Sotto V Palicte

G.R. No.
159691 February 17, 2014
HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO, REPRESENTED BY: LOLIBETH SOTTO NOBLE, DANILO C. SOTTO, CRISTINA C. SOTTO,
EMMANUEL C. SOTTO and FILEMON C. SOTTO; and SALVACION BARCELONA, AS HEIR OF DECEASED MIGUEL
BARCELONA, Petitioners,
vs.
MATILDE S. PALICTE, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
BERSAMIN, J.:
We now determine whether or not the petitioners' counsel, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, committed forum shopping.
There is forum shopping "when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or
successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court." Forum shopping is an act of
1
malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. It degrades the
administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets. 2
An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar
cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. 3
The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final
judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present,
namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted
and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any
judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under
consideration.
In our June 13, 2013 decision in this case, we directed Atty. Mahinay to show cause "why he should not be sanctioned as a
4
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for committing a clear violation of the rule prohibiting forum-shopping by aiding his
clients in asserting the same claims at least twice." The directive was called for by the following observations made in the decision,
to wit:
We start this decision by expressing our alarm that this case is the fifth suit to reach the Court dividing the several heirs of the late
Don Filemon Y. Sotto (Filemon) respecting four real properties that had belonged to Filemon’s estate (Estate of Sotto).
The first case (Matilde S. Palicte v. Hon. Jose O. Ramolete, et al., No. L-55076, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 132) held that
herein respondent Matilde S. Palicte (Matilde), one of four declared heirs of Filemon, had validly redeemed the four properties
pursuant to the assailed deed of redemption, and was entitled to have the title over the four properties transferred to her name,
subject to the right of the three other declared heirs to join her in the redemption of the four properties within a period of six months.
The second was the civil case filed by Pascuala against Matilde (Civil Case No. CEB-19338) to annul the former’s waiver of rights,
and to restore her as a co-redemptioner of Matilde with respect to the four properties (G.R. No. 131722, February 4, 1998).
The third was an incident in Civil Case No. R-10027 (that is, the suit brought by the heirs of Carmen Rallos against the Estate of
Sotto) wherein the heirs of Miguel belatedly filed in November 1998 a motion for reconsideration praying that the order issued on
October 5, 1989 be set aside, and that they be still included as Matilde’s co-redemptioners. After the trial court denied their motion
for reconsideration for its lack of merit, the heirs of Miguel elevated the denial to the CA on certiorari and prohibition, but the CA
dismissed their petition and upheld the order issued on October 5, 1989. Thence, the heirs of Miguel came to the Court on certiorari
(G.R. No. 154585), but the Court dismissed their petition for being filed out of time and for lack of merit on September 23, 2002.
The fourth was The Estate of Don Filemon Y. Sotto, represented by its duly designated Administrator, Sixto Sotto Pahang, Jr. v.
Matilde S. Palicte, et al. (G.R. No. 158642, September 22, 2008, 566 SCRA 142), whereby the Court expressly affirmed the ruling
rendered by the probate court in Cebu City in Special Proceedings No. 2706-R entitled Intestate Estate of the Deceased Don
Filemon Sotto denying the administrator’s motion to require Matilde to turn over the four real properties to the Estate of Sotto.
The fifth is this case. It seems that the disposition by the Court of the previous cases did not yet satisfy herein petitioners despite
their being the successors-in-interest of two of the declared heirs of Filemon who had been parties in the previous cases either
directly or in privity. They now pray that the Court undo the decision promulgated on November 29, 2002, whereby the Court of
Appeals (CA) declared their action for the partition of the four properties as already barred by the judgments previously rendered,
and the resolution promulgated on August 5, 2003 denying their motion for reconsideration.
The principal concern here is whether this action for partition should still prosper notwithstanding the earlier rulings favoring
Matilde’s exclusive right over the four properties.

Sotto V Palicte

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sotto V Palicte

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sotto V Palicte

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

159691 February 17, 2014

You might also like