Certiorari Petition + Petition for Relief = Forum Shopping?
Forum shopping exists when two or more actions involving the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances are filed and those actions raise identical issues, subject matter and causes of action. The test is whether, in two or more pending cases, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of actions and reliefs.
Equitable's petition for relief in the RTC and its petition for certiorari in the CA did not have identical causes of action. The petition for relief from the denial of its notice of appeal was based on the RTC's judgment or final order preventing it from taking an appeal by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. On the other hand, its petition for certiorari in the CA, a special civil action, sought to correct the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction committed by the RTC.
In a petition for relief, the judgment or final order is rendered by a court with competent jurisdiction. In a petition for certiorari, the order is rendered by a court without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
Moreover, Equitable substantially complied with the rule on non-forum shopping when it moved to withdraw its petition for relief in the RTC on the same day (in fact just four hours and forty minutes after) it filed the petition for certiorari in the CA. Even if Equitable failed to disclose that it had a pending petition for relief in the RTC, it rectified what was doubtlessly a careless oversight by withdrawing the petition for relief just a few hours after it filed its petition for certiorari in the CA ― a clear indication that it had no intention of maintaining the two actions at the same time. (G.R. No. 171545; December 19, 2007)
Equitable's petition for relief in the RTC and its petition for certiorari in the CA did not have identical causes of action. The petition for relief from the denial of its notice of appeal was based on the RTC's judgment or final order preventing it from taking an appeal by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. On the other hand, its petition for certiorari in the CA, a special civil action, sought to correct the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction committed by the RTC.
In a petition for relief, the judgment or final order is rendered by a court with competent jurisdiction. In a petition for certiorari, the order is rendered by a court without or in excess of its jurisdiction.Moreover, Equitable substantially complied with the rule on non-forum shopping when it moved to withdraw its petition for relief in the RTC on the same day (in fact just four hours and forty minutes after) it filed the petition for certiorari in the CA. Even if Equitable failed to disclose that it had a pending petition for relief in the RTC, it rectified what was doubtlessly a careless oversight by withdrawing the petition for relief just a few hours after it filed its petition for certiorari in the CA ― a clear indication that it had no intention of maintaining the two actions at the same time. (G.R. No. 171545; December 19, 2007)
