May 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > May 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 174551 : May 03, 2007] MAYOR SALIP ALOY JAINAL VS. COMELEC, JULHATAB TALIB AND HUSSIN AHAJAN :
[G.R. No. 174551 : May 03, 2007]
MAYOR SALIP ALOY JAINAL VS. COMELEC, JULHATAB TALIB AND HUSSIN AHAJAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 3 MAY 2007
G.R. No. 174551 (Mayor Salip Aloy Jainal vs. COMELEC, Julhatab Talib and Hussin Ahajan).
On 7 March 2007, this Court rendered a decision in G.R. No. 174551,[1] the dispositive portion of which reads:
In our jurisdiction, forum-shopping has taken the form of filing multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues before two or more tribunals or agencies in the hope that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. There is also forum-shopping when, because of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another forum. The rationale against forum-shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. Thus, the rule proscribing forum-shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.[3]
When petitioner filed his Petition[4] which was docketed as G.R. No. 174551 with this Court, all the issues relative to the case are deemed submitted for resolution before the Court and no other. Any attempt to secure the remedies prayed for therein with another court or tribunal, especially while the same is pending before this Court, is forum-shopping.
Thus, it matters not that COMELEC was informed of the pendency of the petition in this Court, or that this Court was eventually informed of the filing of the Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation with the poll body. What matters, for purposes of determining the existence of forum-shopping, is that petitioner had earlier petitioned this Court for a suspension of the implementation of the 22 March 2005 and 18 September 2006 COMELEC resolutions at the time that he filed the Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation, praying for the same reliefs before the COMELEC as those being sought before this Court.
Furthermore, both the rule against forum-shopping and the reality that the COMELEC no longer had jurisdiction over the case point to the puerility of the Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation with the poll body. Certainly, petitioner should have filed the pleading with this Court instead.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner Mayor Salip Aloy Jainal and his counsel are hereby found LIABLE for forum-shopping and accordingly REPRIMANDED, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts of forum-shopping will be dealt with more severely.
G.R. No. 174551 (Mayor Salip Aloy Jainal vs. COMELEC, Julhatab Talib and Hussin Ahajan).
On 7 March 2007, this Court rendered a decision in G.R. No. 174551,[1] the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:In compliance with (6) above, petitioner and his counsel filed an Explanation on 28 March 2007 claiming that they have not abandoned the exacting rule of good faith. The pertinent portion of their explanation states:
1) The instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED;
2) The Commission on Elections (2nd Division) Resolution dated 22 March 2005, as modified by the Commission on Elections (en banc) Resolution of 18 September 2006 in SPC No. 04-169 is AFFIRMED;
3) The Commission on Elections is ORDERED to IMPLEMENT its RESOLUTION of 22 March 2005 as modified by its Resolution of 18 September 2006, and thereupon to REPORT on such implementation to this Court, with deliberate dispatch;
4) The 5 October 2006 Order of the Commission on Elections en banc is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, and the Commission on Elections is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect and deferential of the standing and dignity of this Court in its dealings with the Court;
5) Private respondent Hussin Ahajan is ORDERED to assume the position of Acting Mayor of Indanan, Sulu, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Local Government Code, but subject to the outcome of the recount to be concluded in accordance with the above-mentioned Resolutions of the Commission on Elections; and
6) Petitioner and his counsel are REQUIRED to show cause, within five (5) days from notice, why they should not be held in contempt by this Court for committing forum-shopping.
In view of the proximity of the next elections, this Decision is declared FINAL and IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
4. The rule on non forum shopping borders on the non disclosure of pending identical actions for the same issues and subject. In the case at bar, however Petitioner and Counsel filed the Extreme Urgent Ex-parte Manifestation with the COMELEC, en banc disclosing the pendency of the afore-captioned Petition and quoting therein enumerated prayers. Verily, the intention was to insure transparency of actions in the COMELEC, en banc rather than to effect scheming machinations and stealth in the litigation process.We find the explanation unavailing.
5. It is noteworthy that subsequently thereafter, Petitioner informed this Highest Tribunal of proceedings that transpired in the COMELEC, en banc relative to the filing of the Urgent Manifestation.[2]
In our jurisdiction, forum-shopping has taken the form of filing multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues before two or more tribunals or agencies in the hope that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. There is also forum-shopping when, because of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another forum. The rationale against forum-shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. Thus, the rule proscribing forum-shopping seeks to promote candor and transparency among lawyers and their clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue.[3]
When petitioner filed his Petition[4] which was docketed as G.R. No. 174551 with this Court, all the issues relative to the case are deemed submitted for resolution before the Court and no other. Any attempt to secure the remedies prayed for therein with another court or tribunal, especially while the same is pending before this Court, is forum-shopping.
Thus, it matters not that COMELEC was informed of the pendency of the petition in this Court, or that this Court was eventually informed of the filing of the Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation with the poll body. What matters, for purposes of determining the existence of forum-shopping, is that petitioner had earlier petitioned this Court for a suspension of the implementation of the 22 March 2005 and 18 September 2006 COMELEC resolutions at the time that he filed the Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation, praying for the same reliefs before the COMELEC as those being sought before this Court.
Furthermore, both the rule against forum-shopping and the reality that the COMELEC no longer had jurisdiction over the case point to the puerility of the Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation with the poll body. Certainly, petitioner should have filed the pleading with this Court instead.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner Mayor Salip Aloy Jainal and his counsel are hereby found LIABLE for forum-shopping and accordingly REPRIMANDED, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts of forum-shopping will be dealt with more severely.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Entitled Mayor Salip Aloy Jainal, petitioner, versus Commission on Elections, Julhatab J. Talib, and Hussin Ahajan, respondents.
[2] See Explanation, p.2.
[3] Spouses Wee v. Galvez, G.R. No. 147394, 11 August 2004, 436 SCRA 96, 108-109, citing Melo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123686, 16 November 1999, 318 SCRA 94, 100; Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, 24 April 1998, 289 SCRA 624, 647; Zebra Security Agency v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115951, 26 March 1997, 337 Phil. 200, 209; Nacuray v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 114924-27, 18 March 1997, 336 Phil. 749, 756; Solid Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108451, 11 April 1997, 337 Phil. 605, 616.
[4] Rollo, pp. 5-27.
