Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
SPECIAL FORMER SIXTH (6th) DIVISION

*****

MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG CA G.R. CV No. 98377

(NOW CITY OF TAGUIG),
*
Plaintiff-Appellee, SORONGON, E.D.,
Acting Chairperson,
CRUZ, R.A., and
-versus- **
FRANCISCO, R.C., JJ.

MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI
(NOW CITY OF MAKATI), Hon.
TEOFISTO P. GUINGONA, in his Promulgated:
capacity as Executive Secretary,
HON. ANGEL ALCALA, in his October 3, 2017
capacity as Secretary of ____________________________
Environment and Natural
Resources, HON. ABELARDO
PALAD, JR., in his capacity as
Director of Lands Management
Bureau,
Defendants-Appellants.
x---------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION

•SORONGON, E.D., J. :

Before this Court is the Motion for Reconsideration1 filed by

defendant-appellant City of Makati (Makati), seeking the reconsideration of
our March 8, 2017 Resolution,2 which granted the Motion to Dismiss for
Forum Shopping3 filed by plaintiff-appellee City of Taguig (Taguig) and
accordingly, dismissed the instant appeal.

* New Ponente vice Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison (inhibited) per Raffle dated October 4, 2016.
** New Member per Raffle dated October 4, 2016.
1 Dated March 23, 2017; rollo, Volume IV, pp. 4127-4140.
2 Id. at 4093-4109.
3 Rollo, Volume III, pp. 3622-3649.
CA-G.R. CV No. 98377
Resolution
Page..............2
x---------------------x

In its Motion for Reconsideration, Makati avers, among others, that

the issues herein are of transcendental importance involving public interests
that require the liberal interpretation and application of the rules. Makati
claims that our decision in this case would have a profound effect on the
political, economic and financial aspects of both Makati and Taguig and
their respective constituents. Makati insists that this case should not be
dismissed based on the premise that the Supreme Court in the case of City of
Taguig v. City of Makati,4 did not order for its dismissal. It also insists that its
previous counsels merely committed an honest mistake in availing of
various remedies. On the claim that it disclosed to the courts all of its
pending cases, Makati subscribes that such honest mistake does not warrant
the dismissal of this appeal.5

On the other hand, Taguig counters that the rule prohibiting forum
shopping is not a mere technicality that may be disregarded by Makati at
will to suit its convenience. Taguig adds that the rule against forum shopping
and the cause or consequences arising from the violation thereof are already
a substantial right vested on the part of Taguig to pray for the dismissal of all
infringing actions or cases of Makati including this appeal. Taguig posits that
Makati's acts of forum shopping revealed its bad faith in handling this
territorial issue. Lastly, Taguig asserts that the legal consequence of the
Supreme Court's final finding in City of Taguig v. City of Makati,6 that
Makati is guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping is the dismissal
with prejudice of all cases related to the acts of forum shopping.7

We are not persuaded by Makati's postulations.

Guided by the Supreme Court's categorical and emphatic

pronouncements that Makati is guilty of willful and deliberate forum
shopping in City of Taguig v. City of Makati,8 we reiterate that the dismissal
of this appeal is but a necessary legal consequence of Makati's own acts. For
it is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that if the forum shopping is willful
and deliberate, both actions (or all, if there are more than two) shall be
dismissed with prejudice.9

We also draw succor from Fontana Development Corp. v.

4 G.R. No. 208393, June 15, 2016; rollo, Volume III, pp. 3651-3677.
5 Supra note 1.
6 Supra note 4.
7 Comment/Opposition dated May 19, 2017; rollo, Volume IV, pp. 4142-4172.
8 Supra note 4.
9 Heirs of Naya v. Naya, G.R. No. 215759, November 28, 2016, citing Chua v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Company, G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009; and Yamson v. Castro, G.R. Nos. 194763-64, July 20, 2016,
citing Heirs of Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014.
CA-G.R. CV No. 98377
Resolution
Page..............3
x---------------------x

Vukasinovic,10 wherein the Supreme Court succinctly explained the purpose

of the rule on willful and deliberate forum shopping and its consequences:

When there is forum shopping, all pending

claims on the same claim must be dismissed

It is well-settled that once there is a finding of forum shopping,

the penalty is summary dismissal not only of the petition pending before
this Court, but also of the other case that is pending in a lower court. This
is so because twin dismissal is the punitive measure to those who trifle
with the orderly administration of justice.

The rule originated from the 1986 case of Buan v. Lopez, Jr. In the
said case, petitioners therein instituted before the Court a special civil
action for prohibition and, almost a month earlier, another special civil
action for prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) Manila. Finding petitioners guilty of forum shopping
since all the elements of litis pendentia were duly proved, the Court
dismissed not only the action before it, but also the special civil action
still pending before the RTC, viz.:

Indeed, the petitioners in both actions . . . have incurred not only

the sanction of dismissal of their case before this Court in accordance
with Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, but also punitive measure of
dismissal of both their actions, that in this Court and that in Regional
Trial Court as well.

The rule essentially penalizes the forum shopper by dismissing all

pending actions on the same claim filed in any court. Because of the
severity of the penalty of the rule, an examination must first be made on
the purpose of the rule. The purpose of the rule is to avoid multiplicity of
suits and to prevent a party from instituting two or more actions or
proceeding involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other
court would make a favorable disposition.

What is critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the
litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or
related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in
the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered
by the different fora upon the same issues. Willful and deliberate
violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary
dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt.

Furthermore, Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court mandates

that a willful and deliberate forum shopping shall be a ground for
summary dismissal of a case with prejudice, thus:

10 G.R. No. 222424, September 21, 2016.

CA-G.R. CV No. 98377
Resolution
Page..............4
x---------------------x

Section 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.

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.

Consequently, the CA should have dismissed the case outright

without rendering a decision on the merits of the case. Respondent should
be penalized for willfully and deliberately trifling with court processes.
The purpose of the law will be defeated if respondent will be granted the
relief prayed for despite his act of deliberately committing forum
shopping. (Citations omitted. Italics and emphasis in the original.
Underscoring supplied.)

While it is true that lapses in the literal observance of a rule of

procedure will be overlooked when they arose from an honest mistake and
when they have not prejudiced the adverse party, 11 we cannot, however,
downplay the detrimental effects Makati's repetitive acts of forum shopping 12
caused to these cases, clearly evident from the findings of the Supreme
Court itself:

Respondent City of Makati's actions have not only vexed courts

and an adverse litigant. They have actually and already given rise to
conflicting decisions, not only between different courts — the Regional
Trial Court and the Court of Appeals — but even within the Court of
Appeals itself. The damage to the administration of justice is not
hypothetical; it is a realized harm.13
11 Aguam v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137672, May 31, 2000.
12 City of Makati v. Municipality (now City) of Taguig, G.R. No. 163175, June 27, 2008.
13 City of Taguig v. City of Makati, supra note 4.
CA-G.R. CV No. 98377
Resolution
Page..............5
x---------------------x

Lastly, we found nothing novel in the other arguments that were

propounded in Makati's Motion for Reconsideration. These were but a
rehash of the issues and arguments raised in its previous pleadings which
have already been passed upon and duly addressed in our March 8, 2017
Resolution, and which are unsubstantial to warrant a reconsideration thereof.
Hence, we find no cogent reason to modify or reverse the said Resolution.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant-appellant City of

Makati's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson,
Special Former Sixth (6th) Division

WE CONCUR:

RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice

RENATO C. FRANCISCO
Associate Justice