G.R. NO. 143562 - CATALINA L. SANTOS, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LUZ PROTACIO AND DAVID A. RAYMUNDO, VS. PARAÑAQUE KINGS ENTERPRISES, INC..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED , with respect to the order of the Court a quo on May 18, 1998, and the aforesaid order is hereby SET ASIDE and RECALLED . The motion to strike out certain allegations in the answer is ordered to be resolved by the regular judge appointed in Branch 57. On the other issues raised, We find no reversible error which may be attributed to the public respondent. [14] Private respondent PKE filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration [15] reiterating its plea to likewise nullify the trial court's June 11, 1998 Order which denied private respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of the May 18, 1998 Order. When petitioners Santos and David filed their Comment [16] to the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, they raised the issue of forum shopping because of the pendency of the second CA Petition (CA G.R. SP No. 50570). Nevertheless, the CA promulgated its June 15, 2000 Resolution, also annulling the June 11, 1998 Order, in addition to the May 18, 1998 Order earlier set aside. Alleging that the CA should have addressed the issue of forum shopping and summarily dismissed the two petitions, petitioners Santos and David now come to this Court through this appeal under Rule 45. The Issues Petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration: IS RESPONDENT GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING FOR SEPARATELY FILING THE TWO PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI? DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE ORDERS DATED MAY 18 AND JUNE 11, 1998? The Court's Ruling We find no merit in the petition. Forum shopping is the "institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition" or "the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (and possibly favorable) opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari ." [17] In Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals , we found that there is forum shopping when [a party] "repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances , and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court (emphasis supplied)." [18] Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. [19] In the case at bar, there is no identity of transactions, facts and issues in the first and second CA Petitions. The first CA Petition questioned the May 18 and June 11, 1998 Orders of the Makati City RTC relative to the striking out of the allegations made by petitioners Santos and David in their answer. The second CA Petition, on the other hand, questions the Orders of the RTC relative to the dismissal of the Civil