Michelle Lana Brown-Araneta v.

Juan Ignacio Araneta

Facts:

Juan and Michelle were married in USA. They had two children Arabella and Avangelina. After 7
years, they decided to separate. In the entirety of their de facto separation, both of the children were in
the custody of Michelle. Juan filed for custody over their children in 2007. He argues that the
communication between him and the children were cut off and Michelle has completely barred him
from seeing the children. There was a problem as to the summons served since Michelle changed
address. She then admitted that she knew about the summons through her mother which was served at
her old residence. She filed for a temporary restraining order but this was denied by the court because
she initially questioned the jurisdiction of the court over her person and only resorted to this Urgent Ex-
Parte Motion for a Protective Order after she realized that the Court had every intention of maintaining
jurisdiction over this case also, Juan cannot be denied visitation rights to his children because he is their
biological father after all. Juan was given visitation right and Michelle was declared in default.

Then in Muntinlupa City, Michelle instituted a petition for TPO and PPO pursuant to RA9262.
According to her, in the course of their marriage, Juan Ignacio made her and their children engage in
sexual acts inimical to their emotional, physical and psychological development and well-being; that he
engaged in perverted sexual acts with friends, victimizing her and the children; that he has consistently
failed and refused to support their family; and that he has a violent temper and was consistently
harassing and threatening her to get sole custody of the children. Michelle volunteered the information
that, per her therapist, she is suffering from Battered Woman’s Syndrome. Her TPO in Muntinlupa was
granted. Juan Ignacio filed a Motion to Dismiss [Petition] with Prayer to Lift [TPO] anchored on several
grounds such as litis pendentia, RTC of Makati already had jurisdiction of the case over identical subject
matter, issues and parties and Michelle’s filing for TPO constitutes forum shopping.

Issue:

Whether Michelle committed forum shopping.

Ruling:

Yes. Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court
would come out with a favorable disposition. An indicium of the presence of, or the test for determining
whether a litigant violated the rule against, forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are
present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other case. Litis
pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil suit, refers to that situation wherein another action is
pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes
vexatious and unnecessary. For the bar of litis pendentia to be invoked, the concurring requisites must
be present: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
and (3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending
case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other.

The evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent
tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions. Unscrupulous party litigants, taking advantage of
a variety of competent tribunals, may repeatedly try their luck in several different fora until a favorable
result is reached. To avoid the resultant confusion, the Court adheres to the rules against forum
shopping, and a breach of these rules results in the dismissal of the case. Considering the above
doctrinal pronouncements on forum shopping, SC held all the badges of this deplorable, docket-clogging
practice present in this case.

The cases have identical parties. Clearly, the Petition for Custody and the Petition for Protection Order
have the same parties who represent the same interests. The fact that Ava and Ara, who are parties in
the Petition for Protection Order, are not impleaded in the Petition for Custody is of no moment
because they are precisely the very subjects of the Petition for Custody and their respective rights are
represented by their mother, Michelle. In a long line of cases on forum shopping, the Court has held that
absolute identity of the parties is not required, it being enough that there is substantial identity of the
parties or at least such parties represent the same interests in both actions. SC has constantly held that
the fact that the positions of the parties are reversed, i.e., the plaintiffs in the first case are the
defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the identity of parties for purposes of
determining whether the case is dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia.

The rights asserted and reliefs prayed for are based on the same facts. The two cases are practically
based on the same facts and are so intertwined that any judgment rendered in the pending cases,
regardless of which party is successful, will amount to res judicata. Juan Ignacio’s rights and reliefs
prayed for are dependent on and, to be sure, would be predicated on the question of whether or not
granting him the desired custody or at least visitations rights over the children are in their best interest.
In deciding this issue, the Makati RTC will definitely have to reckon with and make a finding on
Michelle’s allegations of psychological, sexual, emotional and economic abuse.Similarly, the Muntinlupa
RTC must necessarily consider and make a determination based on the very same facts and allegations
on whether or not Michelle shall be entitled to the relief she prayed for in her own petition, in
particular, a permanent protection order against Juan Ignacio.

Elements of litis pendentia are present and any judgment in the pending cases would amount to  res
judicata. Any judgment rendered in the pending cases, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata. Consider: If the Makati RTC were to grant Juan Ignacio’s petition for custody, this
would necessarily mean that it would be in the best interest of the children if he were allowed to visit
and spend time with them and that granting Juan Ignacio visitation rights would not pose any danger or
threat to the children.

On the other hand, a grant by the Muntinlupa RTC of Michelle’s prayer for a permanent protection order
would presuppose at the minimum that it would be to the children’s best interest if Juan Ignacio is
directed to keep away from them, necessary implying that he is unfit even to visit Ara and Ava.
Conversely, if Juan Ignacio’s Petition for Custody were denied, then it would mean that the Makati RTC
gave weight and credence to Michelle’s allegations of abuse and found them to be in the best interest of
the children to bar Juan Ignacio from visiting them. Thus, the Muntinlupa RTC should have no ground to
deny Michelle’s Petition for Protection Order pending before it.

The evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is present in this case. The grave
mischief sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping, i.e., the rendition by two competent
tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions, is well-nigh palpable in this case. If the
Muntinlupa RTC were to rule that Michelle was entitled to a Protection Order, this would necessarily
conflict with any order or decision from the Makati RTC granting Juan Ignacio visitation rights over Ava
and Ara.