolidated their case with a related criminal case and later allowed them to post bail amounting to ₱100,000 each. Despite this, Gonzales and Mesa were not immediately released due to pending motions for reconsideration filed by the People of the Philippines and intervention by prosecutors. The RTC eventually ordered their release, but custody transfers delayed actual release.

Petition for Certiorari and Habeas Corpus

The People filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the RTC’s bail order as allegedly issued without jurisdiction. This petition was assigned to the CA’s Seventh Division but no temporary restraining order was issued. Meanwhile, Pulido filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the CA Third Division, demanding immediate release of Gonzales and Mesa on the basis that they were no longer subject to military law and had been granted bail and release orders by the RTC.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA Third Division issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus but later dismissed the petition on September 12, 2005, citing a violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, which requires certification against forum shopping. The CA found that Pulido’s petition failed to disclose the pending Petition for Certiorari (addressing the same bail order) before the CA Seventh Division, constituting deliberate concealment of material facts. The CA held that both actions sought the same ultimate relief—the release of Gonzales and Mesa—which constituted forum shopping. Consequently, the Court censured Pulido for this violation.

Issues Raised by Petitioner on Appeal

Pulido contended that:

The CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Habeas Corpus solely on the grounds of forum shopping.
The nature of the habeas corpus action was distinct and should have been considered independently.
The penalty of censure was excessive and unwarranted.
The CA failed to address the legality of the continued detention of Gonzales and Mesa on the merits.

Withdrawal of Prayer for Immediate Release and Mootness

Before respondents could comment, Pulido filed a motion to withdraw the prayer for the immediate release of Gonzales and Mesa, citing that the Philippine Marines’ Commanding General had ordered their release and surrender to the RTC, thus granting them temporary liberty. The Solicitor General argued that with their release, the habeas corpus petition became moot and academic, as there was no longer an actual controversy.

Court’s Ruling on Mootness and Forum Shopping

The Supreme Court agreed that the release rendered the habeas corpus petition moot, and courts need not decide moot questions without practical value. The Court limited its review to whether Pulido was guilty of forum shopping and whether he should be penalized for failing to disclose the pending certiorari action.

The Court affirmed the CA’s ruling on forum shopping, stating that:

Forum shopping involves filing multiple cases for the same relief in different courts or tribunals, often to obtain a favorable outcome.
The elements of litis pendentia—identity of parties, identical subject matter and reliefs, and the same cause of action such that a decision in one case is res judicata in the other—were present.
Both cases sought the same relief: the release of Gonzales and Mesa, based on the same RTC order granting bail.
Pulido deliberately omitted mentioning the pending certiorari petition before the CA Seventh Division from his certification, violating the mandatory requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. This omission was a willful act amounting to forum shopping.

The Court emphasized that:

Petitioner’s failure to disclose the pending certiorari petition undermined the integrity of the judicial process.
The proper remedy for questions regarding immediate release while the certiorari was pending was through the RTC or the CA Seventh Division, not a separate habeas corpus petition.
Concurrent parallel proceedings contesting the same relief in separate fora undermine judicial efficiency and invite conflicting rulings.

Conclusion and Final Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the Petition for Habeas Corpus on the ground of forum shopping and upheld the imposition of a censure penalty on Pulido. The Court noted the absence of an actual case or controversy due

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 170924)

Parties and Procedural History

Petitioners: Roberto Rafael Pulido, acting on behalf of enlisted military personnel Cezari Gonzales and Julius Mesa.
Respondents: Gen. Efren Abu, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Gen. Ernesto De Leon, Flag Officer in Command of the Philippine Navy, and all acting in their official capacities.
Origin: Petition for Habeas Corpus filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking release of Gonzales and Mesa.
The CA dismissed the petition on grounds of forum shopping and imposed a penalty of censure on the petitioner.
Petitioner sought review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision and censure.
Subsequent events included withdrawal of prayer for immediate release due to actual release of Gonzales and Mesa, rendering the Petition moot.
The remaining issues before the Supreme Court concern the existence of forum shopping and the propriety of sanctions against the petitioner.

Factual Background

On July 27, 2003, 321 junior officers and enlisted AFP personnel occupied Oakwood Premiere Luxury Apartments in Makati, disarming its security and planting explosives.
They publicly aired grievances and withdrew support from President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, demanding her and her cabinet’s resignation.
President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427, declaring a “state of rebellion,” and General Order No. 4 directing suppression.
The mutiny ended after negotiations with the soldiers agreeing to return to barracks.
Among the mutineers were Gonzales and Mesa, who were detained but not charged before a court martial.
Instead, they were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Makati City with coup d’état under the Revised Penal Code.

Custody and Legal Proceedings Against Gonzales and Mesa

Following the mutiny, AFP Chief of Staff issued directives for custody of involved personnel; Gonzales and Mesa were placed under custodial authority.
On November 18, 2003, RTC issued commitment orders transferring custody to the Fort San Felipe Naval Base Commanding Officer.
Both were discharged from military service on December 8, 2003.
Their criminal cases were consolidated before RTC Branch 148, Makati City.
Custody changes ensued per RTC orders, eventually placing Gonzales and Mesa under Philippine Marine Brigade Headquarters in Fort Bonifacio.
The RTC granted bail on July 8, 2004, at P100,000 each; both posted bail on July 19, 2004.
Orders for release followed, but Gonzales and Mesa remained detained despite compliance.
The People filed a motion for partial reconsideration against the bail order.
Counsel for prosecution advised deferral of release pending resolution of the reconsideration.
RTC denied the motion on October 26, 2004.

Petition for Certiorari and Habeas Corpus Actions

The People filed before the CA a special civil action for certiorari to annul the RTC bail order, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88440.
The CA Seventh Division ruled dismissing the People’s petition, affirming the bail grant.
Meanwhile, the petitioner Pulido filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus (CA-G.R. SP No