Caleb Josh T.

Pacana
G.R. No. 190814 October 9, 2013
MICHELLE LANA BROWN- ARANETA, for herself and representing her minor daughters,
ARABELLA MARGARITA B. ARANET A and A V ANGELINAMYKAELA B. ARANETA, Petitioners,
vs.
JUAN IGNACIO ARANETA, Respondent.
Topic: Other cases/updates in jurisprudence on Parts of a Pleading (Rule 7)
Ponente: VELASCO, J.:
The writ of habeas corpus is available, not only in cases of illegal confinement or detention by
which any person is deprived of his liberty, but also in cases involving the rightful custody over a
minor.
FACTS:
Juan Ignacio and Michelle were married and had 2 children, Ara and Ava. After seven years,
they separated and their two children remained in Michelle’s custody. Juan filed, pursuant to
The Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors, a
Petition for Custody of his children with prayer for visitation rights with the Makati Regional
Trial Court (RTC) against Michelle and her mother, Glenda Santos, claiming that they have
completely barred him from seeing or getting in touch with his daughters despite repeated
requests.
The process server attempted to serve summons upon both of them, but only Santos was
served. In Santos’ answer, she disclaimed knowledge of Michelle’s whereabouts and she
raised the court’s jurisdiction over Michelle and rattled off negative habits and traits of Juan.
After a visiting grant was granted to Juan later on, Michelle filed a Motion to Admit Answer
and an Answer with Affirmative Defences and with Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance
of Protection, acknowledging that she heard about the delivery of summons, but she
disregarded it because she claimed she thought that it was improperly served upon her
person.
The RTC of Makati, in a hearing for the issuance of TPO, the judge expressed her bent to
maintain jurisdiction over the Petition for Custody and her disinclination to issue the TPO. Juan
was granted visitation rights for one Saturday and Sunday because he was previously unable
to see his children. Subsequently, the RTC resolved to deny admission of Michelle’s answer to
the Petition for Custody and declared her in default.
Michelle interposed to Withdraw Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Protective Order. She initiated a
Petition for Temporary and Permanent Protection Order before the RTC Muntinlupa. In the
verification portion of her petition for protection order, Michelle stated that there was a
pending petition for custody of their children in Makati . The RTC of Muntinlupa granted
Michelle’s prayer for a TPO which ordered Juan to stay away at a specified distance from
Michelle and the children and to desist from communicating with Michelle.
Juan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition with Prayer to Lift TPO anchored on, among others,
litis pendentia, since RTC of Makati is competent to grant her Petition which constitutes
forum shopping. The RTC conceded the exclusionary effect of the RTC Makati assuming the
jurisdiction on the issue of custody first, so it partially granted the Motion to Dismiss and
modified the protection order to exclude from its coverage the orders issued by the RTC of
Makati in the exercise of its jurisdiction on the pending custody case.
Meanwhile, Michelle went to the Court of Appeals (CA) on certiorari. The CA partly ruled in
favour of Michelle and decided that RTC of Makati erred in not admitting her answer and
holding her in default. Juan also went to the CA on petition for certiorari, from the adverse
orders of the RTC of Muntinlupa and prayed to enjoin the RTC of Muntinlupa from further
taking cognizance of Michelle’s protection order petition since it will intrude upon the RTC of
Makati’s disposition of the custody case. Michelle opposed and sought the dismissal of the
petition for certiorari on the ground that it is a prohibited pleading under RA 9262.
The CA found Michelle guilty of forum shopping but also ruled that Juan’s petition for
certiorari is a prohibited pleading which renders it dismissible. Nevertheless, it ruled in favour
of Juan, declaring void the issuances made by the RTC of Muntinlupa. Michelle sought to set
aside the decision of the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Michelle committed forum shopping
RULING:
Yes.
The court ruled that Michelle committed forum shopping and pointed that even if she
withdrew the protection order in Makati Court, it is only after it was denied.
Also, there is nothing in the decision of the CA declaring that all issuances of the RTC of Makati
were void for lack of jurisdiction over Michelle, the court said that this posture was meant to
deceive and mislead the court. 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 suspension that one or the other court would come out with a favourable disposition.
The test for determining whether there is 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. Applying the rules, Michelle committed forum shopping because, as a result or in
anticipation of the adverse ruling of the RTC of Makati, she sought the favourable opinion of
the RTC of Muntinlupa.
(1) The cases have identical;
(2) The rights asserted and reliefs prayed for are based on the same facts;
and (3) Elements of litis pendentia are present and any judgment rendered in the pending
cases, regardless of which party is successful, will amount to res judicata.
The evil to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent
tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions, thereby causing confusion, is present in
this case.
The petition for TPO filed by Michelle in the RTC of Muntinlupa should be dismissed with
prejudice since this is a clear case of forum shopping. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
appealed May 11, 2009 Decision and the December 28, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP. No.105442, particularly insofar as these ordered the dismissal of subject Civil
Case No. 08-023 and the nullification of the orders made in that case, are hereby AFFIRMED.