BERNARDO S. ZAMORA, PETITIONER, VS. EMMANUEL Z. QUINAN, JR., EMMANUEL J. QUINAN, SR., EFREM Z. QUINAN AND EMMA ROSE Q. QUIMBO, RESPONDENTS.

Zamora versus Quinan

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Bernardo S. Zamora against Emmanuel Z. Quinan, Junior, Emmanuel J. Quinan, Senior, Efrem Z. Quinan, and Emma Rose Q. Quimbo. Zamora asks the Supreme Court to reverse the resolutions of the Court of Appeals that dismissed his petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of forum shopping. The case matters because it is the Court's cleanest recent statement of the rule against forum shopping: what it is, how it is tested, and why the penalty is summary dismissal with prejudice.

Procedural History

Zamora first filed a complaint for reconveyance of real properties before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 19. While that case was pending, he filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, attacking the resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 9, which had granted the respondents a new duplicate certificate of title. That first petition was dismissed on technicalities. Zamora then filed a second petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 19 dismissed the reconveyance case on the ground of forum shopping. The respondents then moved to dismiss the second annulment petition before the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals granted the motion, admonishing Zamora and his counsel. Zamora's motion for reconsideration was denied. He went to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition, but on reconsideration it set the denial aside and required the respondents to comment. The Court then resolved the petition on the merits.

Facts

On June 19, 2006, Zamora filed a complaint for reconveyance of title of real properties before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 19. He claimed that he was in possession of the original owner's duplicate copies of the transfer certificates of title, and that the respondents had fraudulently obtained the properties. The respondents had earlier secured, from the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 9, a resolution granting their petition for the issuance of new duplicate certificates of title.

While the reconveyance case was still pending, Zamora filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of the judgment of Branch 9. That petition was dismissed on technicalities. He then filed a second petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, again seeking to nullify the Branch 9 resolution.

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 19 then dismissed the reconveyance case on the ground of forum shopping. The respondents moved to dismiss the second annulment petition before the Court of Appeals on the same ground. The Court of Appeals granted the motion, finding that there was identity of causes of action, parties, and reliefs between the reconveyance case and the annulment petition. Zamora's motion for reconsideration was denied, so he elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of forum shopping.
• Whether or not there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought between the reconveyance case before the Regional Trial Court and the annulment of judgment petition before the Court of Appeals.
• Whether or not the procedural rules should have been relaxed to give Zamora his day in court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

This provision supplies the certification requirement and the sanction of dismissal for willful and deliberate forum shopping, which the Court applies against Zamora.

The same Section continues:

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.

This is the sanction the Court enforces: summary dismissal with prejudice, plus direct contempt and administrative liability.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. Forum shopping is committed by a party who institutes two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, 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. The Court stressed that what is truly important is the vexation caused to the courts and to the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions.

On the second issue, the Court found identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs. The test for forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals with approval: a favorable judgment in the reconveyance case would amount to res judicata in the annulment action. Both cases sought the revocation and cancellation of the new certificates of title in the respondents' names and the recovery or consolidation of title in Zamora's favor, founded on the same facts. Prudence should have dictated that Zamora await the decision in the reconveyance case, which he filed first, before seeking other remedies.

On the third issue, the Court refused to relax the rules. Forum shopping constitutes abuse of court processes, degrades the administration of justice, and congests already burdened dockets. The Court reminded Zamora and his counsel that willful and deliberate forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions against the lawyer.

Doctrine

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. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another; that is, whether there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. The requisites of litis pendentia are identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for founded on the same facts, and identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. Under Section 5 of Rule 7, willful and deliberate forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and constitutes direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. Once forum shopping is found, the penalty is summary dismissal not only of the petition pending before the Supreme Court but also of the other case pending in a lower court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied Zamora's petition for lack of merit and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of forum shopping.

Remember This

Memorize the test: forum shopping exists when there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought, such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of litis pendentia and the sanction of summary dismissal with prejudice under Section 5 of Rule 7.