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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170924)

Material Facts and Chronology

On 27 July 2003, a group of military personnel occupied the Oakwood Apartments and publicly withdrew support from the President. Gonzales and Mesa participated. Following Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, the occupation ended after negotiations. Gonzales and Mesa were placed in military custody pursuant to AFP directives and later charged in RTC Makati with coup d’etat (Criminal Case No. 03-2784). A commitment order (18 November 2003) and various custodial transfers followed. On 8 December 2003 Gonzales and Mesa were discharged from military service. The RTC granted bail for them on 8 July 2004 (P100,000 each) and issued release orders on 20 July 2004, but the soldiers remained in custody pending the People’s motion for partial reconsideration and a subsequent petition for certiorari filed in the CA (Seventh Division, CA-G.R. SP No. 88440) seeking annulment of the RTC’s bail order.

Procedural Posture Before the Court of Appeals

A petition for certiorari by the People (Seventh Division) questioned the RTC’s grant of bail. While that petition was pending, petitioner Pulido filed a petition for habeas corpus in the CA (Third Division) on 22 July 2005 seeking immediate release of Gonzales and Mesa on the basis of the RTC’s release orders. The CA Third Division issued a writ of habeas corpus to produce the bodies. Respondents returned the writ and argued dismissal on two principal grounds: (1) pendency of the certiorari petition before the CA Seventh Division that directly questioned the same bail order; and (2) alleged forum shopping and a false or incomplete certification of non‑forum‑shopping by petitioner.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Rationale

On 12 September 2005 the CA (Third Division) dismissed the habeas corpus petition for violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court (the certification against forum shopping). The CA found that the habeas petition and the certiorari proceeding were essentially two sides of the same coin: both sought the release of Gonzales and Mesa premised on the RTC’s bail order. The CA emphasized that petitioner’s certificate omitted the pending certiorari (SP No. 88440) and that petitioner failed to comply with his undertaking to report pending similar proceedings within five days. The CA concluded that petitioner deliberately withheld material facts and that filing the habeas corpus while the certiorari was pending amounted to forum shopping. The CA additionally imposed a censure on petitioner.

Petition to the Supreme Court and Mootness Issue

Petitioner elevated the CA dismissal and censure to the Supreme Court via Rule 45. Before full briefing, petitioner withdrew the prayer for immediate release, advising the Court that Gonzales and Mesa had been released and surrendered to the RTC pursuant to the RTC’s release orders. The Solicitor General argued that the habeas petition had become moot and academic because the detained persons were released, and thus there was no live controversy to adjudicate as to the legality of detention.

Supreme Court’s Treatment of Mootness and Remaining Issues

The Supreme Court accepted that Gonzales and Mesa’s release rendered the habeas corpus petition moot and therefore refrained from addressing the substantive legality of their detention. The Court limited its review to the remaining justiciable issues: (1) whether petitioner committed forum shopping by filing the habeas corpus despite the pending certiorari; and (2) whether imposition of censure for failure to disclose the pendency of the certiorari was appropriate.

Legal Standard on Forum Shopping and Certification Requirement

The Court applied the established rule against forum shopping and the statutory certification requirement of Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court. Forum shopping exists where a party, after an adverse result or in pursuit of the same relief, seeks another forum other than by appropriate appellate remedy; or institutes multiple proceedings on the same cause hoping for a favorable disposition. The Court invoked the litis pendentia/res judicata yardstick: identity of parties; identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for (founded on same facts); and that adjudication in one action would amount to res judicata in the other. Section 5(c), Rule 7 requires disclosure within five days when a similar action is pending; failure to disclose is sanctionable and may lead to dismissal and other penalties.

Application of the Law to the Record

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s factual and legal analysis: the certiorari and habeas proceedings sought substantially the same relief (release of Gonzales and Mesa on the basis of the RTC’s bail order), involved the same parties in inte

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 170924)

Case Caption and Procedural Posture

Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90546 (Decision dated 12 September 2005; Resolution dated 6 January 2006).
Petitioner before the Supreme Court: Roberto Rafael Pulido, who filed the Petition for Habeas Corpus on behalf of enlisted personnel Cezari Gonzales and Julius Mesa.
Respondents named in the habeas petition and in the writ return: Gen. Efren Abu, as Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines (and all acting in his stead), and Gen. Ernesto De Leon, Flag Officer in Command, Philippine Navy (and all acting in his stead).
Relief sought by petitioner in Supreme Court: reversal and setting aside of the Court of Appeals decision and resolution; immediate release of Gonzales and Mesa; reversal and setting aside of the censure imposed on petitioner.

Facts — Oakwood Occupation and Allegations

On 27 July 2003 at around 1:00 a.m., 321 junior officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines entered and took over Oakwood Premiere Luxury Apartments, Glorietta Complex, Ayala Avenue, Makati City.
The occupying soldiers disarmed security guards, planted explosives in the immediate surroundings, publicly announced grievances against the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, declared withdrawal of support from the Commander-in-Chief (President Arroyo), and demanded her resignation and that of members of her cabinet and top officers of AFP and PNP.
At about 1:00 p.m. on 27 July 2003, President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 declaring a "state of rebellion" and subsequently issued General Order No. 4 directing the AFP and PNP to carry out all reasonable measures, with due regard to constitutional rights, to suppress and quell the "rebellion."
After negotiations, the occupying soldiers agreed to return to barracks, ending the Oakwood occupation.
Among those involved were enlisted Philippine Navy personnel Cezari Gonzales and Julius Mesa, on whose behalf the habeas corpus petition was filed.

Military Custody, Criminal Charges and Court Orders

On 2 August 2003, AFP Chief of Staff Narciso L. Abaya issued a directive to Major Service Commanders and ISAFP regarding custody of military personnel involved in the 27 July 2003 mutiny; on this basis, Gonzales and Mesa were taken into custody by their Service Commander.
Gonzales and Mesa were not charged before a court martial with violation of the Articles of War.
They were charged before Branch 61 of the RTC of Makati City with the crime of Coup D'etat under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code in People v. Capt. Milo D. Maestrecampo, et al., Criminal Case No. 03-2784.
On 18 November 2003, an RTC Commitment Order committed custody of Gonzales and Mesa to the Commanding Officer of Fort San Felipe Naval Base, Cavite City.
On 8 December 2003, Gonzales and Mesa were discharged from military service.
On 16 December 2003, RTC Criminal Case No. 03-2784 was consolidated with Criminal Case No. 03-2678 (People v. Ramon B. Cardenas) before Branch 148 RTC Makati City on grounds of same facts / series of offenses.
Commodore Normando Naval, Commander of Naval Base Cavite, on 3 March 2004 asked Branch 148 RTC to relieve him as custodian and to transfer Gonzales and Mesa to Makati City Jail; on 29 April 2004 the RTC relieved him but ordered transfer instead to Marine Brigade Headquarters, Fort Bonifacio, under custody of the Commander of Marine Brigade.

Bail Proceedings and Release Orders

On 8 July 2004, Branch 148 RTC admitted Gonzales and Mesa and 25 other co-accused to bail, setting bail at P100,000 each.
Gonzales and Mesa posted bail on 19 July 2004.
On 20 July 2004, RTC issued orders directing the Commanding Officer of the Philippine Marine Corps, Fort Bonifacio, to release Gonzales and Mesa from custody.
Despite the RTC release orders, Gonzales and Mesa were not released immediately; the People moved for partial reconsideration of the bail order on 21 July 2004.
Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. ZuAo advised Judge Advocate General Brig. Gen. Manuel F. Llena to defer action on provisional release until resolution and finality of the motion for reconsideration.
On 26 October 2004, the RTC denied the People’s motion for partial reconsideration.

Petition for Certiorari by the People and CA Seventh Division Action

On 4 February 2005, the People filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 with urgent prayer for TRO/writ of preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals seeking nullification and setting aside of RTC orders dated 8 July 2004 and 26 October 2004 for lack/excess or grave abuse of discretion; case docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 88440 (People v. Hon. Oscar B. Pimentel).
The CA Seventh Division did not issue a TRO/preliminary injunction initially.
On 9 September 2005, the CA Seventh Division rendered its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 88440 dismissing the People’s certiorari petition that questioned the granting of bail to Gonzales, Mesa, and 25 co-accused.

Petition for Habeas Corpus (CA Third Division) — Filing, Writ, Return

Because Gonzales and Mesa remained in detention, a Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed by petitioner Pulido on 22 July 2005 before the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 90546, and raffled to the Third Division.
Petitioner’s argument: Gonzales and Mesa, discharged from military service on 8 December 2003 and not charged before a court martial, were not subject to military jurisdiction; military authorities lacked legal ground to continue detention because RTC release orders had been issued.
On 10 August 2005, the CA Third Division issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents to produce Gonzales and Mesa and show cause for their detention.
On 18 August 2005, respondents filed a Return of the Writ.

Respondents’ Grounds in the Return of the Writ

Respondents principally asserted two grounds to dismiss the habeas petition:
- (1) Continued detention justified by pendency of the Petition for Certiorari before the CA Seventh Division (CA-G.R. SP No. 88440) questioning the RTC’s 8 July 2004 bail order; and
- (2) Petitioner engaged in forum shopping by failing to disclose in the habeas petition that the certiorari case was pending before the CA Seventh Division.

Certificate Against Forum Shopping and Allegation of Concealment

The petition contained a certificate of non-forum-shopping in petitioner’s own name stating, under oath, that he had not commenced any action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or other tribunal, and that, to the best of his knowledge, no such action was pending, except for two specified related Supreme Court cases.
The petition did not disclose the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 88440 (the People’s certiorari petition) before the CA Seventh Division, although that certiorari case was pending at the time the habeas petition was filed.
The CA Third Division found that petitioner (who was also counsel for Gonzales and Mesa in the criminal case and represented them as private respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 88440) could not feign ignorance of the pendency and that he deliberately withheld the material fact from the Court of Appeals Third Division.

Court of Appeals (Third Division) Decision Dismissing Petition — Rationale

The CA Third Division dismissed the habeas petition for violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court (certification against forum shopping).
Key reasoning points as set out by the CA Third Division:
- The habeas petition’s primary basis was the RTC grant and posting of bail and the issuance of release orders; petitioner omitted subsequent procedural developments (People’s motion for reconsideration, certiorari petition) that directly affected the effectiveness of the RTC’s bail order.
- The petitioner’s omission created the impression that the bail order was immediately enforceable and that respondents’
...continue reading