495

G.R. No. 141407. September 9, 2002. *

LAPULAPU DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION, VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 495

petitioner, vs. GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, 2002
respondent.
Lapulapu Development and Housing
Remedial Law; Courts; Judgments; When a decision becomes final Corp. vs.
and executory, it becomes valid and binding upon the parties and their
successors in interest; Such decision or order can no longer be disturbed or Group Management Corporation
reopened no matter how erroneous it may have been.—Jurisprudence and judgments. The ultimate test to determine the existence of forum
mandates that when a decision becomes final and executory, it becomes valid shopping is the vexation caused the courts and the litigants by the
and binding upon the parties and their successors in interest. Such decision or repeated invocation of substantially the same facts, issues and reliefs,
order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may thereby unnecessarily clogging court dockets and creating the
have been. Petitioner’s failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period
possibility of conflicting rulings and decisions.
renders the judgment final and executory. The perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory. Failure to The Case
conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45,
executory and, hence, unappealable. Therefore, since the Lapulapu Decision seeking the annulment of the April 30, 1999 Decision and the
has become final and executory, its execution has become mandatory and December 29, 1999 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA).  The 1

ministerial on the part of the judge.

Same;  Same; Same;  Courts of coequal and coordinate jurisdiction
assailed Decision disposed as follows:
may not interfere with or pass upon each other’s orders or processes, since “WHEREFORE, the petition being partly meritorious, the Court hereby
they have the same power and jurisdiction.—Petitioner grievously errs in resolves as follows:
insisting that the judgment of the Manila RTC nullified that of the Lapu-lapu
RTC. As already adverted to earlier, courts of coequal and coordinate 1. ‘1. To AFFIRM the Orders of May 28, 1998 and August 4, 1998,
jurisdiction may not interfere with or pass upon each other’s orders or in Civil Case No. 2203-L insofar as they set aside the order
processes, since they have the same power and jurisdiction. Except in extreme holding respondent Register of Deeds guilty of indirect contempt
situations authorized by law, they are proscribed from doing so. of court and to NULLIFY said orders insofar as they set aside the
Same;  Constitutional Law; Due Process;  A party cannot feign denial directives contained in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the order
of due process if it has been afforded the opportunity to present its side.—The dated November 28, 1997;
CA correctly ruled that the Lapulapu Judgment is binding upon petitioner 2. ‘2.To DECLARE without FORCE and EFFECT insofar as
which, by its own motion, participated as an intervenor. In fact, the latter filed petitioner Group Management Corporation is concerned, the
an Answer in Intervention and thereafter actively took part in the trial. Thus, decision in Civil Case No. R-82-3429 as well as the orders and
having had an opportunity to be heard and to seek a reconsideration of the writs issued for its execution and enforcement; and
action or ruling it complained of, it cannot claim that it was denied due 3. ‘3.To ENJOIN respondent Lapulapu Development and Housing
process of law. What the law prohibits is the absolute absence of the Corporation, along with its agents and representatives and/or
opportunity to be heard. Jurisprudence teaches that a party persons/ public officials/ employees acting in its interest,
_______________ specifically respondent Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
38, and respondent Register of Deeds of Lapulapu City, from
*
 THIRD DIVISION. obstructing, interfering with or in any manner delaying the
implementation/ execution/ enforcement by the Lapulapu City
494
RTC of its order and writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2203-L.
4. ‘4.For lack of sufficient basis, the charge of contempt of court
4 SUPREME COURT against respondent Lapulapu Development and Housing
94 REPORTS ANNOTATED Corporation and the public respondents is hereby DISMISSED.’
”
2

Lapulapu Development and

Housing Corp. vs. _______________

Group Management 1
 Fourteenth Division. Penned by Justice Artemio G. Tuquero with the concurrence
Corporation of Justices Eubulo G. Verzola (Division chairman) and Mariano M. Umali (member).
 CA Decision, pp. 23-24; Rollo, pp. 81-82.
cannot feign denial of due process if it has been afforded the
2

opportunity to present its side.

496
Same;  Forum Shopping; There is forum shopping whenever, as a
result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion 49 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(other than by appeal or certiorari) from another.—There is forum shopping
whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a 6 ANNOTATED
favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) from another. Lapulapu Development and Housing
In Gatmaytan v. CA, the petitioner therein repeatedly availed itself of several
judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively. All those Corp. vs.
remedies were substantially founded on the same transactions and the same Group Management Corporation
essential facts and circumstances; and all raised substantially the same issues
either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court. This The assailed Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Partial
Court held that therein petitioner was trying to increase his chances of Reconsideration. 3

obtaining a favorable decision by filing multiple suits in several courts. The Facts
Hence, he was found guilty of forum shopping.
The procedural and factual antecedents of this case are summarized
Same;  Judges; Disqualification;  Generally, judges are mandated to
hear and decide cases, unless legally disqualified; They may voluntarily by the CA in this wise:
excuse themselves on the ground of bias or prejudice, expression of opinions “LLDHC, formerly known as the B. Sunga Corporation, was the registered
that may show partiality, personal knowledge of the case, or distant affinity or owner of seventy-eight (78) lots, with an aggregate area of 423,117 square
former association with one of the parties or the latter’s counsel.—As a meters, located at Barrio Marigondon, Lapu-lapu City.
general rule, judges are mandated to hear and decide cases, unless legally “On February 4, 1974, LLDHC entered into a Project and Loan
disqualified. However, they may voluntarily excuse themselves on the ground Agreement with GSIS, whereby the latter undertook to extend a loan of P25
of bias or prejudice, expression of opinions that may show partiality, personal million to be used by LLDHC in developing, subdividing and selling to GSIS
knowledge of the case, or distant affinity or former association with one of the members, its property at Marigondon, Lapu-lapu City. To implement the
parties or the latter’s counsel. Agreement, GSIS extended to LLDHC an ad interim medium term loan of
P2,500,000.00 of which P710,400.00 was released. To secure payment of the
loan, LLDHC executed a real estate mortgage over its 78 lots at Marigondon,
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of Lapulapu City in favor of GSIS.
the Court of Appeals. “LLDHC having failed to develop the property and defaulted in the
payment of its loan, GSIS foreclosed the mortgage. And, being the lone bidder
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. in the public auction sale, GSIS acquired the mortgaged lots. After the lapse
of the redemption period, GSIS consolidated its ownership over the
     Mario D. Ortiz for petitioner.
mortgaged lots and the corresponding transfer certificates of title were issued
     Victor I. Padilla Collaborating Counsel for petitioner. in its name.
     The Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit for private “On February 26, 1980, GSIS, as new owner, executed a Deed of
respondent. Conditional Sale covering its Marigondon lots in favor of GMC.
“On April 23, 1980, LLDHC filed a complaint for Annulment of
PANGANIBAN, J.: Foreclosure with Writ of Mandatory Injunction against GSIS. Originally
docketed as Civil Case No. 131332 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, the
complaint (re-docketed as Civil Case No. R-82-3429) was assigned to Branch
Having the same power and prerogatives, courts of coequal and 38 thereof.
coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders
 “On November 3, 1989, GMC filed a complaint for Specific Performance “In its Resolution, dated September 6, 1996, the Supreme Court
with Damages against GSIS, docketed as Civil Case No. 2203-L of the dismissed LLDHC’s petition, in G.R. No. 118633, stating inter alia, thus:
Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City. The complaint seeks to compel GSIS ‘In a last ditch attempt to annul the February 24, 1992 Decision of the respondent court,
to execute a Final Deed of Sale in favor of GMC covering the Marigondon this petition was brought before us on February 2, 1995.
lots, the purchase price thereof having been paid in full by GMC to GSIS. ‘Dismissal of this petition is inevitable.
‘The instant petition which is captioned, For: Certiorari With Preliminary
Injunction, is actually another Petition for Annulment of Judgment of the February 24,
_______________ 1992 Decision of the respondent Regional Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City, Branch 27
in Civil Case No. 2203-L. A close perusal of this petition as well as the Petition for
3
 Rollo, p. 106. Annulment of Judgment brought by the petitioner before the Court of Appeals in  CA-
G.R. No. SP 34696 reveals that the instant petition is a mere reproduction of the
petition/complaint filed before the ap
497
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 497 499
2002 VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 499
Lapulapu Development and Housing 2002
Corp. vs. Lapulapu Development and Housing
Group Management Corporation Corp. vs.
“Allowed to intervene in Civil Case No. 2203-L, LLDHC filed a Motion to
Dismiss the complaint for specific performance. Said motion having been
Group Management Corporation
denied by the Lapu-Lapu City RTC, LLDHC filed its Answer in Intervention pellate tribunal for annulment of judgment. Paragraphs two (2) to
and thereafter participated in the proceedings as intervenor. eighteen (18) of this petition were copied verbatim from the Petition for
“On February 24, 1992, after a full-blown trial, a decision was rendered Annulment of Judgment earlier filed in the court a quo, except for the
in Civil Case No. 2203-L, the dispositive portion of which reads: designation of the parties thereto, i.e., plaintiff was changed to petitioner,
‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant to: defendant to respondent. In fact, even the prayer in this petition is the same
prayer in the Petition for Annulment of Judgment dismissed by the Court of
Appeals, to wit:
1. ‘1.Execute the final deed of absolute sale and deliver the seventy-eight (78)
certificates of title covering said seventy-eight (78) parcels of land to the
plaintiff; 1. ‘1.That Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction issue
2. ‘2.Pay plaintiff actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and expenses of commanding the Respondent to cease and desist from enforcing
litigation, in the amount of P285,638.88 and P100,000.00 exemplary the judgment of Respondent Judge Teodoro K. Risos in Civil
damages;
3. ‘3. Dismissing in toto intervenor’s complaint-in-intervention for lack of
Case No. 2203-L dated February 24, 1992 and all orders and
evidence of legal standing and legal interest in the suit, as well as failure processes pertaining to his decision in the said case.
to substantiate any cause of action against either plaintiff or defendant. 2. ‘2.Annulling the decision of defendant Judge Teodoro K. Risos of
RTC of Cebu, Branch 27, in Civil Case No. 2203-L.
3. ‘3.Granting Petitioner such other relief as law and justice may
‘SO ORDERED.
warrant in this case.’
“LLDHC, as intervenor, and GSIS as defendant, filed their respective
Notices of Appeals on March 11, 1992 and March 20, 1992. However, on ‘Under Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as
December 6, 1993, their appeals were dismissed by the Lapu-Lapu City RTC. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,’ it is the Court of Appeals (then
“On May 10, 1994, a decision was rendered in Civil Case No. R-82- the Intermediate Appellate Court), and not this Court, which has jurisdiction
3429 of the Manila RTC, Branch 38, the decretal portion of which reads: to annul judgments of Regional Trial Courts, viz.:
‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: ‘SEC. 9. Jurisdiction.—The Intermediate Appellate Court shall exercise:
x x x      x x x      x x x ‘(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
1. ‘1.ANNULLING the foreclosure by the defendant GSIS of the mortgage x x x      x x x      x x x
over the seventy-eight (78) parcels of land here involved:
2. ‘2.CANCELLING the consolidated certificates of titles issued in the name
‘Thus, this Court apparently has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition
of GSIS and directing the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to issue
new certificates of titles over those seventy-eight (78) parcels of land in which is evidently another petition to annul the February 24, 1992 Decision of
the name of the plaintiff, in exactly the same condition as they were before the respondent Branch 27, Regional Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City, it
the foreclosure; appearing that jurisdiction thereto properly pertains to the Court of Appeals.
3. ‘3.ORDERING the plaintiff to pay the GSIS the amount of P9,200,000.00 Such a petition was brought before the appellate court, but due to petitioner’s
with interest thereon at the rate of twelve (12%) percent per annum failure to nullify Judge Risos’ Decision in said forum, LLDHC, apparently at
commencing from October 12, 1989 until fully paid; and a loss as to what legal remedy to take, brought the instant petition under the
guise of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking once again to annul the
498 judgment of Branch 27.
‘Instead of filing this petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which is
49 SUPREME COURT REPORTS essentially another Petition to Annul Judgment, petitioner
8 ANNOTATED
500
Lapulapu Development and Housing
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Corp. vs.
0 ANNOTATED
Group Management Corporation
Lapulapu Development and Housing
1. ‘4.ORDERING defendant GSIS to execute a properly registrable release of Corp. vs.
discharge of mortgage over the parcels of land here involved after full
payment of such amount by the plaintiff.
Group Management Corporation
LLDHC should have filed a timely Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
‘All claims and counterclaims by the parties as against each other are hereby dismissed. December 29, 1994, dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed
‘No pronouncement as to costs.
‘SO ORDERED.’
by the petitioner LLDHC before the court a quo. But, this is all academic now.
The appellate court’s decision had become final and executory on January 28,
1995.
“On July 27, 1994, LLDHC filed a Complaint with this Court, docketed ‘Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to mention that this petition, which is truly for annulment
as CA-G.R. SP No. 34696, seeking the annulment of the decision in Civil of judgment, cannot prosper on its merits. [I]t has been settled that a judgment can be
Case No. 2203-L. annulled only on two (2) grounds: (a) that the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or
“In a decision dated December 29, 1994, this Court dismissed the lack of due process of law; or (b) that it has been obtained by fraud.
complaint for annulment of judgment, on the following ground: ‘Neither of these grounds obtain in the case at bench, x x x.
‘In fine, there being no showing from the allegations of the petition that the respondent ‘It cannot likewise be successfully argued that there was lack of due process in the
court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter and of the parties in Civil Case No. proceedings before Branch 27 of the RTC of Lapu-lapu. Petitioner had ample
2309 [2203-L], petitioner has no cause of action for the annulment of judgment. The participation in Civil Case No. 2203-L as intervenor, as it in fact filed a Motion to
complaint must allege ultimate facts for the annulment of the decision (Avendana v. Dismiss said case on December 7, 1989 which was, however, denied by respondent
Bautista, 142 SCRA 39). We find none in this case. Judge. Thereafter, a full-blown trial was held which culminated in the subject decision
sought to be annulled by the petitioner.
‘In the same manner, the February 24, 1992 decision of respondent court cannot be
“On January 28, 1995, no appeal having been taken by LLHDC, the
assailed on the ground of fraud. In order for fraud to serve as a basis for the annulment of
decision of this Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 34696 became final and executory, judgment, it must be extrinsic or collateral in character, otherwise there would be no end
and entry of judgment was made on August 18, 1995. to litigations. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party which is
“On February 2, 1995, LLDHC filed a petition for certiorari with the committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party [petitioner herein]
Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 118633. Like the complaint in CA-G.R. has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case, by fraud or deception
SP No. 34696, the petition also seeks the annulment of the February 24, 1992 practiced on him by his opponent. This type of fraud is decidedly absent in the case at
decision in Civil Case No. 2203-L. bench. Petitioner has not pointed to any act of the prevailing party (Group Management
Corporation) preventing it (petitioner) from fully ventilating its case as intervenor in Civil
Case No. 2203-L. If ever the petitioner’s complaint-in-intervention did not prosper in said
case, it was because the lower court after due hearing, did not find the intervenor’s case 1. ‘a)Intervenor Lapu-lapu Development and Housing
meritorious, and not because petitioner was unduly deprived of its day in court. Thus,
having been unable to prove that extrinsic fraud vitiated the orders in question, there lies
Corporation (LLDHC) is hereby ordered to show cause in
no cause of action for annulment of said orders.’ writing within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why it
should not be declared in contempt of this Court:
“LLDHC sought a reconsideration of the above resolution but its motion 2. ‘b)Let a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction issue to
was denied with finality by the Supreme Court on November 18, 1996. restrain immediately all persons acting on orders or by
“Consequently, on November 28, 1996, the Lapu-Lapu City RTC, authority of intervenor LLDHC from carrying out any and
through Presiding Judge Teodoro K. Risos, issued an order directing the all acts in defiance of this Court’s final and executory
judgment, orders and writ of execution aforesaid,
501
specifically acts such as, but not limited to, the demolition
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 501 of structures erected by plaintiff upon the properties
2002 subject matter of this litigation and the removal of
plaintiffs machinery, equipment and supplies thereon, as
Lapulapu Development and Housing well as the ouster therefrom of plaintiffs duly authorized
Corp. vs. representatives, personnel and security guards;
Group Management Corporation
execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 2203-L, pursuant to which the 503
corresponding writ of execution was issued on December 17, 1996. VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 503
“LLDHC and GSIS filed their respective motions to stay execution, dated
December 12, 1996 and January 9, 1997, both of which were denied by Judge 2002
Risos in his Order dated February 19, 1997.
Lapulapu Development and Housing
“On July 21, 1997, on motion of GMC, Judge Risos issued an Order, the
dispositive portion of which reads: Corp. vs.
‘WHEREFORE, the defendant GSIS having refused to implement the Order of this Court
dated December 17, 1996 the Court in accordance with Rule 39. Sec. 10-a of the 1997 Group Management Corporation
Rules of Procedure, hereby directs the Register of Deeds of Lapu-lapu City to cancel the
Transfer Certificate of Titles of the properties involved in this case and to issue new ones
in the name of the plaintiff and to deliver the same to the latter within ten (10) days after 1. ‘c)Further, let a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
this Order shall have become final. immediately issue to direct the ouster of intervenor
‘SO ORDERED.’
LLDHC; its agents, representatives and all persons acting
on order or by authority of intervenor, as well as the
“On August 1, 1997, respondent Judge Barias issued a writ of execution
in Civil Case No. R-82-3429. Parenthetically, the judgment in said case was demolition of structures erected by intervenor upon the
affirmed with modification by this Court in its Decision of December 27, properties subject matter of this litigation;
1996, in CA-G.R. CV No. 49117. 2. ‘d)Finally, the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City is
“On August 7, 1997, Sheriff-Incharge Regio B. Ruefa, RTC-Manila, sent hereby declared in contempt of this Court, and his
a letter to the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City, ordering him to cancel the immediate detention and confinement at the City Jail of
consolidated certificate of title issued in the name of GSIS and to issue new Lapu-lapu City is directed as long as he persists in his
certificates of title over subject lots in the name of LLDHC. interference, disobedience and obstruction of justice by
“On August 21, 1997, a writ of possession was issued commanding
not complying with the directives of this Court dated
Sheriff Ruefa to cause GSIS and all persons claiming rights under it to vacate
the lots in question and to place LLDHC in peaceful possession thereof. The October 23, 1997 specifically ‘directing the Register of
corresponding Sheriffs Notice to Vacate, addressed to GSIS, was served on Deeds of Lapu-lapu City to effect the transfer of the titles
August 22, 1997. of the properties subject of this case in favor of the
“On October 23, 1997, Judge Risos, acting on various incidents relative plaintiffs, declaring any and all acts done by the Register
to the execution of the judgments in Civil Case No. R-82-3429 and Civil Case of Deeds of Lapu-lapu City NULL AND VOID star[t]ing
No. 2203-L, issued an Order reiterating the order and writ of execution dated with the surreptitious issuance of the new certificates of
November 28, 1996, and December 21, 1996, as well as the order dated July title in the name of Lapu-lapu Development and Housing
21, 1997, directing the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to effect the
Corporation, contrary to the Decision of this Court dated
transfer of the titles to subject lots in favor of GMC, declaring any and all acts
done by the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City null and void starting with February 24, 1992, its Order and Writ of Execution as
surreptitious issuance of new titles in the name of LLDHC, and, in the interim, well as its Order dated July 21, 1997’, and if respondent
enjoining the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City from recording and/or Register of Deeds refuses to comply with the order of this
registering any transfer, disposition, or transaction regarding said lots, which Court transferring the titles of the land in question to the
may be executed by LLDHC and/or GSIS. plaintiff after ten (10) days from receipt of this Order.
3. ‘e)The Office of the City Sheriff is hereby directed to
502 implement compliance with paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS above, particularly the detention and confinement of Atty.
2 ANNOTATED Dioscoro Y. Sanchez, Jr., Register of Deeds, Lapu-lapu
City, if he continues to refuse to transfer the titles of the
Lapulapu Development and Housing land in dispute after ten (10) days from receipt of this
Corp. vs. order, authorizing him for these purposes to secure the
assistance of the Office of the Chief of Police of Lapu-
Group Management Corporation lapu City, who is likewise directed to provide a sufficient
“Judge Risos held in abeyance all contempt proceedings against the number of his men in the service to fully and faithfully
Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City ‘to allow him to forge (sic) carry out these orders, including the detention and
himself of the contemptuous act charged by the plaintiff. confinement aforesaid, until further orders from this
“On November 13, 1997, respondent Judge Barias issued an Court.
order, the dispositive portion of which, reads: 4. ‘SO ORDERED.’
‘WHEREFORE, the Group Management Corporation (GMC) is hereby given
ten (10) days from notice hereof within which to remove all its structures
erected therein, equipment, machineries and other materials from the plantiffs “Accordingly, on December 4, 1997, the corresponding writ of
properties while Jeselito (Rene) Cenabre, Gualberto Dano, Gines Lamparaga, preliminary prohibitory injunction was issued.
all security guards of the 537 Security Agency assigned therein and persons “Meanwhile, LLDHC came to this Court on a petition for
associated with them are hereby directed to vacate the premises in controversy certiorari with preliminary injunction (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
also within ten (10) days from notice hereof. 44052), praying that respondents (GMC and Judge Risos) cease and
‘Failure to do so as directed, an Order of Demolition shall be issued to be
implemented by the Deputy Sheriff of this Court authorizing him to break
desist from proceeding with the execution of the decision in Civil
open any closure with the assistance of police or military authorities if Case No. 2203-L dated February 24, 1992, on the theory that ‘the
necessary. decision of the RTC of NCJR in Civil Case
‘Let this Order be served personally by the Deputy Sheriff of the 504
Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City and the latter to submit the 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
corresponding Sheriffs Return therefor.
‘SO ORDERED.’ 4 ANNOTATED
Lapulapu Development and Housing
“Acting on GMC’s Omnibus Motion dated October 29, 1997, and the
Manifestation/Explanation, dated October 30, 1997, of respondent Corp. vs.
Register of Deeds, Judge Risos issued an Order dated November 28, Group Management Corporation
1997, the decretal portion of which reads:
No. 31323 (renumbered R-82-3429) entitled LLDHC, plaintiff, versus GSIS,
defendant, for Annulment of Foreclosure and Mandatory Injunction, is a Corp. vs.
supervening event which makes it mandatory for Respondent Judge Risos to Group Management Corporation
stop execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 2203-L entitled GMC, implemented as early as September 15, 1997, but that the latter is yet
plaintiff, versus GSIS, defendant, for Specific Performance’. In denying due
course to said petition, this Court ratiocinated, thus:
to attain finality.
‘The validity of the decision of the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 2303-L has thus We do not agree. The records of the case clearly show that the
been brought both before this Court and to the Supreme Court by the petitioner. In both Lapulapu Decision has become final and executory and is thus valid
instances the respondent judge has been upheld. The instant petition is petitioner’s latest and binding upon the parties. Obviously, petitioner is again trying
attempt to resist the implementation or execution of that decision using as a shield a
decision of a Regional Trial Court in the National Capital Region. We are not prepared to another backdoor attempt to annul the final and executory Decision
allow it. The applicable rule and jurisprudence are clear. The prevailing party is entitled of the Lapulapu RTC.
as a matter of right to a writ of execution, and the issuance thereof is a ministerial duty First, it was petitioner that filed on March 11, 1992 a Notice of
compellable by mandamus. We do not believe that there exists in this instance a Appeal contesting the Lapulapu RTC Judgment in Civil Case No.
supervening event which would justify a deviation from this rule.”
‘Meanwhile, in Civil Case No. 2203-L, respondent Register of Deeds and 2203-L rendered on February 24, 1992. The Notice was
intervenor LLDHC, through separate motions, sought a reconsideration of Judge Risos’ howeverrejected by the said RTC for being frivolous and dilatory.
orders dated November 28, 1997 and December 22, 1997. Sincepetitioner had done nothing thereafter, the Decision clearly
‘On May 27, 1998, respondent Judge Fernandez, who succeeded Judge Risos as
Presiding Judge of the Lapu-Lapu City RTC (Branch 27), issued an Order the dispositive becamefinal and executory.
portion of which reads: However, upon receipt of the Manila RTC Decision, petitioner
‘PREMISES CONSIDERED, the two instant motions of the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City Atty. found a new tool to evade the already final Lapulapu Decision by
Sanchez, Jr. and the intervenor LLDHC are hereby granted and the order of this Court dated November
28, 1997 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the order dated December 22, 1997 is likewise recalled.’ seeking the annulment of the latter in a Petition with the CA.
However, the appellate court dismissed the action, because petitioner
“GMC sought a reconsideration of said order. Its motion for had been unable to prove any of the grounds for annulment; namely
reconsideration was, however, denied by respondent Judge Fernandez in his lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. Because no appeal had been
Order of August 4, 1998.” 4

taken by petitioner, the ruling of the CA also became final and

executory.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals Second, the Supreme Court likewise recognized the finality of
The CA affirmed the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the CA Decision when it threw out LLDHC’s Petition for Certiorari
Lapu-lapu City in Civil Case No. 2203-L freeing the Register of in G.R. No. 118633. This Court ruled thus:
_______________ “Instead of filing this petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which is
essentially another Petition to Annul Judgment, petitioner LLDHC should
4
 CA Decision, pp. 3-13; Rollo, pp. 61-71. have filed a timely Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated December 29, 1994,
505 dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by the petitioner
LLDHC before the court a quo. But this is all academic now. The appellate
VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 505 court’s decision had become final and executory on January 28,
2002 1995.”  (Emphasis ours)
7

Lapulapu Development and Housing Jurisprudence mandates that when a decision becomes final and
Corp. vs. executory, it becomes valid and binding upon the parties and their
_______________
Group Management Corporation
Deeds from indirect contempt of court. It also declared without force 7
 Lapulapu Development and Housing Corporation v. Risos, 261 SCRA 519;
and effect the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila September 6, 1996, per Hermosisima Jr., J.
in Civil Case No. R-82-3429, as well as the Orders and Writs issued
for the execution and enforcement of that Decision. The CA enjoined 507
petitioner, its agents and representatives, the RTC of Manila and the VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 507
Register of Deeds of Lapu-lapu City from obstructing or interfering
2002
with the implementation of the Order issued by the Lapu-lapu RTC
in Civil Case No. 2203-L. Lapulapu Development and Housing
Hence, this Petition. 5

Corp. vs.
The Issues Group Management Corporation
In its Memorandum, petitioner urges the Court to resolve the successors in interest.  Such decision or order can no longer be
8

following questions: disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may have

been.  Petitioner’s failure to file an appeal within the reglementary
9

1. “1.Whether the final and fully implemented decision of the period renders the judgment final and executory. The perfection of an
Manila RTC could be declared and rendered ineffectual appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is
and nugatory by the judgment of the Lapu-Lapu City mandatory. Failure to conform to the rules regarding appeal will
RTC. render the judgment final and executory and, hence,
2. “2.Whether the herein petitioner and/or the private unappealable.  Therefore, since the Lapulapu Decision has become
10

respondent are guilty of forum shopping. final and executory, its execution has become mandatory and
3. “3.Whether the refusal of Justices Verzola and Tuquero to ministerial on the part of the judge.
voluntarily inhibit or disqualify them from acting on the The CA correctly ruled that the Lapulapu Judgment is binding
present case is proper and justifiable.” 6
upon petitioner which, by its own motion, participated as an
intervenor. In fact, the latter filed an Answer in Intervention and
thereafter actively took part in the trial. Thus, having had an
The Court’s Ruling opportunity to be heard and to seek a reconsideration of the action or
The Petition has no merit. ruling it complained of, it cannot claim that it was denied due process
First Issue: of law. What the law prohibits is the absolute absence of the
opportunity to be heard. Jurisprudence teaches that a party cannot
Valid and Binding Decision feign denial of due process if it has been afforded the opportunity to
In its Memorandum, petitioner argues that the Decision of the Manila present its side. 11

RTC is superior to that of the Lapulapu RTC and must therefore Petitioner likewise claims that Private Respondent GMC cannot
prevail. It alleges that the former was executed and fully escape the adverse effects of the final and executory judgment of the
_______________
Manila RTC.
Again, we do not agree. A trial court has no power to stop an act
 This case was submitted for decision on September 18, 2000, upon this Court’s
that has been authorized by another trial court of equal rank. As
5

receipt of respondent’s Rejoinder-Memorandum, which was signed by Attys. Raymundo

A. Armovit and Miguel R. Armovit. correctly stated by the CA, the Decision rendered by the Manila RTC
 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 19; Rollo, p. 594.
6
—while final and executory—cannot bind herein private respondent,
which was not a party to the case before the said RTC. A personal
506 judgment is binding only upon the parties, their agents,
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS representatives and successors in interest.
6 ANNOTATED Third, petitioner grievously errs in insisting that the judgment of
the Manila RTC nullified that of the Lapulapu RTC. As already
Lapulapu Development and Housing _______________
 8
 Legarda v. CA, 280 SCRA 642, October 16, 1997; citing Vicente v. Lucas, 95 Phil. Decision rendered by the Lapulapu RTC. Needless to say, the new
716, August 31, 1954.
9
 Dorotheo v. CA, 320 SCRA 12, December 8, 1999.
suit was unsuccessful. Still, this rejection did not stop petitioner. It
10
 Garcia v. NLRC, 264 SCRA 261, November 18, 1996. brought before this Court the present Petition for Review on
11
 Ibid. Certiorari alleging the same facts and circumstances and raising the
same issues already decided by this Court in G.R. No. 118633. 16

508 First Philippine International Bank v. CA  stresses that what is

17

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping
exists is the vexation caused the courts and the partieslitigants by one
8 ANNOTATED
who asks different courts and/or administrative
Lapulapu Development and Housing _______________

Corp. vs. 16
 Lapulapu Development and Housing Corporation v. Risos, supra.
Group Management Corporation 17
 252 SCRA 259, January 24, 1996.
adverted to earlier, courts of coequal and coordinate jurisdiction may
510
not interfere with or pass upon each other’s orders or processes, since
they have the same power and jurisdiction.  Except in extreme
12 51 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
situations authorized by law, they are proscribed from doing so. 13

0 ANNOTATED
Second Issue: Lapulapu Development and Housing
Forum Shopping Corp. vs.
Petitioner contends that its Complaint for the annulment of the
mortgage foreclosure had been filed in the Manila RTC almost ten Group Management Corporation
years prior to GMC’s Complaint for specific performance and agencies to rule on the same or related facts and causes and/or to
damages in the Lapulapu RTC. Thus, petitioner asserts that it cannot grant the same or substantially the same relief, in the process creating
be liable for forum shopping. the possibility of conflicting rulings and decisions.
There is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse Petitioner in the present case sued twice before the CA and thrice
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than before this Court, alleging substantially the same facts and
by appeal or certiorari) from another.  In Gatmaytan v. CA,  the
14 15 circumstances, raising essentially the same issues, and praying for
petitioner therein repeatedly availed itself of several judicial remedies almost identical reliefs for the annulment of the Decision rendered by
in different courts, simultaneously or successively. All those the Lapulapu RTC. This insidious practice of repeatedly bringing
remedies were substantially founded on the same transactions and the essentially the same action—albeit disguised in various
same essential facts and circumstances; and all raised substantially nomenclatures—before different courts at different times is forum
the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, shopping no less. Because of petitioner’s actions, the execution of the
some other court. This Court held that therein petitioner was trying to Lapulapu Decision has been needlessly delayed and several courts
increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision by filing vexed.
multiple suits in several courts. Hence, he was found guilty of forum Third Issue:
shopping.
In the present case, after the Lapulapu RTC had rendered its Voluntary Inhibition
Decision in favor of private respondent, petitioner filed several Petitioner claims that Justices Artemio G. Tuquero and Eubolo G.
petitions before this Court and the CA essentially seeking the Verzola gravely abused their discretion in refusing to voluntarily
annulment thereof. True, petitioner had filed its Complaint in the inhibit or disqualify themselves from acting on the case at bar while it
_______________ was pending in the CA. They allegedly participated in the Judgment
rejecting its Petition for Certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
 People v. Woolcock, 244 SCRA 235, May 22, 1995.
12 44052, assailing the February 24, 1992 Execution Order issued by the
 Garaygay v. People, 335 SCRA 272, July 6, 2000; Naguit v. CA, 347 SCRA 60,
13
Lapulapu RTC.
December 5, 2000. Again, petitioner is clutching at straws. As a general rule, judges
 First International Bank v. CA, 252 SCRA 259, January 24, 1996; Golangco v.
14

CA, 283 SCRA 493, December 22, 1997; Crisostomo v. SEC, 179 SCRA 146, November are mandated to hear and decide cases, unless legally
6, 1989; Earth Minerals Exploration v. Macaraig, 194 SCRA 1, February 11, 1991. disqualified.  However, they may voluntarily excuse themselves on
18

 267 SCRA 487, February 3, 1997.

15
the ground of bias or prejudice,  expression of opinions that may
19

show partiality,  personal knowledge of the case,  or distant affinity or

20 21

509
former association with one of the parties or the latter’s counsel. 22

VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 509 _______________

2002 18
 People v. Moreno, 83 Phil. 286, April 7, 1949.
Lapulapu Development and Housing 19
 People v. Gomez, 20 SCRA 293, May 29, 1967.
20
 Palang v. Zosa, 58 SCRA 776, August 30, 1974.
Corp. vs. 21
 Umale v. Villaluz, 51 SCRA 84, May 25, 1973.
22
 Austria v. Masague, 20 SCRA 1247, August 31, 1967.
Group Management Corporation
Manila RTC before private respondent filed its own suit in the 511
Lapulapu RTC. Records, however, show that private respondent VOL. 388, SEPTEMBER 9, 511
learned of the Manila case only when petitioner filed its Motion for
Intervention in the Lapulapu RTC. When GMC filed its own Motion 2002
to Intervene in the Manila RTC, it was promptly rebuffed by the Lapulapu Development and Housing
judge therein. On the other hand, petitioner was able to present its
side and to participate fully in the proceedings before the Lapulapu Corp. vs.
RTC. Group Management Corporation
On July 27, 1994, almost two years after the dismissal of its Justices Tuquero and Verzola acted within the bounds of duty when
appeal by the Lapulapu RTC, petitioner filed in the CA a suit for the they took part in the deliberation of the assailed Decision. By alleging
annulment of that RTC judgment. On December 29, 1994, this suit that the appellate magistrates should disqualify themselves because of
was rejected by the CA in a Decision which became final and their past participation in CA-G.R. No. 44052, petitioner merely calls
executory on January 28, 1995, after no appeal was taken by attention to the repetitive nature of its pleadings and petitions. If
petitioner. However, this action did not stop petitioner. On February indeed the assailed Decision involves a totally different matter from
2, 1995, it filed with this Court another Petition deceptively cloaked that disposed of in CA-G.R. No. 44052, then petitioner should have
as certiorari, but which in reality sought the annulment of the no reason to worry about the impartiality of the said justices.
Lapulapu Decision. This Court dismissed the Petition on September Without the written consent of all parties in interest, the law bars
6, 1996. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied with justices from reviewing rulings or decisions rendered by them as
finality on November 18, 1996. lower court judges.  This situation does not exist in the case at bar.
23

On November 28, 1996, Judge Risos of the Lapulapu RTC WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED, and the assailed
directed the execution of the judgment in the case filed before it. The Decision AFFIRMED. Treble costs against petitioner.
Motion to Stay Execution filed by petitioner was denied on February SO ORDERED.
19, 1997. Undaunted, it filed in this Court another Petition for      Puno (Chairman), Corona and Carpio-Morales,
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus. On September 21, 1998, we JJ., concur.
referred the Petition to the CA for appropriate action. This new      Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., On leave.
Petition again essentially sought to annul the final and executory
Petition dismissed, judgment affirmed.