Spouses Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 193415. January 24, 2018.]

SPOUSES DAISY AND SOCRATES M. AREVALO, petitioners,vs. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAÑAQUE CITY, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 January 2018which reads as follows: CAIHTE

"G.R. No. 193415 (Spouses Daisy and Socrates M. Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank1and The Register of Deeds of Parañaque City). — We now resolve the issue of whether petitioners should be held for contempt of court for committing forum-shopping and for not complying with their undertaking to report to this Court their Second Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City within five days from filing.

In our Decision dated 18 April 2012, 2 we denied the petition on grounds of mootness and violation of the rules on forum shopping. The latter ground was based on our observation that petitioners committed two distinct acts of forum-shopping, to wit:

There are thus two (2) cases arising from similar facts and circumstances; more particularly, the instant Rule 45 Petition and the appeal of the dismissal of the main case with the CA. It appears on record also that on 12 November 2010, petitioners filed yet another Complaint dated 11 November 2010 (Second Complaint) with the trial court. This time, they prayed for the nullification of the real estate mortgage, the extra-judicial foreclosure sale, and the subsequent proceedings, with a prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO.

xxx xxx xxx

A comparison of the reliefs sought by petitioners in the instant Petition and in their Second Complaint confirms that they are substantially similar on two points: (1) revocation and cancellation of the Certificate of Sale and (2) permanent injunction on any transfer and/or consolidation of title in favor of respondent Bank. These similarities undoubtedly create the possibility of conflicting decisions from different courts:

xxx xxx xxx

Aside from the fact that petitioners sought substantially similar reliefs from different courts, they likewise failed to disclose to this Court the filing of their Second Complaint within five (5) days from its filing, in violation of their previous undertaking to do so.

Every litigant is required to notify the court of the filing or pendency of any other action or such other proceeding involving the same or similar action or claim within five (5) days of learning of that fact. Petitioners claim that it was merely due to inadvertence that they failed to disclose the said filing within five (5) days contrary to their undertaking.

This Court is not inclined to accept this self-serving explanation. We cannot disregard the glaring fact that respondents had to call the attention of petitioners to the said requirement before the latter admitted that they had indeed filed their Second Complaint.

As previously established, petitioners have violated two (2) components of forum-shopping, more particularly: (1) petitioners willfully and deliberately went to different courts to avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies founded on similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs, an act which may be punishable as direct contempt; (2) they did not comply with their undertaking to report the filing of the Second Complaint within five days from its filing. The latter action may also possibly be construed as a separate count for indirect contempt. 3

Accordingly, we directed petitioners to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for forum-shopping. 4

On 18 May 2012, 5 petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Compliance. 6 They contended that their Complaint seeking the nullification of the real estate mortgage and the extrajudicial foreclosure of their property, or the Second Complaint, did not constitute deliberate forum shopping. They claimed that the Complaint was founded on a different cause of action and sought different reliefs. 7 Besides, the trial court had already dismissed that Complaint ion the ground of litis pendentia and they did not file any motion for reconsideration or appeal from the order of dismissal. According to petitioners, the dismissal of the action eliminated the possibility of conflicting decisions; hence, they argue, there is no basis for holding them in direct contempt of court. 8

In response to the charge of indirect contempt, petitioners explained that they did not intend to conceal their Second Complaint; they had even disclosed in the Verification and Certification of this Petition the status of the related cases that were pending before the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. 9 Atty. Socrates M. Arevalo, petitioners' counsel and co-petitioner, averred that he was also the chief counsel of the Cabangon Chua Group of companies. He claimed that his job entailed the supervision of over a hundred litigation cases, which left him with little time for his personal cases. While admitting his oversight in failing to inform us of their Second Complaint, he invoked the Court's liberality. He explained that because petitioners stood to lose their family home, he would not deliberately do anything to cause the outright dismissal of this case. 10 DETACa

The explanations proffered by petitioners are unsatisfactory.

As we noted in our Decision dated 18 April 2012, the similar reliefs sought in the two Complaints clearly show that their lone objective was to prevent the transfer of the property of petitioners to respondent bank. Consequently, we ruled that petitioners were guilty of willful and deliberate forum-shopping when they filed the Second Complaint. 11

Notably, the RTC had already dismissed their First Complaint one year before they filed this Petition for Review on 8 October 2010. They filed their Second Complaint before the trial court on 12 November 2010 but did not inform the Court contrary to their undertaking in the Verification and Certification of this Petition. In fact, they complied with their undertaking only on 14 December 2010 via a Reply 12 to respondents' motion to cite them for contempt 13 for violation of the rules on forum-shopping. These dates reveal the deliberate intent of petitioners to shop for a favorable decision in their bid to prevent respondents from acquiring the subject property after the former's first attempt before the RTC. These circumstances likewise show that petitioners' non-disclosure of their Second Complaint was not a simple oversight.

The dismissal of the Second Complaint of petitioners does not relieve them from the liability for forum-shopping. In Buan v. Lopez, 14 the petitioners therein filed before the Court a special civil action for prohibition one month after they had filed a similar action before the RTC of Manila. Both actions were dismissed with prejudice on account of forum-shopping. We ruled:

Indeed, the petitioners in both actions x x x 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 the punitive measure of dismissal of both their actions, that in this Court and that in the Regional Trial Court as well. Quite recently, upon substantially identical factual premises, the Court en banc had occasion to condemn and penalize the act of litigants of filing the same suit in different courts, aptly described as "forum-shopping." 15

That petitioners opted not to pursue their Second Complaint does not negate their commission of forum shopping. 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 to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. In the process, they create the possibility of conflicting decisions that may be rendered by different fora upon the same issues. 16 Hence, once there is a finding of forum shopping, the penalty is summary dismissal of both the petition pending before this Court and the other one pending before a lower court. Such is the penalty, because twin dismissal is the proper punitive measure for those who trifle with the orderly administration of justice. 17

Under Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91, 18 any willful and deliberate forum shopping by any party and counsel through the filing of multiple petitions or complaints to ensure a favorable action shall constitute a direct contempt of court. That offense is summarily penalized with a fine not exceeding P2,000. 19

On the other hand, noncompliance with any of the undertakings in the Certification against Forum Shopping shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. 20 That a court should be informed of the pendency of a similar proceeding filed by a party is a well-settled rule. The responsibility cannot be taken lightly because of the harsh penalties the law prescribes for noncompliance. 21

WHEREFORE, we find petitioners guilty of DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT for wilfully and deliberately committing forum-shopping, for which they are hereby ordered to pay a fine of P2,000. We also find them guilty of INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT for their unjustified failure to comply with their undertakings under the Certification against Forum-shopping, for which they are ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.

The fines are payable to this Court within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution. Petitioners are likewise WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall merit a more severe penalty.

Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the records of Atty. Socrates M. Arevalo in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

SO ORDERED."

 

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Substituted by Philippine Asset Growth Two, Inc. (PAGT).

2.Spouses Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, 686 Phil. 236 (2012).

3.Supra, at 244-254.

4.Id. at 254.

5.Rollo, pp. 371-381.

6. In the Resolution dated 18 July 2012, we denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration as the grounds raised by petitioners — except those related to the charges of contempt on account of forum-shopping — were a mere rehash of the arguments raised in the Petition (id. at 432).

7.Id. at 375-379.

8.Id. at 380-381.

9. Paragraph 3 of the Verification and Certification states:

   3. That we have not commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issues with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different division(s) thereof, except Civil Case No. 98-0328 in the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque which was dismissed without prejudice and the pending appeal in Civil Case No. 09-0126 in the Court of Appeals, and that to the best of our knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or different division(s) thereof, or this Court or any other tribunal or agency. (Id. at 43.)

10.Id. at 381-382.

11.Supra note 2.

12.Rollo, pp. 303-320.

13.Id. at 279-301.

14. 229 Phil. 65 (1986).

15.Id. at 70.

16.Yap v. Chua, 687 Phil. 392-403 (2012).

17.Fontana Development Corporation v. Vukasinovic, G.R. No. 222424, 21 September 2016; Dy v. Mandy Commodities, 611 Phil. 74 (2009) citing First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 280 (1996).

18. Additional Requisites for Petitions Filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to Prevent Forum Shopping or Appeals to Prevent Forum Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitions and Complaints (8 February 1994).

19.Heirs of Sotto v. Palicte, 726 Phil. 651 (2014).

20. Rules of Court, Rule 7, Section 5.

21.Spouses Oliveros v. Sison, 591 Phil. 140 (2008).