G.R. No.

216139, November 29, 2017

BERNARDO S. ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. EMMANUEL Z. QUINAN,

JR., EMMANUEL J. QUINAN, SR., EFREM Z. QUINAN AND
EMMA ROSE Q. QUIMBO, Respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before this Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court dated January 16, 2015 of petitioner
Bernardo S. Zamora that seeks to reverse and set aside the
Resolution1 dated July 31, 2014 and Resolution2 dated November 27,
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) granting respondents Emmanuel
Z. Quinan, Jr., Emmanuel J. Quinan, Sr., Efrem Z. Quinan and
Emma Rose Q. Quimbo's motion to dismiss on account of
petitioner's act of forum shopping.

The facts follow.

Petitioner, on June 19 2006, filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of

Title of Real Properties fraudulently obtained with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 19 and docketed as Civil Case No.
CEB-32448 claiming that he is in possession of the original of the
Transfer Certificate of Titles, against respondents, who earlier filed
a Petition for the Issuance of New Duplicate Certificate of Title,
which was granted by the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 9, in a
Resolution dated April 11, 2006.

Pending the resolution of petitioner's complaint, he commenced

another action before the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, on November
4, 2008, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 03830 for the Annulment of
Judgment of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 9, which was dismissed
based on technicalities in a Resolution dated April 22, 2009.

Then, again, on June 5, 2009, petitioner commenced another civil

action before the CA for the Annulment of Judgment of the RTC of
Cebu City, Branch 9, and docketed as CA G.R. SP. No. 04278.

On September 1, 2010, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19 dismissed

Civil Case No. CEB-32448 on the ground of forum shopping.

Thereafter, the respondents filed with the CA a motion to dismiss

CA� G.R. SP. No. 04278 claiming that petitioner has resorted to
forum shopping, which was granted by the CA in its Resolution
dated July 31, 2014, the dispositive portion of which reads, as
follows:
 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the motion to dismiss is
GRANTED. On account of petitioner Zamora's act of forum
shopping, he and his counsel are hereby admonished that a
repetition of this abhorrent act shall be dealt with more
severely.

SO ORDERED.
According to the CA, petitioner committed forum shopping because
there is identity of causes of action, parties and reliefs sought in the
action filed by him for reconveyance of real properties instituted
before the RTC and the petition for annulment of judgment
instituted before the CA.

Thus, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied

by the CA in its Resolution dated November 27, 2014.

Hence, the present petition.

Petitioner assigns the following errors:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CEBU CITY, EIGHTEENTH

(18TH) DIVISION SERIOUSLY AND FATALLY ERRED
IN DISMISSING CA G.R. CEB SP NO. 04278 FOR
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF CEBU CITY, BRANCH 9, ETC. ON MERE
TECHNICALITIES THAT IMPEDED THE CAUSE OF
JUSTICE AND THE PARTIES' RIGHT TO AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

II

THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY AND FATALLY ERRED IN IGNORING

AND DISREGARDING THE JURISPRUDENTIAL RULING IN CAMITAN V.
FIDELITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, 551 SCRA 540, APRIL 16,
2008, WHICH STATES THAT IF AN OWNER'S DUPLICATE COPY OF A
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HAS NOT BEEN LOST BUT IN FACT IN THE
POSSESSION OF ANOTHER PERSON, THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE IS
VOID, AS THE COURT RENDERING THE DECISION NEVER ACQUIRES
JURISDICTION.
It is the contention of petitioner that the CA should have relaxed the
procedural rules so as to give him an opportunity to be heard.
Petitioner further argues and insists that the subject owner's
duplicated copies of transfer certificate of titles are still in his
possession and were never lost as alleged by the respondents and
as such, the reconstituted transfer certificate of titles in the name of
respondents should be declared void because the RTC of Cebu City,
Branch 9 never acquired jurisdiction over the case as held by this
Court in Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation.3

In a Resolution dated March 18, 2015, this Court denied the present
petition for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error in
the challenged resolutions as to warrant the exercise of this Court's
discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration reiterating the

arguments he raised in his petition and, on July 29, 2015, this Court
ordered the respondents to file their comment on the said motion
for reconsideration.

Respondents, in their Comment dated October 2, 2015, insist that

petitioner committed forum shopping.

On January 18, 2016, this Court granted petitioner's motion for

reconsideration and set aside its Resolution dated March 18, 2015.

After careful consideration, this Court finds no merit in the petition.

The rule against forum shopping is embodied in Rule 7, Section 5 of
the Revised Rules of Court:
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in
the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a
claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he
has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if
there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall

not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission
of a false certification or non-compliance with any of
 the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the
party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and
deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for
summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute
direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.
In City of Taguig v. City of Makati,4 this Court was able to
thoroughly discuss the concept of forum shopping through the past
decisions of this Court, thus:
Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton
Development Corporation5 explained that:
Forum shopping is committed by a party who
institutes two or more suits in different
courts, either simultaneously or successively,
in order to ask the courts to rule on the
same or related causes or to grant the same
or substantially the same reliefs, on the
supposition that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition or increase a
party's chances of obtaining a favorable
6
decision or action.
First Philippine International Bank v. Court of
Appeals7 recounted that forum shopping originated as a
concept in private international law:
To begin with, forum-shopping originated as a
concept in private international law, where
non-resident litigants are given the option
to choose the forum or place wherein to bring
their suit for various reasons or excuses,
including to secure procedural advantages, to
annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid
overcrowded dockets, or to select a more
friendly venue. To combat these less than
honorable excuses, the principle of forum
non conveniens was developed whereby a court,
in conflicts of law cases, may refuse
impositions on its jurisdiction where it is
not the most "convenient" or available forum
and the parties are not precluded from
seeking remedies elsewhere.

In this light, Black's Law Dictionary says

that forumï ¿ ½ -shopping "occurs when a party
 attempts to have his action tried in a
particular court or jurisdiction where he
feels he will receive the most favorable
judgment or verdict." Hence, according
to Words and Phrases, "a litigant is open to
the charge of 'forum shopping' whenever he
chooses a forum with slight connection to
factual circumstances surrounding his suit,
and litigants should be encouraged to attempt
to settle their differences without imposing
undue expense and vexatious situations on the
8
courts."
Further, Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank and
Trust Co.9 recounted that:
The rule on forum-shopping was first included
in Section 17 of the Interim Rules and
Guidelines issued by this Court on January 11,
1983, which imposed a sanction in this wise:
"A violation of the rule shall constitute
contempt of court and shall be a cause for
the summary dismissal of both petitions,
without prejudice to the taking of
appropriate action against the counsel or
party concerned." Thereafter, the Court
restated the rule in Revised Circular No. 28-
91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
Ultimately, the rule was embodied in the 1997
10
amendments to the Rules of Court.

Presently, Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
Certification against Forum Shopping be
appended to every complaint or initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief. x x x

x x x x
Though contained in the same provision of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, the rule requiring the inclusion of a
Certification against Forum Shopping is distinct from the
rule against forum shopping. In Korea Exchange Bank v.
Gonzales:11
The general rule is that compliance with the
certificate of forum shopping is separate
from and independent of the avoidance of the
 act of forum shopping itself. Forum shopping
is a ground for summary dismissal of both
initiatory pleadings without prejudice to the
taking of appropriate action against the
counsel or party concerned.12
Top Rate Construction discussed the rationale for the
rule against forum shopping as follows:
It is an act of malpractice for it trifles
with the courts, abuses their processes,
degrades the administration of justice and
adds to the already congested court dockets.
What is critical is the vexation brought upon
the courts and the litigants by a party who
asks different courts to rule on the same or
related causes and grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs and in the
process creates the possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered by the
different fora upon the same issues,
regardless of whether the court in which one
of the suits was brought has no jurisdiction
13
over the action.
Jurisprudence has recognized that forum shopping can be
committed in several ways:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action and with the same prayer, the
previous case not having been resolved yet
(where the ground for dismissal is litis
pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based
on the same cause of action and the same
prayer, the previous case having been finally
resolved (where the ground for dismissal
is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple
cases based on the same cause of action but
with different prayers (splitting of causes
of action, where the ground for dismissal is
also either litis pendentia or res
judicata).14 (Emphasis in the original)
Similarly, it has been recognized that forum shopping
exists "where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary
injunction in another court after failing to obtain the
same from the original court."15
The test for determining forum shopping is settled.
In Yap v. Chua, et al.:16
To determine whether a party violated the
rule against forum shopping, the most
important factor to ask is whether the
elements of litis pendentia are present, or
whether a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another;
otherwise stated, the test for determining
forum shopping is whether in the two (or more)
cases pending, there is identity of parties,
rights or causes of action, and reliefs
17
sought.
For its part, litis pendentia "refers to that situation
wherein another action is pending between the same
parties for the same cause of action, such that the
second action becomes unnecessary and
18
vexatious." For litis pendentia to exist, three (3)
requisites must concur:
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a)
the identity of parties, or at least such as
representing the same interests in both
actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted
and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two cases such that judgment
in one, regardless of which party is
successful, would amount to res judicata in
19
the other.
On the other hand, res judicata or prior judgment bars
a subsequent case when the following requisites are
satisfied:
(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is
rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an
order on the merits; (4) there is ï ¿ ½
between the first and the second actions -
identity of parties, of subject matter,
20
and of causes of action. (Emphasis in the
original)
These settled tests notwithstanding:
Ultimately, what is truly important to
consider in determining whether forum-
 shopping exists or not is the vexation caused
the courts and parties-litigant by a party
who asks different courts and/or
administrative agencies to rule on the same
or related causes and/or to grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs, in the
process creating the possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered by the
21
different fora upon the same issue.
A review of the cases, as well as the remedies sought by petitioner
in the RTC, as well as in the CA shows that petitioner has, indeed
committed forum shopping. There is identity of causes of action,
parties and reliefs sought in the action he filed for the reconveyance
of properties before the RTC and the petition for annulment of
judgment filed before the CA. As correctly observed and ruled by
the CA:
There exists between the two actions identity of parties
which represent the same interest in both. In
petitioner's action for reconveyance, he seeks to recover
the property which is wrongfully registered in
respondents' name by postulating that respondent Quinan
knew fully that petitioner was in possession of the
originals of the owner's duplicate copies of the Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-90102 and Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 90096 for Lot No. 98-F by virtue of the Deed
of Absolute Sale signed by all respondents. Thus
petitioner prays for the reconveyance of the said parcels
of land in his name and he likewise seeks to be awarded
of J?Oral and exemplary damages, litigation expenses and
attorney's fees in his favor.

The rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for by the

petitioner were reiterated in his petition for annulment
of judgment filed before this Court. The petition hinges
on the contention that the lower court which renders the
decision for the issuance of new owner's duplicate
Certificate of Title in respondents' favor never acquires
jurisdiction because the reconstituted title is void
considering that the duplicate copy of the Certificate of
Title has not been lost but it is in fact in the
possession of the petitioner. Hence, he is seeking for
the nullification of the decision rendered by RTC Branch
9 of Cebu City.

A comparison of the reliefs sought by petitioner in the

 reconveyance case and the annulment of judgment case
under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court confirms that they
are substantially similar on two points: (1) revocation
and cancellation of the new certificate of titles granted
in the name of herein respondents and (2) the recovery or
consolidation of title in petitioner's favor. In other
words, the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for are
being founded on the same facts. The identity of the two
cases filed is such that a favorable judgment rendered in
the lower court for the case of reconveyance will amount
to res judicata in the action under consideration of
this Court.

There is a clear violation of the rules on forum-shopping,

as this Court is being asked to grant substantially
similar reliefs as those that may also be granted by the
court a quo while the case was still pending with the
latter. In the process, this creates a possibility of
22
creating two separate and conflicting decisions.
Prudence should have dictated petitioner to await first the decision
of the RTC in the reconveyance as it was the first case he filed
before seeking other remedies. This Court reminds the petitioner
and his lawyer that forum shopping constitutes abuse of court
processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, to
wreak havoc upon orderly juridical procedure, and to add to the
congestion of the already burdened dockets of the courts.23 Further,
the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to foster candor and
transparency between lawyers and their clients in appearing before
the courts - to promote the orderly administration of justice,
prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the
precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the
embarrassing possibility of two or more courts or agencies
rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.24

Thus, the CA did not commit an error in outrightly dismissing

petitioner's petition. It must be remembered that the acts of a party
or his counsel, clearly constituting willful and deliberate forum
shopping shall be ground for the summary dismissal of the case
with prejudice, and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as be a
cause for administrative sanctions against the lawyer.25 Also, SC
Circular No. 28-9126 states that the deliberate filing of multiple
complaints by any party and his counsel to obtain favorable action
constitutes forum shopping and shall be a ground for summary
dismissal thereof and shall constitute direct contempt of court,
without prejudice to disciplinary proceeding against the counsel and
the filing of a criminal action against the guilty party. In Spouses
Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank,27 this Court further
reiterated that once there is a finding of forum shopping, the
penalty is summary dismissal not only of the petition pending
before this Court, but also of the other case that is pending in a
lower court.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court dated January 16, 2015 of petitioner Bernardo
S. Zamora is DENIED for lack of merit. Consequently, the
Resolution dated July 31, 2014 and Resolution dated November 27,
2014 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.