11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

SPOUSES ATTY. ERLANDO A.

G.R.No.180572
ABRENICA and JOENA B.

ABRENICA
Present:
Petitioners,

CARPIO,Chairperson,

BRION,
versus
PEREZ,

SERENO,and

REYES,JJ.
LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA,

TUNGOL and TIBAYAN, ATTYS.

Promulgated:
ABELARDO M. TIBAYAN and

DANILON.TUNGOL,
June18,2012
Respondents.
xx

DECISION
SERENO,J.:
[1]
The present case is a continuation of G.R. No. 169420 decided by this Court on 22
September2006.Forbrevity,wequotetherelevantfactsnarratedinthatcase:
Petitioner Atty. Erlando A. Abrenica was a partner of individual respondents, Attys.
DaniloN.TungolandAbelardoM.Tibayan,intheLawFirmofAbrenica,TungolandTibayan
(thefirm).
In 1998, respondents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) two
casesagainstpetitioner.ThefirstwasSECCaseNo.05985959,forAccountingandReturnand
Transfer of Partnership Funds With Damages and Application for Issuance of Preliminary
Attachment,wheretheyallegedthatpetitionerrefusedtoreturnpartnershipfundsrepresenting
profitsfromthesaleofaparceloflandinLemery,Batangas.ThesecondwasSECCaseNo.10
986123,alsofor
AccountingandReturnandTransferofPartnershipFundswhererespondentssoughttorecover
frompetitionerretainerfeesthathereceivedfromtwoclientsofthefirmandthebalanceofthe
cashadvancethatheobtainedin1997.
The SEC initially heard the cases but they were later transferred to the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City pursuant to Republic Act No. 8799, which transferred jurisdiction over
intracorporate controversies from the SEC to the courts. In a Consolidated Decision dated
November23,2004,theRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity,Branch226,heldthat:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as

follows:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

1/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

follows:
CIVILCASENO.Q0142948
1. Ordering the respondent Atty. ErlandoAbrenica to render full accounting of
theamountshereceivedasprofitsfromthesaleandresaleoftheLemerypropertyinthe
amountof4,524,000.00
2.Ordering the respondent Atty. ErlandoAbrenica to remit to the law firm the
saidamountof4,524,000.00plusinterestof12%perannumfromthetimehereceived
thesameandconvertedthesametohisownpersonaluseorfromSeptember1997until
fullypaidand
3.Topaythecostsofsuit.
CIVILCASENO.Q0142959
1.OrderingAtty.ErlandoAbrenicatorenderafullaccountingoftheamountshe
receivedundertheretaineragreementbetweenthelawfirmandAtlantaIndustriesInc.
andAtlantaLandCorporationintheamountof320,000.00.
2.OrderingAtty.ErlandoAbrenicatoremittothelawfirmtheamountreceived
by him under the Retainer Agreement with Atlanta Industries, Inc. and Atlanta Land
Corporation in the amount of 320,000.00 plus interests of 12% per annum from June
1998untilfullypaid
3.Ordering Atty. Erlando Abrenica to pay the law firm his balance on his cash
advanceintheamountof25,000.00withinterestof12%perannumfromthedatethis
decisionbecomesfinaland
4.Topaythecostsofsuit.
SOORDERED.
Petitioner received a copy of the decision on December 17, 2004. On December 21,
2004,hefiledanoticeofappealunderRule41andpaidtherequiredappealfees.
Twodayslater,respondentsfiledaMotionforIssuanceofWritofExecutionpursuantto
A.M. 01204SC, which provides that decisions in intracorporate disputes are immediately
executoryandnotsubjecttoappealunlessstayedbyanappellatecourt.
OnJanuary7,2005,respondentsfiledanOpposition(ToDefendant'sNoticeofAppeal)
[2]
on the ground that it violated A.M. No. 04907SC prescribing appeal by certiorari under
Rule43asthecorrectmodeofappealfromthetrialcourtsdecisionsonintracorporatedisputes.
PetitionerthereafterfiledaReplywithManifestation(TotheOppositiontoDefendant's
NoticeofAppeal)andanOppositiontorespondentsmotionforexecution.
OnMay11,2005,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderrequiringpetitionertoshowcausewhy
itshouldtakecognizanceofthenoticeofappealinviewofA.M.No.04907SC.Petitionerdid
notcomplywiththesaidOrder.Instead,onJune10,2005,hefiledwiththeCourtofAppealsa
MotionforLeaveofCourttoAdmitAttachedPetitionforReviewunderRule43oftheRevised
RulesofCourt.Respondentsopposedthemotion.
TheCourtofAppealsdeniedpetitioner'smotioninitsassailedResolutiondatedJune29,
2005xxx.
xxxxxxxxx
The Court ofAppeals also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in its August
23,2005Resolution.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

2/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

Giventheforegoingfacts,wedismissedthePetitioninG.R.No.169420ontheground
[3]
thattheappealfiledbypetitionerwasthewrongremedy.Forthatreason,weheldasfollows:
Timeandagain,thisCourthasuphelddismissalsofincorrectappeals,evenifthesewere
timelyfiled.InLanzaderasv.AmethystSecurityandGeneralServices,Inc.,thisCourtaffirmed
the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition for review under Rule 43 to question a
decision because the proper mode of appeal should have been a petition for certiorari under
Rule65.xxx.
xxxxxxxxx
Indeed, litigations should, and do, come to an end. Public interest demands an end to
everylitigationandabelatedefforttoreopenacasethathasalreadyattainedfinalitywillserve
nopurposeotherthantodelaytheadministrationofjustice.Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourt's
decision became final and executory on January 3, 2005. Respondents had already acquired a
vested right in the effects of the finality of the decision, which should not be disturbed any
longer.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheCourtofAppealsResolutionsdatedJune
29, 2005 and August 23, 2005 in CAG.R. SP No. 90076 denying admission of petitioners
PetitionforReviewareAFFIRMED.

Thus, respondents sought the execution of the judgment. On 11 April 2007, G.R. No.
[4]
169420becamefinalandexecutory.
Apparently not wanting to be bound by this Courts Decision in G.R. No. 169420,
petitionersErlandoandJoenasubsequentlyfiledwiththeCourtofAppeals(CA)aPetitionfor
AnnulmentofJudgmentwithprayerfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctionand/or
temporaryrestrainingorder,docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.98679.ThePetitionforAnnulment
ofJudgmentassailedthemeritsoftheRTCsDecisioninCivilCaseNos.Q0142948andQ
0142959, subject of G.R. No. 169420. In that Petition for Annulment, Petitioners raised the
followinggrounds:
I.Thelowercourterredinconcludingthatbothpetitionersandrespondentsdidnotpresent
directdocumentaryevidencetosubstantiate[their]respectiveclaims.
II.Thelowercourterredinconcludingthatbothpetitionersandrespondentsreliedmainly
ontestimonialevidencetoprovetheirrespectiveposition[s].
III. Thelowercourterredinnotrulingthattherealestatetransactionenteredintobysaid
petitionersandspousesRomanandAmaliaAguzarwasapersonaltransactionandnota
lawpartnershiptransaction.
IV.Thelowercourterredinrulingthatthetestimoniesoftherespondentsarecredible.
V.Thelowercourterredinrulingthatthepurchasepriceforthelotinvolvedwas3million
andnot8million.
VI. The lower court erred in ruling that petitioners retainer agreement with Atlanta
Industries,Inc.wasalawpartnershiptransaction.
VII.Thelowercourterredwhenitfailedtoruleonsaidpetitionerspermissivecounterclaim
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

3/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

relativetothevariouspersonalloanssecuredbyrespondents.
VIII.Thelowercourtnotonlyerredintheexerciseofitsjurisdictionbutmoreimportantlyit

[5]

actedwithoutjurisdictionorwithlackofjurisdiction.

We note that petitioners were married on 28 May 1998. The cases filed with the
SecuritiesandExchangeCommission(SEC)on6May1998and15October1998werefiled
against petitioner Erlando only. It was with the filing of CAG.R. SP No. 98679 on 24 April
2007thatJoenajoinedErlandoasacopetitioner.
[6]
On 26 April 2007, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the Petition. First, it
reasoned that the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is
available only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
[7]
appropriateremediesarenolongeravailablethroughnofaultofpetitioners. Consideringthat
thedismissaloftheappealwasdirectlyattributabletothem,theremedyunderRule47wasno
longeravailable.
Second,theCAstatedthatthegroundsallegedinthePetitiondelvedonthemeritsofthe
caseandtheappreciationbythetrialcourtoftheevidencepresentedtothelatter.UnderRule
47,thegroundsforannulmentarelimitedonlytoextrinsicfraudandlackofjurisdiction.
Lastly, the CA held that the fact that the trial court was not designated as a special
commercialcourtdidnotmeanthatthelatterhadnojurisdictionoverthecase.Theappellate
courtstatedthat,inanyevent,petitionerscouldhaveraisedthismatteronappealorthrougha
petitionforcertiorariunderRule65,buttheydidnotdoso.
PetitionersfiledanAmendedPetitionforAnnulmentofJudgmentdated2May2007,but
theCAhadbythenalreadyissuedthe26April2007ResolutiondismissingthePetition.
On24May2007,the26April2007ResolutioninCAG.R.SPNo.98679becamefinal
[8]
andexecutory.
Petitionersdidnotgiveup.Theyonceagainfileda105pagePetitionforAnnulmentof
[9]
JudgmentwiththeCAdated25May2007 docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.99719.Thistime,
they injected the ground of extrinsic fraud into what appeared to be substantially the same
issuesraisedinCAG.R.SPNo.98679.ThefollowingwerethegroundsraisedinCAG.R.SP
No.99719:
A. Extrinsicfraudand/orcollusionattendedtherenditionoftheConsolidatedDecisionxxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

4/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

A. Extrinsicfraudand/orcollusionattendedtherenditionoftheConsolidatedDecisionxxx
basedonthefollowingbadgesoffraudand/orglaringerrorsdeliberatelycommitted,towit:
I.Thelowercourtdeliberatelyerredinconcludingthatbothpetitionersandrespondents
did not present direct documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims,
as it relied purely on the gist of what its personnel did as regards the transcript of
stenographicnotesthelatter[sic]incollusionwiththerespondents.
II.Thelowercourtdeliberatelyerredinconcludingthatbothpetitionersandrespondents
reliedmainlyontestimonial evidence to prove their respective positionsby relying
totally on what was presented to it by its personnel who drafted the Consolidated
Decisionincollusionwiththerespondents.
III.Thelowercourtdeliberatelyerredinnotrulingthattherealestatetransactionentered
into by said petitioners and spouses Roman and Amalia Aguzar was a personal
transaction and not a law partnership transaction for the same reasons as stated in
Nos.1andIIabove.
IV.Thelowercourtdeliberatelyerredinrulingthatthetestimoniesoftherespondentsare
credible as against the petitioner Erlando Abrenica and his witnesses for the same
reasonsasstatedinNos.IandIIabove.
V. The lower court deliberately erred in ruling that the purchase price for the lot
involvedwas3millionandnot8millionforthesamereasonsasstatedinNos.1
andIIabove.
VI. Thelowercourtdeliberatelyerredinrulingthatpetitionersretaineragreementwith
Atlanta Industries, Inc. was a law partnership transaction for the same reasons as
statedinNos.1andIIabove.
VII.Thelowercourtdeliberatelyerredwhenitfailedtoruleonsaidpetitionerspermissive
counterclaim relative to the various personal loans secured by respondents also for
thesamereasonsastheabove.
B. As an incident of the extrinsic fraud[,] the lower court[,] despite full knowledge of its
incapacity[,] rendered/promulgated the assailed Consolidated Decision x x x without
[10]
jurisdictionorwithlackofjurisdiction.
(Underscoringintheoriginal.)

[11]
On2August2007,theCAissuedthefirstassailedResolution
dismissingthePetition
inCAG.R.SPNo.99719,whichheldthePetitiontobeinsufficientinformandsubstance.It
notedthefollowing:
x x x. Readily noticeable is that CAG.R. SP No. 90076 practically contained the
prayerfortheannulmentofthesubjectconsolidatedDecisionpremisedontheverysame
allegations,groundsorissuesasthepresentannulmentofjudgmentcase.
xxxxxxxxx
Annulmentofjudgmentisarecourseequitableincharacter,allowedonlyinexceptional
casesaswherethereisnoavailableorotheradequateremedy(Espinosavs.CourtofAppeals,
430 SCRA 96[2004]). Under Section 2 of Rule 47 of the Revised Rules of Court, the only
grounds for an annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction (Cerezo vs.
Tuazon,426SCRA167[2004]).Extrinsicfraudshallnotbeavalidgroundifitwasavailedof,
orcouldhavebeenavailedof,inamotionfornewtrialorpetitionforrelief.
xxxxxxxxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

5/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

xxx.Inthecaseatbar,notonlyhasthecourtaquojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter
and over the persons of the parties, what petitioner is truly complaining [of] here is only a
possibleerrorintheexerciseofjurisdiction,notontheissueofjurisdictionitself.Wherethereis
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter (as in this case), the decision on all other
questionsarisinginthecaseisbutanexerciseofthejurisdiction.Andtheerrorswhichthecourt
maycommitintheexerciseofjurisdictionaremerelyerrorsofjudgmentwhicharetheproper
subjectof
an appeal (Republic vs. G Holdings, supra, citing Tolentino vs. Leviste, supra). (Emphasis
supplied.)

[12]
Subsequently,petitionersfiledaHumbleMotionforReconsideration
on28August
2007.
While the 28 August 2007 motion was pending, on 13 September 2007, petitioner
[13]
Erlando filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion
with Branch 226, alleging that the sheriff had
leviedonpropertiesbelongingtohischildrenandpetitionerJoena.Inaddition,Erlandoalleged
thatthetrialcourtstillhadtodeterminethemannerofdistributionofthefirmsassetsandthe
valueoftheleviedproperties.Lastly,heinsistedthattheRTCstillhadtodeterminetheissueof
whethertheRule41appealwasthecorrectremedy.
[14]
Onthesameday,JoenafiledanAffidavitofThirdPartyClaim
alsowithBranch226
[15]
[16]
oftheRTCofQuezonCity,allegingthatshe
andherstepchildren
ownedanumberof
thepersonalpropertiessoughttobelevied.Shealsoinsistedthatsheownedhalfofthetwo(2)
motorvehiclesaswellasthehouseandlotcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.
216818,whichformedpartoftheabsolutecommunityofproperty.Shelikewiseallegedthatthe
real property, being a family home, and the furniture and the utensils necessary for
housekeepinghavingadepreciatedcombinedvalueofonehundredthousandpesos(100,000)
wereexemptfromexecutionpursuanttoRule39,Section13oftheRulesofCourt.Thus,she
soughttheirdischargeandreleaseandlikewisetheimmediateremittancetoherofhalfofthe
proceeds,ifany.
[17]
Accordingly, the RTC scheduled
a hearing on the motion. On 17 October 2007,
however,petitionerErlandomovedtowithdrawhismotiononaccountofongoingnegotiations
[18]
withrespondents.
Thereafter, petitioner Erlando and respondent Abelardo Tibayan, witnessed by Sheriff
Nardo de Guzman, Jr. of Branch 226 of the RTC of Quezon City, executed an agreement to
postpone the auction sale of the property covered by TCT No. 216818 in anticipation of an
[19]
amicablesettlementofthemoneyjudgment.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

6/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

Finally, on 30 October 2007, the CA in CAG.R. SP No. 99719 issued the second
[20]
assailed Resolution
denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration for having been filed
outoftime,asthelastdayforfilingwason27August2007.Moreover,theCAfoundthatthe
grounds stated in the motion were merely recycled and rehashed propositions, which had
alreadybeendispensedwith.
PetitionersarenowassailingtheCAResolutionsdated2August2007and30October
2007,respectively,inCAG.R.SPNo.99719.Theyinsistthatthereisstillapendingissuethat
[21]
hasnotbeenresolvedbytheRTC.ThatissuearosefromtheOrder
givenbythetrialcourt
topetitionerErlandotoexplainwhyitshouldtakecognizanceoftheNoticeofAppealwhen
theproperremedywasapetitionforreviewunderRule43oftheRulesofCourt.
Further, petitioners blame the trial and the appellate courts for the dismissal of their
appeal despite this Courts explanation in G.R. No. 169420 that the appeal was the wrong
remedyandwasthuscorrectlydismissedbytheCA.Insteadofcomplyingwiththeshowcause
OrderissuedbytheRTC,petitionerswentdirectlytotheCAandinsistedthattheremedythey
hadundertakenwascorrect.
Petitionersalsocontendthattherewasextrinsicfraudintheappreciationofthemeritsof
thecase.TheyraiseinthepresentPetitionthegroundstheycitedinthethree(3)Petitionsfor
AnnulmentofJudgment(includingtheAmendedPetition)quotedabove.
Next,theyassertthatpetitionerJoenasrighttodueprocesswasalsoviolatedwhenshe
wasnotmadeapartyininteresttotheproceedingsinthelowercourts,evenifherhalfofthe
absolute community of property was included in the execution of the judgment rendered by
Branch226oftheRTCofQuezonCity.
Finally,theyinsistthattheirHumbleMotionforReconsiderationwasfiledontime,since
27August2007wasaholiday.Therefore,theyhaduntil28August2007tofiletheirmotion.
Sincethen,itappearsthataSheriffsCertificateofSalewasissuedon3January2008in
favorofthelawfirmforthesumof5millionforthepropertycoveredbyTCTNo.216818.
On 18 March 2009, while the case was pending with this Court, petitioners filed a
[22]
Complaint
withaprayerfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctionbeforetheRTC
ofMarikinaCityagainsthereinrespondentsandSheriffNardoI.deGuzman,Jr.ofBranch226
of the RTC of Quezon City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 091323MK and was
[23]
raffledtoBranch273oftheRTCofMarikinaCity.
Petitionerssoughtthenullificationof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

7/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

thesheriffssaleonexecutionoftheDecisionintheconsolidatedcasesrenderedbyBranch226,
as well as the payment of damages. They alleged that the process of the execution sale was
conductedirregularly,unlawfully,andinviolationoftheirrighttodueprocess.
On2July2009,Branch273oftheRTCofMarikinaCityissuedaWritofPreliminary
Injunction enjoining respondents and/or their agents, and the Register of Deeds of Marikina
[24]
CityfromconsolidatingTCTNo.216818.
ThefilingoftheComplaintwiththeRTCofMarikinaCitypromptedrespondentstofile
[25]
aMotion
beforeustociteforcontemptpetitionerspousesandtheircounsel,Atty.Antonio
R.Bautista.ThisMotionwasonthegroundthatpetitionerscommittedforumshoppingwhen
they filed the Complaint pending with Branch 273 of the RTC of Marikina City, while the
presentcasewasalsostillpending.
Meanwhile, on 22 September 2009, respondents filed before Branch 226 an Ex Parte
[26]
Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession.
That Motion was granted by Branch 226
[27]
through a Resolution
issued on 10 November 2011. This Resolution then became the
[28]
subject of a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 filed by petitioners before the CA
docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.123164.
Soon after, on 6 March 2012, petitioners filed with the CA an Urgent Motion for
[29]
IssuanceofTemporaryRestrainingOrder(T.R.O.)
afterSheriffDeGuzman,Jr.servedon
themaNoticetoVacatewithinfivedaysfromreceiptoruntil11March2012.Asofthewriting
of this Decision, the CA has not resolved the issue raised in the Petition in CAG.R. SP No.
123164.

OurRuling

Petitioners elevated this case to this Court, because they were allegedly denied due
processwhentheCArejectedtheirsecondattemptattheannulmentoftheDecisionoftheRTC
andtheirHumbleMotionforReconsideration.
WeDENYpetitionersclaims.
Therulesofprocedurewereformulatedtoachievetheendsofjustice,nottothwartthem.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

8/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

Therulesofprocedurewereformulatedtoachievetheendsofjustice,nottothwartthem.

Petitioners may not defy the pronouncement of this Court in G.R. No. 169420 by pursuing
remediesthatarenolongeravailabletothem.Twice,theCAcorrectlyruledthattheremedyof
annulment of judgment was no longer available to them, because they had already filed an
appealunderRule41.Duetotheirownactions,thatappealwasdismissed.
It must be emphasized that the RTC Decision became final and executory through the
fault of petitioners themselves when petitioner Erlando (1) filed an appeal under Rule 41
insteadofRule43and(2)filedaPetitionforReviewdirectlywiththeCA,withoutwaitingfor
theresolutionbytheRTCoftheissuesstillpendingbeforethetrialcourt.
[30]
InEnriquezv.CourtofAppeals,
wesaid:
ItistruethattheRulesshouldbeinterpretedsoastogivelitigantsampleopportunityto
prove their respective claims and that a possible denial of substantial justice due to legal
technicalities should be avoided. But it is equally true that an appeal being a purely
statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in
theRulesofCourt.Inotherwords,hewhoseekstoavailoftherighttoappealmustplay
bytherules.xxx.(Emphasissupplied.)

With regard to the allegation of petitioner Joena that her right to due process was
violated, it must be recalled that after she filed her Affidavit of Third Party Claim on 13
September 2007 and petitioner Erlando filed his Urgent Omnibus Motion raising the same
issuescontainedinthatthirdpartyclaim,hesubsequentlyfiledtwoMotionswithdrawinghis
UrgentOmnibusMotion.PetitionerJoena,meanwhile,nolongerpursuedherthirdpartyclaim
oranyotherremedyavailabletoher.HerfailuretoactgivesthisCourttheimpressionthatshe
wasnolongerinterestedinhercase.Thus,itwasthroughherownfaultthatshewasnotableto
ventilateherclaim.
Furthermore, it appears from the records that petitioner Erlando was first married to a
certainMa.AlineLovejoyPaduaon13October1983.Theyhadthreechildren:PatrikErlando
(bornon14April1985),MariaMonicaErline(bornon9September1986),andPatrikRandel
(bornon12April1990).
After the dissolution of the first marriage of Erlando, he and Joena got married on 28
[31]
May 1998.
In her Affidavit, Joena alleged that she represented her stepchildren that the
levied personal properties in particular, a piano with a chair, computer equipment and a
computertablewereownedbythelatter.Wenotethattwoofthesestepchildrenwerealreadyof
legal age when Joena filed her Affidavit. As to Patrik Randel, parental authority over him
belongs to his parents. Absent any special power of attorney authorizing Joena to represent
Erlandoschildren,herclaimcannotbesustained.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

9/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

Petitioner Joena also asserted that the two (2) motor vehicles purchased in 1992 and
1997, as well as the house and lot covered by TCT No. 216818 formed part of the absolute
community regime. However, Art. 92, par. (3) of the Family Code excludes from the
communitypropertythepropertyacquiredbeforethemarriageofaspousewhohaslegitimate
descendants by a former marriage and the fruits and the income, if any, of that property.
Neitherthesetwovehiclesnorthehouseandlotbelongtothesecondmarriage.
WenowproceedtodiscusstheMotionforcontemptfiledbyrespondents.
Respondentsclaimthatpetitionersandtheirpresentcounsel,Atty.AntonioR.Bautista,
wereguiltyofforumshoppingwhenthelatterfiledCivilCaseNo.091323MKwiththeRTC
ofMarikinaCitywhilethecasewasstillpendingbeforeus.InExecutiveSecretaryv.Gordon,
[32]
weexplainedforumshoppinginthiswise:
Forumshoppingconsistsoffilingmultiplesuitsinvolvingthesamepartiesforthesame
causeofaction,eithersimultaneouslyorsuccessively,forthepurposeofobtainingafavorable
judgment.Thus,ithasbeenheldthatthereisforumshopping
(1)wheneverasaresultofanadversedecisioninoneforum,apartyseeksafavorable
decision(otherthanbyappealorcertiorari)inanother,or
(2)if,afterhehasfiledapetitionbeforetheSupremeCourt,apartyfilesanotherbefore
theCourtofAppealssinceinsuchcasehedeliberatelysplitsappealsinthehopethatevenas
one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed, another case (offering a similar
remedy)wouldstillbeopen,or
(3)whereapartyattemptstoobtainapreliminaryinjunctioninanothercourtafterfailing
toobtainthesamefromtheoriginalcourt.

Civil Case No. 091323MK was filed to question the proceedings undertaken by the
sheriffinexecutingthejudgmentinCivilCaseNos.Q0142948andQ0142959.Ontheother
hand,thepresentcasequestionsthemeritsoftheDecisionitselfinCivilCaseNos.Q0142948
and Q0142959. These cases have different causes of action. Thus, it cannot be said that

petitioners were clearly guilty of forum shopping when they filed the Complaint before the
RTCofMarikinaCity.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The
Resolutionsdated2August2007and30October2007issuedbytheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.SPNo.99719areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

10/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice
Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRIONJOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice
(PerSection12,R.A.296,
TheJudiciaryActof1948,asamended)

[1]
Abrenicav.LawFirmofAbrenica,Tungol&Tibayan,534Phil.34,3741(2006).
[2]
Entitled RE: MODE OF APPEAL IN CASES FORMERLY COGNIZABLE BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

11/12

11/14/2016

G.R.No.180572

Entitled RE: MODE OF APPEAL IN CASES FORMERLY COGNIZABLE BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,whichwasissuedonSeptember14,2004andbecameeffectiveonOctober15,2004.Pertinentportionsthereof
read:
xxxxxxxxx
1. All decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the
InterimRulesofProcedureGoverningIntraCorporateControversiesunderRepublicActNo.8799shallbeappealableto
theCourtofAppealsthroughapetitionforreviewunderRule43oftheRulesofCourt.
2.Thepetitionforreviewshallbetakenwithinfifteen(15)daysfromnoticeofthedecisionorfinalorderofthe
RegionalTrialCourt.UponpropermotionandthepaymentofthefullamountofthelegalfeeprescribedinRule141as
amendedbeforetheexpirationofthereglementaryperiod,theCourtofAppealsmaygrantanadditionalperiodoffifteen
(15)dayswithinwhichtofilethepetitionforreview.Nofurtherextensionshallbegrantedexceptforthemostcompelling
reasonsandinnocasetoexceedfifteen(15)days.
[3]
Supranote1,at4447.
[4]
Rollo,p.614.
[5]
Id.at618620.
[6]
Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and
EstelaM.PerlasBernabe(nowamemberofthisCourt)concurringrollo,pp.460463.
[7]
Rule47,Sec.1.
[8]
Rollo,p.601.
[9]
Id.at82186.
[10]
Id.at118122.
[11]
Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina Arevalo
Zenarosaconcurringrollo,pp.7478.
[12]
Rollo,pp.379398.
[13]
Records,Vol.15,pp.248253.
[14]
Id.at257259.
[15]
One(1)kingsizewoodenbedwithtwo(2)nighttablesandtwo(2)setsoflampshadesone(1)woodenchestandone(1)
woodenkitchencabinetwithglass.
[16]
One(1)Trebelpianowithchairone(1)setofcomputerequipmentconsistingofone(1)Samsungmonitor,Syncmaster793S
one(1)Viperkeyboardwithmouseone(1)HPprinterPSC1315one(1)AsusharddiskandDVDRomone(1)setofspeakers
andone(1)computertable.
[17]
Records,Vol.15,p.287.
[18]
Petitionerfiledtwomotionsonthesameday:anUrgentMotiontoWithdraw(Records,Vol.15,pp.289290)andanExtremely
UrgentbutHumbleManifestationandMotion(Records,Vol.15,pp.291292).
[19]
Rollo,p.781.
[20]
Id.at8081.
[21]
Id.at332.
[22]
Id.at678686.
[23]
TherealpropertysubjectofthesaleonexecutionwaslocatedatNo.17PresidentRoxasSt.,IndustrialValley,MarikinaCity.
[24]
Records,Vol.19,pp.7173.
[25]
Rollo,pp.656677.
[26]
Records,Vol.19,pp.7483.
[27]
Id.at3944.
[28]
Id.at2238.
[29]
Id.at121124.
[30]
444Phil.419,429(2003).
[31]
Records,Vol.15,p.274.
[32]
359Phil266,271272(1998).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/180572.htm

12/12