DENNIS T. GABIONZA, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ACHIEVERS SALES CORPORATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Dennis T. Gabionza asks us to reverse and set aside
the Decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition for failure to comply with the requirements of Circular No. 28-91
of the Supreme Court (dated 3 September 1991). This Circular is entitled: “Additional
Requisites for Petitions Filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
to Prevent Forum Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitions and Complaints.”

Gabionza was a defendant in a civil case entitled “Achievers
Sales Corporation v. Pasvil Liner, Inc., et al.” filed before the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 155, of Pasig. Contending that there was no basis for impleading him as a
party-defendant in that case, Gabionza filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
as against himself. The motion was
denied by the trial court.

Gabionza then filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with the Court of Appeals, assailing the denial of his motion to
dismiss. In a one paragraph Resolution,^[1]
the Court of Appeals disposed of the Petition in the following manner:

“The Court resolved to dismiss the instant petition for certiorari
and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction having failed to indicate in the caption thereof the docket
number of the case in the trial court whose orders are sought to be reviewed
(Supreme Court Circular No 28-91).” (Underscoring supplied)

In the present Petition for Review, Gabionza admits that the
docket number of the case before the trial court whose order was sought to be
set aside, had not been set forth in the caption of his Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals. Gabionza, however, maintains that his Petition should nevertheless not
have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals, but rather should have been deemed
in substantial compliance with Circular No. 28-91, for the reason that the
docket number of the case pending before the trial court was in fact set out in
the body of his Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. Page 2 of his Petition before the appellate
court stated, among other things:

“Respondent Honorable Fernando Gerona (hereinafter referred to
as the respondent Judge) is the presiding Judge of Branch 155 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig to whom Civil Case No 54984 entitled
‘Achievers Sales Corporation v. Pasvil
Liner, Inc., et al.‘ is assigned. He may be served with notice at his office at the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 155, Pasig, Metro Manila.”^[2]
(Underscoring supplied)

Deliberating on the instant Petition for Review, the Comment
thereon by private respondent and petitioner’s Reply, the Court considers that
Gabionza’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition dismissed by the
Court of Appeals was indeed in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Circular on forum shopping and
that that Petition should not have been dismissed.

Forum shopping has been characterized as an act of malpractice
that is prohibited and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their
processes. It constitutes improper
conduct which tends to degrade the administration of justice. It has also been aptly described as
deplorable because it adds to the congestion of the already heavily burdened
dockets of the courts.^[3]

Circular No. 28-91 has its roots in the rule that a
party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two (2)
different forums, for such practice works havoc upon orderly judicial
procedure.^[4]
That rule was formalized in Section 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court on 11
January 1983 in connection with the implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129. Section 17 read as follows:

“17. Petitions
for writs of certiorari, etc. — No petition for certiorari, mandamus,
prohibition, habeas corpus or quo warranto may be filed in the Intermediate
Appellate Court if another similar petition has been filed or is still pending
in the Supreme Court. Nor may a
petition be filed in the Supreme Court if a similar petition has been filed or
is still pending in the Intermediate Appellate Court, unless it be to review
the action taken by the Intermediate Appellate Court on the petition filed with
it. A violation of this 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 actions against
the counsel or party concerned.”

Circular No. 28-91, in its original form, established two (2)
requirements which are to be complied with by every petition filed with the
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. The first requirement related to the caption of a petition or complaint
filed with the Supreme Court or the Court
of Appeals;^[5] the second requirement related to the
certification which must accompany that petition or complaint.

The first requirement was set out in the following terms:

“The attention of this court has been called to the filing of
multiple petitions and complaints involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals and the different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency with the result that said tribunals or agency have to
resolve the same issues.

To avoid the foregoing, every petition or complaint filed with the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency shall comply with the following requirements, aside from
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars:

1. Caption
of petition or complaint. — The
caption of the petition or
complaint must include the docket number of the case in the lower
court or quasi-judicial agency
whose order or judgment is sought to be reviewed.

x x x                                                  x x x                                                                                      x
x x”

(Emphases supplied)

The first requirement had two (2) components: first, the docket number of the case before
the lower court whose order is sought to be reviewed, should be in the petition; and second, that docket number
should be in the caption of the petition. In the instant case, there is no dispute
that the docket number of the case before the trial court had not been set out
in the caption of the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed with
the Court of Appeals. However, that
docket number, as well as the title of the case, before the trial court had in
fact been set out in the second page of the Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition.

There is also no dispute that petitioner Gabionza had complied
with the second requirement of Circular No. 28-91, i.e., that the required
sworn certification (to the effect that “there is no similar petition
[with] the same subject matter previously filed, pending, withdrawn or dismissed
in the Supreme Court, in this Honorable Court [Court of Appeals] or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency”)^[6] was
attached to the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed with the
Court of Appeals. There has been no
allegation that the sworn certification filed by petitioner was false or untrue
in a material respect or that petitioner Gabionza had sought to deceive the
Court of Appeals.

We, therefore, believe and so hold that the Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition filed by Gabionza with the Court of Appeals was in substantial
compliance with the original requirements of Circular No. 28-91 and that the
objectives of that Circular were not being subverted by Gabionza’s Petition. It is scarcely necessary to add that
Circular No. 28-91 must be so interpreted and applied as to achieve the
purposes projected by the Supreme Court when it promulgated that Circular. Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as
an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice
and should not be interpreted with such
absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or
the goal of all rules of procedure — ­which is to achieve substantial justice
as expeditiously as possible. The Court
of Appeals could and should have required petitioner Gabionza simply to comply
with Circular No. 28-91 by amending the caption of his petition, instead of dismissing that petition altogether.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to GRANT DUE COURSE to the
Petition for Review on Certiorari, to TREAT private respondent’s Comment as its Answer to the Petition,
and to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Resolutions of the Court
of Appeals dated 4 August 1993
and 10 November 1993 rendered in C.A.- G.R. SP No. 31549. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, and
the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition there filed is hereby REINSTATED, for further proceedings
consistent with this Resolution. No
costs.

Bidin, Romero, Melo, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Gabionza v. Gerona, C.A.-G.R. SP No. 31549, 4 August 1993, Rollo,
p. 22.

^[2]
Petition, p. 4; Rollo, p. 12.

^[3]
Ruiz v. Drilon, 209 SCRA 701 (1992).

^[4]
People v. Court of Appeals, 101 SCRA 450 (1980).

^[5]
Circular No. 28-91 was revised by the Supreme Court on 8 February 1994. The revised Circular No. 28-91, which took effect on 1 April
1994, has deleted the requirement that the docket number of the
case in the lower court, whose order or judgment is sought to be reviewed, must be set out in the caption of the
petition filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.

^[6]
Records, p. 12.