ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 147409.July 4, 2001]

PABLO D. LUNA, JR. vs. HON. TAMIN

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 4 2001.

G.R. No. 147409(Pablo D. Luna, Jr. vs. Hon. Camilo E. Tamin, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga de Sur, et al.)

For consideration is the motion filed by private respondents Jullendo Mag-usara, Gregorio Dalion, Porferio C. Angat, Jr., Yolanda B. Mahinay, Bernarda N. Maglasang, Virginia D. Cabalit, and Aniceto Y. Bernaldez to declare herein petitioner Pablo D. Luna, Jr. guilty of forum-shopping for filing the instant petition for certiorari as well as a petition for prohibition in the Regional Trial Court, Pagadian City, docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. 2001-40-029.Private respondents claim that both petitions involve substantially the same issues and seek the same reliefs.They pray for the dismissal of both cases and the imposition of sanctions on petitioner's two counsels.

Petitioner was a candidate for Mayor of the Municipality of Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections.Private respondents sought his exclusion from the list of registered votes in Precinct No. 10-A of Barangay Dawa, Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur on the ground that petitioner is not a resident of that municipality.The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mahayag-Dumingag and Josefina dismissed private respondents' petition on the ground that it was filed out of time.On appeal, however, the RTC, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur reversed the decision of the MTC and ordered the exclusion of petitioner from the permanent list of voters of Precinct No. 10-A of Barangay Dawa, Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur.

Relying on R.A. No. 8189, �33, which provides that the decisions of RTCs on appeal in exclusion cases shall immediately become final and executory, private respondents filed on March 19, 2001 a petition to disqualify petitioner as a candidate for Mayor of the Municipality of Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur on the ground that he is neither a registered voter nor a resident of said municipality.The case was docketed as SPA (PES) No. C01-001 in the Commission on Elections.

On March 30, 2001, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari assailing the RTC decision in the exclusion case.In addition to the RTC, petitioner impleaded the COMELEC as respondent, arguing that the latter is bereft of authority to disqualify him for lack of residency and for not being registered voter.Petitioner contended that private respondents' remedy should have been to file a quo warranto case against him in the event he was elected.Petitioner therefore prayed, among others, that the proceedings in the COMELEC for his disqualification be enjoined.

On the same day, March 30, 2001, petitioner, through another counsel, also filed in the RTC, Pagadian City a petition for prohibition, docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. 2001-40-029, praying that the proceedings in the COMELEC be enjoined.

In the resolution of May 4, 2001, this Court dismissed petitioner's petition for its failure to show that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in ordering his exclusion from the voters' list.It deemed it unnecessary to pass upon petitioner's argument that the COMELEC is without authority to disqualify him.

Considering the foregoing antecedents, the Court holds that petitioner did not commit forum-shopping.

The purpose of the prohibition against forum-shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue on the same subject matter simultaneous remedies in two or more different for a.Forum-shopping exists where the actions are of the same nature and involve identical transactions, circumstances, and issued between the same parties (Heirs of Victorina Penaverde v. Heirs of Mariano Penaverde, G.R No. 131141, Oct. 20, 2000; Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 192 (1994)).In this case, while there is identity in many respects between this petition for certiorari and the petition for prohibition, docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. 2001-40-029, the two cases, however, greatly differ in substance.In the instant petition, petitioner essentially seeks a review of the decision of the RTC ordering his exclusion from the list of registered voters of Precinct No. 10-A of Barangay Dawa, Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur.That the COMELEC was also impleaded as respondent is merely an offshoot of the same.On the other hand, the petition for prohibition in Special Civil Action Case No. 2001-40-029 was intended to enjoin the proceedings in the disqualification case in the COMELEC due to petitioner's belief that the same is premature as the RTC decision in the exclusion case is still subject to a petition for certiorari filed by him.

Indeed, the filing of the two petitioners by petitioner was provoked by the exclusion and disqualification cases brought against him by private respondents.Faced with the prospect of being excluded as a voter because of the decision of the RTC and his disqualification as a candidate because of proceedings brought before the COMELEC, petitioner was constrained to file the petition for certiorari in this case and a petition for prohibition in the RTC (Special Civil Action Case No. 2001-40-029).Petitioner's actions were defensive in nature and were for the purpose of protecting his rights, rather than to shop for a favorable result.He, therefore, cannot be considered guilty of forum-shopping (See MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 784 (1999)).

WHEREFORE, private respondents' motion to declare petitioner guilty of forum-shopping is DENIED for lack of merit.Panganiban, Quisumbing and Santiago, JJ., abroad on official business.Reyes, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE