CRISOSTOMO PURIFICACION, ROMEL ROLLAN, RENATO MALABANAN AND JOVENCITO MALABANAN, PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HONORABLE CAROLINA C. ICASIANO-SISON, PRESIDING JU…
BARRIOS, M. M., J.:
February 2014, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition (with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Writ of Preliminary Injunction) assailing the two (2) Orders dated 25
November 2013 and 03 February 2014 of public respondent Regional Trial
Court, Branch 18, Manila (RTC) which denied their Omnibus Motion to
dismiss the criminal case for double murder against them.
It is
relevant to state that petitioners have earlier filed a Demurrer to
Evidence, but which was denied by the RTC and this Order is now subject
of an earlier petition also before this court under CA-GR No. 130894.
In the instant petition, petitioners principally assert that the public
respondent RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and try the criminal case
for the double murder of Salvador ‘Bubby’ Dacer and Emmanuel Corbito
since none of the elements of said crime was committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of Manila. It was asseverated that the
intersection of Osmeña Highway and Zobel Roxas Street – the place where
Dacer and Corbito was supposedly abducted on 24 November 2000 – is
actually part of Makati City, and not of the City of Manila, as shown by
the Certifications and Verification Survey Report of the Urban Planning
Development of Makati City and Department of Engineering and Public
Works of Manila, respectively. Petitioners posit that since the initial
abduction of the victims occurred in Makati City and the slaying
happened in Indang, Cavite, then the Information should have been lodged
in the proper court of Makati City or Indang, Cavite. Hence, the case
filed in Manila should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
At the onset, We immediately take note that the above
arguments were already raised by petitioners in the other Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition[1]
aforementioned earlier filed before this Court on 12 July 2013 assailing
the Orders dated 17 December 2012 and 30 April 2013 of the public
respondent RTC which dismissed their Demurrer to Evidence. Notably,
said petition is also mainly premised on the same issue of lack of
jurisdiction of the trial court to try the case on the notion that the
crime did not take place in Manila.
It is, therefore, clear that petitioners are guilty of forum
shopping. Forum shopping exists when a party seeks to obtain remedies in
an action in one court that had already been solicited, and in other
courts and other proceedings in other tribunals.[2]
There is also forum shopping when a party institutes two (2) or more
actions based on the same cause on the expectation that one or the other
court might look with favor on the party.[3] To sustain the assertion of forum shopping, the following must exist in a case pending before the court and another one, viz:
a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same
interests in both actions; b) identity of rights asserted and relief
prayed for, the relief being founded on same facts; and c) the identity
of the two (2) preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered
in the other action would, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[4]
In the case at bar, the parties in the two (2) Petitions for
Certiorari and Prohibition filed before this Court are one and the same.
Petitioners similarly advanced in both petitions the lack of
jurisdiction of public respondent trial court to try the case on the
assumption that none of the elements of murder occurred in Manila, and
that on account thereof, they prayed for the dismissal of the criminal
case. Further, the resolution of the issues in one of the petitions
would necessarily affect, if not render moot and academic, the
determination of the issues in the other. Of no doubt, petitioners
committed forum shopping, the practice of which, the law and the Rules
abhor. It is axiomatic that forum shopping is a deplorable practice of
the litigants of resorting to two different fora for the purpose of
obtaining the same relief, to unduly increase their chances of obtaining
favorable judgment.[5] The
grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is
the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and
contradictory decisions.[6]
By resorting to forum shopping, the dismissal of the petition is in
order. A party’s willful and deliberate act of forum shopping is
punishable by summary dismissal of the actions filed.[7]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr., (Chairperson) and Corales,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Acting Junior Member, per Office Order No. 291-14-ABR dated 19 June 2014.
[1] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 130894.
[2] Balite vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140931, November 26, 2004.
[3] Heirs of Vda. De Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138660, February 5, 2004.
[4] Korea Exchange Bank vs. Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 142286-87, April 15, 2005.
[5] Guevara vs. BPI Securities Corp., G.R. No. 159786, August 15, 2006.
[6] Guevara vs. BPI Securities Corp., supra.
[7] Municipality of Taguig vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142619, September 13, 2005.