Case of Former Chief Justice Sereno

Shipside

Coca-Cola

Show Cause Order

Theories (Book)

Multiple filing of actions

• 5.18 Prescription against lawyers filing multiple actions

Case of Beneco v. Flores

Rationale behind this prescription: lawyers could not file a petition before the CA when there is still a
pending case between the parties

before what forum?

What is the difference between forum shopping and multiple filing of actions?

Beneco

the charge against him is violation of forum shopping when actually what he resorted to is multiple filing
of actions, all have the same objective and that is to prevent the execution of final and executory
decision. During the time, the prevailing rule is the rule on forum shopping be implemented by virtue of
memo circular 04-94 which applies only to (no…

before that there is a bp circular which requires certification of non forum shopping and the SC said that
Flores is not liable for that because the case is filed before the RTC and the circular applies only to
petitions filed before the CA and the SC. But the SC said that the case is one of multiple filing of
actions because they all have the same objectives.

So how will you distinguish that from forum shopping?

What are the elements of forum shopping?

Contents of certification of non-forum shopping

That I am the ____________________ in the above-entitled case and have caused

this___________________________________ to be prepared; that I read and understood its
contents which are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic
records.

That I have not commenced any action of proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge,
no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any
tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before these courts of tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that the
fact to the Court within five (5) days therefrom.

• how about in administrative bodies? yes

• that there is no pending case involving same causes of action, same issues, same parties

- actually that is the essence of forum shopping: what is prohibited is filing of the same case
involving the same parties, cause of action, issues and at times reliefs prayed for

- in the hope that in one of the fora, he will obtain a favorable judgment

- shopping in a friendly forum, one that is sympathetic to your cause

• why is this abhorred in the administration of justice? what is the rationale?

 - Because if there are several complaints filed before several RTCs involving the same… if one of
them issues a decision ahead of the others, there would be confusion already. What if one court
decided in favour and the other does not, there would be confusion.

• What is the consequence?

- the case would be dismissed/ ground for dismissal

- what about the lawyer who is conscious that there is a case pending involving the same cause of
action…?—he can be cited for indirect contempt, next he can be administratively sanctioned just
like Atty Flores, and also can be a ground for disbarment

• With regard to the certification, where is this requirement applicable? in what type of pleading?

- initiatory pleading, because it is the pleading which beckons the commencement of action in court

- example of initiatory pleading: Complaint or Petition

- Case of Santo Tomas University Hospital vs Surla: the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim filed by the hospital against the plaintiff. A counterclaim is ?? In the answer, an
answer is a responsive pleading as opposed to initiatory pleading. An answer is a response to
the complaint. If you are going to file a countercharge, you are not supposed to file an
independent action for that matter in order to avoid multiplicity of suits. In that case USTH filed
an answer that is not accompanied by a certification of non forum shopping. The judge granted
the dismissed. The SC said that there is no need to accompany a responsive pleading like an
answer certification of non-forum shopping because an answer will be filed in that court and
only in that court where the case was filed. It can never be filed anywhere else, so no need to
accompany.

• What if there is a defect on the certification of non-forum shopping, what would happen?

- Can it be cured by amendment? No

- Can it be cured by belated submission of a certification like for example when the plaintiff filed a
complaint, it was not accompanied and realising later on he submitted a supplementary complaint
attaching the certification? What would be the remedy of the plaintiff of the defect like a lawyer
who is not armed with a SPA?

- The remedy for that is to refile but do not let yourself in that situation anymore and why is the
reason why you have to avoid this kind of situation (no certification of non-forum) or why is it not
ideal in practice? Because in filing, there is always a payment of the prescribed docket fee. So
imagine if the amount which the plaintiff tries to collect amounts to millions of pesos and the
docket fee would depend upon the amount involved, can you still recover that filing fee once the
complaint is dismissed? Not anymore. So who is going to be blamed for that? Naturally not the
client. So how can a lawyer explain that to a client. The client might sue the lawyer for
disbarment.

- Lawyers must suppose to know the technicalities

- Who is supposed to sign the certification? The parties must personally sign. How about the
lawyer? Yes. But the lawyer must be armed with the authority. But in what form? What do you call
that document? Special Power of Attorney.

Applicable only to initiatory pleadings

A defect or lack of certification of non-forum shopping is not curable by amendment, the only remedy is
to refile the same

It is the plaintiff or the petitioner himself who should certify that there is no pending case

Even if the pending case between the parties does not involve the same cause of action, in the
subsequent case, you must still make a revelation or disclosure because it is not for you to make that
determination, it is the court which would determine

Do not arrogate unto yourself that the cases involve similar issue??? 37mins

Example:

Motion to quash in a criminal case is similar to motion to dismiss in a civil case: case of Leila de lima —
multiple filing of actions

Forum shopping

Presupposes a situation when there is already a pending case and thereafter one of the parties would
subsequently file another case

Elements of Litis Pendentia and Res Judicata

What is the distinction

They are both elements in determining whether or not there is forum shopping.

Litis Pendentia Res Judicata

There is a pending suit involving same parties, Same causes of action, parties, subject matter,
cause of action, subject matter issues

What makes it different from litis pendentia? -

there was already a decision. What is the nature of
this decision? It is final.

How would you know that the decision is already

final and executory? When there is already a
decision on the merits. When you say on the
merits, all the issues have been duly covered by
the said decision. Also, when it has been
decided by a competent court. And there is no
more appeal. What is the court where there is no
more appeal? The Supreme Court. When the SC
already decided the case.

Can the decision of a lower court attain finality?

Yes when the parties decided to not appeal, or
when the party already accepted his fate that he
no longer filed a reconsideration, and the period in
which to appeal already lapsed. The period
normally for regular court is 15 days. For
administrative bodies, 10 days.

For as long as the elements of litis pendentia and res judicator are present, there is forum shopping.

• Duty to temper client’s propensity to litigate

- You have to connect this with the policy of the SC in settling the cases amicably. If there is a remedy
other than filing a complaint, and you’ll be able to accomplish what the client wants from you by not
litigating then you may do so.

- First thing lawyer would do is to build a case in favour of the client. First, send a demand letter. The
filing of the complaint should be the last resort of the lawyer. Another instance, is some clients would
want to file several cases against the defendant. For example the latter is a government employee, the
complainant would file an administrative case in addition to the criminal case. For example the
register of deeds issued a fake title. What is the remedy? To set aside the title. But the lawyer and the
client would file several complaints. It is within the rights of the client but you have to temper the
client. The main objective is to rectify the wrong.

- Objective is to reduce the docket of the court.

• Duty of the lawyer to file pleading within the prescribed period

- Case of teng vs agravante

- Other lawyers even if they have plenty of time, they would file motion for extension of time

- Unless you are constrained to do like you cannot obtain immediately the attending facts and
circumstances— when the case is referred to you for the first time. Normally a defendant has 15 days
to file his responsive pleading. Unless it is absolutely necessary

- To avoid delay in the administration of justice

- That would naturally delay the disposition of the case

- If you want to familiarise with the facts and circumstances, make sure that is the reason

- Courts would naturally accede (ANSWER)

- But in subsequent pleadings, you have to file it within the reglementary period

- Also, motion for extension would speak negatively of the diligence of the lawyer

• Change of counsel’s address

- significance/ what would happen if the proceedings continue even if one of the parties already passed
away for example the defendant:

- if it is the accused who dies during the pendency of the case, what would happen-the criminal liability
is extinguished. The duty of the court which was already notified is to make a determination whether
there is a civil liability. How would you know if the civil liability survives the death. If the civil aspect is
intertwined with the criminal case, if the source is delict or quasi delict, death will not extinguish the
civil liability of the accused who already passed away.

- During the pendency, the accused died. But the SC allowed the case to continue to determine the
civil aspect

- One case where reservation is not allowed is BP 22. The civil aspect should be resolved together with
the criminal aspect. The death of the accused would not automatically result to the termination of the
case. It would have to continue in order to determine whether the accused is civilly liable

- Significance: to determine if you can file a case against the estate of the accused

Civil

Significance: also to determine whether or not to dismiss the civil aspect. Because it survives the death.
If the cause of action is the performance of the prestation and one personal, naturally you cannot
compel the performance anymore. It does not survive the death of the defendant.

Change of address

Significance: what would be recognised by the court is the address on record. It would be more to the
disadvantage of the client of the lawyer. If the party litigant is represented by a counsel, notice to the
lawyer is notice to the client so if there is a change of address, the lawyer should inform because what
the court will do is to still send the orders, resolutions to the address on record.

On the part of the lawyer, if there is change in address of the client he must also inform the court. Why?
We said notice to the lawyer is notice to the client? Because if the court sends a notice to the client
directly and not to the lawyer, the is not considered a valid service and the period within which to file a
motion for reconsideration… would not ??? Because there is a lawyer. But if the client changes his
address, why is it incumbent for the lawyer to inform the court of the change of address? Is there a
necessity to make a distinction between a civil and criminal?

Yes if it is a criminal case and it is the accused who is changing his address, then who would be asked
of the whereabouts of the accused. Then the lawyer should know otherwise there is that possibility that
the lawyer would be charged of obstruction of justice.

What if there is already a decision, to whom would you enforce? The client

So if the court doesn’t know, where would the sheriff go? So you have to know because the lawyer is an
agent of the administration of justice. Paper tiger is only a decision on paper.

Otherwise, that would frustrate the other party

A lawyer should not talk to witness during recess

• If a lawyer should talk to the witness, the witness might unwittingly say something which might be
prejudicial to him.

Shall not harass a witness

• You have to object. For example, your honour the lawyer is badgering the witness

• Example: badgering is when the witness is being called into submission. One where the witness is
prevented from testifying freely because of the intimidating tactics of the cross-examiner. Usually it is
the strategy of the lawyer. Shouting at a witness, asking things which are irrelevant, personal…

Lawyer should rely on the merits

Lawyer shall not extend hospitality to the judge

• Example: the lawyer is inviting the judge to eat outside. If they are seen outside even if they are not
discussing something amiss, it would create a different impression in the mind of the public. On the
part of the judge, avoid the appearance of impropriety. Mere appearance should already caution the
judge from doing anything under suspect. The judge should decline politely the invitation.

Shall not publicly discuss the pending case

Sub judice rule-party litigants or lawyers as well as the public are prohibited from discussing the merits
of the case

• Rationale behind: prohibited not only to the lawyer but to the general public as well

• Because if the public or the majority is already talking about favouring one of the parties in a
controversial case, there is a tendency on the part of the judge to decide the way the public has
already formed their own opinion about the case.

• In order to avoid influencing the court and to maintain the objectivity and independence of the Court

• Exceptions of the rule: (is there an aspect of the case that the lawyers can discuss and which would
constitute as an exception?)

What is it that a lawyer is absolutely prohibited from discussing? What aspect of the case?

If you are only going to talk about the procedure, like what would be his next step.

- Like for example the public will know the decision from the media even if they haven’t received the
decision yet. The press would ask the lawyer what the lawyer would say about it, and the lawyer will
tell that he has yet to receive a copy of the decision. Most likely we are going to file a motion for
reconsideration, or to appeal. So that is not actually touching about the merits of the case.

- Second, the case of Sereno. There was a discussion

- Former cj sereno violated the rule of sub judice. She tried her case in the media. She was trying to
justify why she was not to be held liable (subjudice) and what is that she cited? She should not be
disciplined because she was not a litigant or a counsel but the SC said that it was immaterial to her
defense. Whether or not she is a party litigant or a counsel, she should not discuss the merits of the
case in public. She was trying to justify that she acceded the invitations given to her in various
forum. And what she only discussed is what she only stated in her pleadings. Because if that is
what you just discussed, you are just echoing what you stated in your pleading. But if you start
discussing about your conclusion about the case, that the petition for quo warranto should be
 dismissed because it is only by way of impeachment that she can be removed from office then that
is already something else. The sc said that she went beyond

Pleadings are part of the public record already

1. Tends to influence the decision of the court

2. Bane in the orderly administration of justice- because if the popular opinion favours one side, and In
the end the ruling is contrary to the public opinion. Who do you think will be crucified? It is no other
than the judge of the court. Just like right now, when the SC granted the petition for quo warranto
there was an uproar from all sectors of the society. That would erode the faith, trust and confidence
of the public to the judiciary

When is the proper time that a decision is taken for criticism?

Once the decision has already become final

What sector in our society is supposed to dissect or criticise that decision? academe, the institution

Whatever criticism, it must still be within the bounds of decency. By comparing previous cases, it would
be harmless. But if the criticism would already beyond, that perhaps the decision was rendered on
account of monetary consideration, that is already something else. Especially if not proved.

A petition for quo warranto against CJ Sereno

Show cause order for the violation of the sub ju dice rule
What did the SC say about that? The SC did not give credence to the justification of Sereno that she
should not be liable for violating the rule of sub judice. And why is that?

Subjudice means pending case. Because in foreign countries, their judicial system there is by jury
system. It is where an ordinary citizen would be called upon to be part of the jury to decide the case.
Ordinary citizen can be easily swayed by popular opinion. For foreigners, they wonder why we can’t
apply a jury system. Because that would make it very difficult to corrupt the judicial system. Perhaps-not
yet attained mental maturity

Usually, jury is cut off the outside world for fear that that might influence them. That is part of their duty
as citizens. Declining that duty would make them liable. That is the rationale of this rule. In order to avoid
influencing the jury.

During the pendency of the impeachment, it was not yet a case, it was only an impeachment proceeding
for the committee on justice (HOR). Instead of participating, what Sereno did was to accede to
invitations in different events, forums. She said things there which undermine the integrity of the SC.
there was a remark where she stated that if the petition for QW will be granted, dictatorship would
ensue, and one commented that she was sounding more like a politician than a chief justice. SC said
that she was citing Marantan case, the sc said that she was not just mentioning what she said in the
pleadings but she went beyond that. Then she said that reasoned out that she said all those things as a
party litigant not a lawyer. The sc said that she can not just lower her status to a litigant from a lawyer
especially that she is occupying the highest position in the judiciary. Invoked the clear and present
danger, that it is only when her statements would create a clear and present danger to the administration
of justice then that is the time, but the SC said that it is true if this is a contempt proceeding but it is not,
this is a disciplinary action which the SC Moto poprio initiated. But the SC did not impose her a severe
penalty.

Bantolino vs. Coca Cola

Issue is illegal dismissal? What do the employees do for coca-cola? -bottle segregators… they were

They were originally 62 but it was reduced by 52 for lack of affidavits and for failure to attend mandatory
hearings. Then respondent company filed a motion to dismiss because it said that there was no
employer-employee client relationship. The CA said that although no relationship existed, the affidavits
of the parties should not have been given probative value for their failure to affirm the contents and to
undergo cross examination.

Because in criminal cases, when the dismissal of the affidavit of a witness, and the witness was not able
to take the witness stand in order to be cross examined by the other party on the contents, that is merely
hearsay.

Ruling of the CA: some of the complaints were dismissed because they were not subjected to cross
examination

But what did the SC say?

Issue: dismiss on the grounds that the complainants were not cross examined

Ruling: how are the cases decided by the labor arbiters?

no trial in labor cases, they are decided merely on the contents of the position papers of the
parties and the affidavits attached therein in support of the allegations. There is no trial type hearing.
Because the arbitration branch of the nlrc is governed by different set of procedure

Issue: forum shopping

That not all the petitioners signed the verification or certification against non forum shopping

Because as a rule all must sign. But despite that the SC took cognisance of the decision because there
was no counsel at the time of the filing of the petition. It would be grossly prejudicial because it would
just be dismissed on the ground of technicality. They are not well versed when it comes to technicalities,
because it was only later that the counsel entered the picture.

Shipside v. CA
Lots 1 and 4 were conveyed by Galvez to 4 buyers (mamaril et. Al).

Shipside ended up the owner. Prior to the transfer, there is a case filed against galvez for the nullification
of the original certificate of title. And the title was nullified.

After 25 years, the government found out that the nullification has not been actioned. There was a
complaint to revert the lot back to the government (regalian doctrine).

Shipside filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription and for lack of jurisdiction. That the
subject property is already covered by BCDA which was denied by the court. Shipside went to the CA
questioning the denial. The CA dismissed on the ground that a certain Balbin signed without the
authority. (corporation)

What is the denomination of the document wherein the BOD would decide something on the part of a
juridical person like a corporation? - Board resolution

Secretary certificate-issued by the secretary, duly records the minutes of the meeting. The certificate
would attest to the fact that a special meeting, the following resolution was adopted. It would form the
board resolution there.

The authority of the person signing in behalf of a juridical person usually comes in the form of board
resolution or secretary cert.

Defect: shipside did not attach the board resolution. That is the reason why the CA dismissed.

Elevated before the SC

1. Made dissertation between certificate of non forum shopping and verification. What is that
distinction?

- In verification: the purpose is to attest that one who caused the preparation, that he has read its
contents and that it is true and based on his personal knowledge, the contents are correct. The
rules require that it need to be verified so that if the allegations there are actually false, what offence
can he be held liable of?

- What offence can the plaintiff be held liable of? Perjury. That is the purpose of verification

- But not all pleadings are required to be verified. Assignment. Enumeration of pleadings which
are required to be verified.
- What would be the effect if there is a defect on the verification? If it is only a formal defect, it can be
rectified.

2. How about certification against non-forum shopping? - substantial requirement

- Section 5 rule 7

- Lack of certification is generally not curable. Belated submission of the certificate

- Took exception. Upon receipt of the petition by the CA and there is a defect there, there are two things
which the CA can do

- Dismiss it outright

- To require the petitioner to submit what is lacking

• What happened is ship side filed a motion for reconsideration and the CA dismissed on the ground
that the petition was not accompanied by a board resolution or secretary certificate. Ship side
attached in the MR that board resolution but it was still dismissed

• SC said as a rule it cannot be cured by subsequent submission. But it likewise cited cases providing
for exceptions. The SC said that the petitioner should prove that they have meritorious case, which
ship side has established. Why is it meritorious? Because -the SC delved on the merits of the case.
The defect may be excused under special circumstances. Because the public has no legal personality
anymore, because ownership of which has already been transferred to the BCDA. And second
because of the lapse of time. The sc invoked liberality.