March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175393 : March 12, 2007] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM V. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 71, CRESENCIANO RABELLO, JR., SHERIFF IV, RTC-BRANCH 71, PASIG CITY AND EDUARDO M. SANTIAGO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIDOW, ROSARIO ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE SANTIAGO:
[G.R. No. 175393 : March 12, 2007]
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM V. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 71, CRESENCIANO RABELLO, JR., SHERIFF IV, RTC-BRANCH 71, PASIG CITY AND EDUARDO M. SANTIAGO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIDOW, ROSARIO ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE SANTIAGO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 12 MARCH 2007
G.R. No. 175393 - Government Service Insurance System v. Regional Ttrial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71, Cresenciano Rabello, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC-Branch 71, Pasig City and Eduardo M. Santiago, substituted by his widow, Rosario Enriquez Vda. de Santiago.
RESOLUTION
An Urgent Motion for Reconsideration has been filed by petitioner from our December 13, 2006 Resolution which dismissed its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for violation of the rule on forum shopping and error in mode of appeal.
Petitioner asserts that it did not violate the rule on forum shopping for it disclosed in its Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping that it has a Motion for Reconsideration pending before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 84079 but that it is directed against the August 3, 2006 CA Decision, which affirmed with modification the April 28, 2004 Writ of Execution and May 13, 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 59439, while the present Petition assails the September 12, 2006 and November 20, 2006 RTC Orders.
Further, petitioner insists that its Petition is the correct mode of appeal from the September 12, 2006 and November 20, 2006 RTC Orders which are interlocutory in nature as they deal with matters pertaining to the execution stage. In the alternative, petitioner asks that its Petition be treated as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
We deny the Motion for Reconsideration.
In its Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, petitioner informed the Court of its pending Motion for Reconsideration before the CA but warranted that "[t]he present case materially differs from the same Motion for Reconsideration as to its principal thrust and objective, which is to stop the respondent trial court from persisting in the abuse of its authority in preemptively proceeding with the execution of the final judgment in a manner that marries [sic] departure from the very letter and spirit of the same final judgment."
The records tell differently.
It appears that on December 17, 1997, a Decision[1] was rendered by the RTC in Civil Case No. 59439 ordering petitioner to reconvey to respondents the 78 lots or, if reconveyance is no longer possible, pay the latter the fair market value of each lot. It was affirmed in toto by the CA in a Decision[2] dated February 22, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 62309, which in turn was affirmed by us in Government Service Insurance System v. Santiago,[3] which became final and executory on February 24, 2004.
In a Writ of Execution[4] dated April 28, 2004, the RTC directed implementation of its December 17, 1997 Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution which the RTC denied in its May 13, 2004 Order.[5] Petitioner returned to the CA on a Petition for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. No. 84079. In a Decision[6] dated August 3, 2006, the CA affirmed the April 28, 2004 Writ of Execution and May 13, 2004 RTC Order with modifications that: a) these satisfy only a portion of the December 17, 1997 Decision consisting of the payment to respondents of P399,838.000; and b) that the RTC conduct a hearing to determine the fair market value of the subject lots and, upon such determination, issue an order of execution for the unsatisfied portion of the December 17, 1997 RTC Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
Meanwhile, in an Order dated September 12, 2006, the RTC directed "enforcement of the Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2004, up to the extent allowed by the Decision of the CA". Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied in its November 20, 2006 Order.[7] Petitioner filed the present Petition.
It is rather obvious that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration pending with the CA and its present Petition, while ostensibly directed at different orders of the RTC, are actually aimed at only one objective: to thwart implementation of the modified April 28, 2004 Writ of Execution. Such simultaneous recourse to two remedies at different fora for a single objective is plain forum shopping.[8] Forum shopping exists not only when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, but also where the elements of litis pendentia are present,[9] i.e., regardless of which party will prevail, the result of one action will be determinative of that of the other action. Specifically, if we give due course to the present Petition, our proceedings would have to take precedence over the resolution by the CA of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Our decision would also bind the CA on the issue of the April 28, 2004 Writ of Execution. There is also the possibility that if the CA proceeds to resolve petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, its resolution will preempt our action on the present Petition. Either way, one court will be pitted against the other in an appalling scheme petitioner should not get away with.
Having declared the present Petition improper for forum shopping, petitioner's request that it be treated as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is not feasible.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with finality.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 175393 - Government Service Insurance System v. Regional Ttrial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71, Cresenciano Rabello, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC-Branch 71, Pasig City and Eduardo M. Santiago, substituted by his widow, Rosario Enriquez Vda. de Santiago.
An Urgent Motion for Reconsideration has been filed by petitioner from our December 13, 2006 Resolution which dismissed its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for violation of the rule on forum shopping and error in mode of appeal.
Petitioner asserts that it did not violate the rule on forum shopping for it disclosed in its Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping that it has a Motion for Reconsideration pending before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 84079 but that it is directed against the August 3, 2006 CA Decision, which affirmed with modification the April 28, 2004 Writ of Execution and May 13, 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 59439, while the present Petition assails the September 12, 2006 and November 20, 2006 RTC Orders.
Further, petitioner insists that its Petition is the correct mode of appeal from the September 12, 2006 and November 20, 2006 RTC Orders which are interlocutory in nature as they deal with matters pertaining to the execution stage. In the alternative, petitioner asks that its Petition be treated as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
We deny the Motion for Reconsideration.
In its Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, petitioner informed the Court of its pending Motion for Reconsideration before the CA but warranted that "[t]he present case materially differs from the same Motion for Reconsideration as to its principal thrust and objective, which is to stop the respondent trial court from persisting in the abuse of its authority in preemptively proceeding with the execution of the final judgment in a manner that marries [sic] departure from the very letter and spirit of the same final judgment."
The records tell differently.
It appears that on December 17, 1997, a Decision[1] was rendered by the RTC in Civil Case No. 59439 ordering petitioner to reconvey to respondents the 78 lots or, if reconveyance is no longer possible, pay the latter the fair market value of each lot. It was affirmed in toto by the CA in a Decision[2] dated February 22, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 62309, which in turn was affirmed by us in Government Service Insurance System v. Santiago,[3] which became final and executory on February 24, 2004.
In a Writ of Execution[4] dated April 28, 2004, the RTC directed implementation of its December 17, 1997 Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution which the RTC denied in its May 13, 2004 Order.[5] Petitioner returned to the CA on a Petition for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. No. 84079. In a Decision[6] dated August 3, 2006, the CA affirmed the April 28, 2004 Writ of Execution and May 13, 2004 RTC Order with modifications that: a) these satisfy only a portion of the December 17, 1997 Decision consisting of the payment to respondents of P399,838.000; and b) that the RTC conduct a hearing to determine the fair market value of the subject lots and, upon such determination, issue an order of execution for the unsatisfied portion of the December 17, 1997 RTC Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
Meanwhile, in an Order dated September 12, 2006, the RTC directed "enforcement of the Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2004, up to the extent allowed by the Decision of the CA". Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied in its November 20, 2006 Order.[7] Petitioner filed the present Petition.
It is rather obvious that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration pending with the CA and its present Petition, while ostensibly directed at different orders of the RTC, are actually aimed at only one objective: to thwart implementation of the modified April 28, 2004 Writ of Execution. Such simultaneous recourse to two remedies at different fora for a single objective is plain forum shopping.[8] Forum shopping exists not only when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, but also where the elements of litis pendentia are present,[9] i.e., regardless of which party will prevail, the result of one action will be determinative of that of the other action. Specifically, if we give due course to the present Petition, our proceedings would have to take precedence over the resolution by the CA of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Our decision would also bind the CA on the issue of the April 28, 2004 Writ of Execution. There is also the possibility that if the CA proceeds to resolve petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, its resolution will preempt our action on the present Petition. Either way, one court will be pitted against the other in an appalling scheme petitioner should not get away with.
Having declared the present Petition improper for forum shopping, petitioner's request that it be treated as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is not feasible.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with finality.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 104-119.
[2] Id. at 120-129.
[3] 460 Phil. 763 (2003).
[4] Rollo, pp. 143-146.
[5] Id. at 147-154.
[6] Id. at 205-223.
[7] Id at 59-73.
[8] Municipality of Taguig v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142619, September 13, 2005, 469 SCRA 588, 594-595; Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development Corporation, 457 Phil. 740, 760 (2003).
[9] United Special Watchman Agency v. Court of Appeals, 453 Phil. 363, 368 (2003).
