8/10/2019 Madara v Perello (2008) http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/madara-v-perello-2008 1/1 Digest Author: Camille Sapnu MADAR V PERELLO (2008) Petitioners: Madara, Roa and Venus (plaintiff PIRC) Respondents: Hon. Perello, PAGCOR, and PIRC (Provident) Ponente: Brion, J. DOCTRINE: Test of Forum Shopping: Whether the two (or more) pending cases have identity of parties, of rights or causes of action, and of the reliefs sought. FACTS: 1. Two groups claim to represent the PIRC. To distinguish, one is named as plaintiff PIRC while the other is the real PIRC. 2. Plaintiff PIRC filed a case against PAGCOR alleging that PAGCOR should pay its lease rentals to plaintiff PIRC (new corporate officers of PIRC) instead of the real PIRC (former officers). 3. RTC ruled in favor of the real PIRC. 4. Plaintiff PIRC filed a Notice of Appeal. Real PIRC (herein respondents) opposed on the ground that they had taken a wrong mode of review. As a response, plaintiff PIRC filed a Manifestation asking RTC to consider its Notice of Appeal as withdrawn. 5. Plaintiff PIRC filed a Petition for Review with the CA. Then asked CA to consider it withdrawn. 6. Petitioners then filed before RTC a Petition for Relief from Judgment (basically to set aside its decision). 7. RTC denied both the Notice of Appeal and Petition for Relief from Judgment (two separate Orders). 8. Meanwhile, CA granted the withdrawal of Petition for Review. (So RTC denied it while CA granted) 9. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with RTC. 10. While these RTC incidents are still pending, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing on the ground of grave abuse of discretion the orders of RTC among which are those which denied the Notice of Appeal and Petition for Relief. (First CA case) 11. Respondents assail the petitioners committed forum shopping. 12. While the case in CA for certitorari was pending, RTC denied the MR of petitioners. 13. Petitioners in their own and individual capacities filed another Petition for Certiorari with the CA assailing the same RTC Orders. (Second CA case) 14. CA denied the first case on the ground of forum shopping. ISSUE: WoN the petitioners committed forum shopping RULING + RATIO: YES with CA and SC. Forum Shopping with CA While its Motion for Reconsideration with RTC was pending, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with CA on the same RTC Order. This is a clear case of forum shopping since they sought, at the same time, two separate remedies with two different judicial venues to obtain the same relief. Forum Shopping with SC Despite their sworn certification against forum shopping, they have never disclosed to the SC the pendency of the second CA case or any of its material developments. As far as the SC knows, there are t wo pending cases the second CA case and the present petition before the SC. This is f orum shopping. Moreover they filed a false certification of non-forum shopping. DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED.

Madara v Perello (2008)

Download PDF Report

Upload
camille-sapnu
View
222
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

8/10/2019 Madara v Perello (2008)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/madara-v-perello-2008 1/1

Digest Author: Camille Sapnu

MADAR V PERELLO (2008)Petitioners: Madara, Roa and Venus (plaintiff PIRC) Respondents: Hon. Perello, PAGCOR, and PIRC (Provident) Ponente: Brion, J.

DOCTRINE: Test of Forum Shopping: Whether the two (or more) pendingcases have identity of parties, of rights or causes of action, and of the reliefs

sought.

FACTS:

1. Two groups claim to represent the PIRC. To distinguish, one isnamed as plaintiff PIRC while the other is the real PIRC.

2. Plaintiff PIRC filed a case against PAGCOR alleging thatPAGCOR should pay its lease rentals to plaintiff PIRC (newcorporate officers of PIRC) instead of the real PIRC (formerofficers).

3. RTC ruled in favor of the real PIRC.

4. Plaintiff PIRC filed a Notice of Appeal. Real PIRC (hereinrespondents) opposed on the ground that they had taken awrong mode of review. As a response, plaintiff PIRC filed aManifestation asking RTC to consider its Notice of Appeal aswithdrawn.

5. Plaintiff PIRC filed a Petition for Review with the CA. Then askedCA to consider it withdrawn.

6. Petitioners then filed before RTC a Petition for Relief from

Judgment (basically to set aside its decision).7. RTC denied both the Notice of Appeal and Petition for Relief

from Judgment (two separate Orders).

8. Meanwhile, CA granted the withdrawal of Petition for Review.(So RTC denied it while CA granted)

9. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with RTC.

10. While these RTC incidents are still pending, petitioners filed aPetition for Certiorari assailing on the ground of grave abuse ofdiscretion the orders of RTC among which are those which

denied the Notice of Appeal and Petition for Relief. (First CAcase)

11. Respondents assail the petitioners committed forum shopping.

12. While the case in CA for certitorari was pending, RTC denied theMR of petitioners.

13. Petitioners in their own and individual capacities filed anotherPetition for Certiorari with the CA assailing the same RTCOrders. (Second CA case)

14. CA denied the first case on the ground of forum shopping.

ISSUE: WoN the petitioners committed forum shopping

RULING + RATIO: YES with CA and SC.

Forum Shopping with CAWhile its Motion for Reconsideration with RTC was pending, petitioners fileda Petition for Certiorari with CA on the same RTC Order. This is a clear caseof forum shopping since they sought, at the same time, two separateremedies with two different judicial venues to obtain the same relief.

Forum Shopping with SCDespite their sworn certification against forum shopping, they have neverdisclosed to the SC the pendency of the second CA case or any of itsmaterial developments. As far as the SC knows, there are two pending casesthe second CA case and the present petition before the SC. This is forumshopping. Moreover they filed a false certification of non-forum shopping.

DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED.