Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

135945 March 7, 2001

THE UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINIC N HI!!, INC., r"#r"$"%&"' () *&$ Pr"$*'"%& RODRIGO S. M C RIO, SR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON THE SETT!EMENT OF ! ND PRO+!EMS, r"#r"$"%&"' () *&$ Co,,*$$*o%"r, RUFINO -. MI. RES/ M RIO P DI! N, PONCI NO + SI! N, HIPO!ITO ES! - , 0I!!I M !UMPIS , P CITO MOISES, DIONISIO N S, NO!I D NG! , N PO!EON + !ESTEROS, E!SIE MOISES, SE+IO ! C0 S N, +EN F!ORES, DOMINGO C NUT +, M RCE!INO G +RI NO, TIN T RN TE, NDRE0 +R 1 DO, D NN2 !EDD , FERN NDO D 2 O, .ON TH N DE ! PEN , .ERR2 P SSION, PETER GUINSOD, a%' !O!IT DUR N, respondents. DE !EON, .R., J.3 efore us is a petition for prohibition and declarator! relief see"in# the annul$ent of a status %uo order& dated Septe$ber '(, &(() issued b! the public respondent Co$$ission on the Settle$ent of *and Proble$s +COS*,P, for brevit!- in COS*,P Case No. ().'/0. 1he facts are2 1he propert! bein# fou#ht over b! the parties is a &3.04.hectare propert! in a#uio Cit! called Do$inican 5ills, for$erl! re#istered in the na$e of Diplo$at 5ills, Inc. It appeared that the propert! 6as $ort#a#ed to the 7nited Coconut Planters an" +7CP - 6hich eventuall! foreclosed the $ort#a#e thereon and ac%uired the sa$e as hi#hest bidder. On ,pril &&, &()0, it 6as donated to the Republic of the Philippines b! 7CP throu#h its President, Eduardo Co8uan#co. 1he deed of donation stipulated that Do$inican 5ills 6ould be utili9ed for the :priorit! pro#ra$s, pro8ects, activities in hu$an settle$ents and econo$ic develop$ent and #overn$ental purposes: of the Ministr! of 5u$an Settle$ents. On Dece$ber &', &()4, the then President Cora9on C. ,%uino issued E;ecutive Order No. )/ abolishin# the Office of Media ,ffairs and the Ministr! of 5u$an Settle$ents. ,ll a#encies under the latter<s supervision as 6ell as all its assets, pro#ra$s and pro8ects, 6ere transferred to the Presidential Mana#e$ent Staff +PMS-.' On October &), &()), the PMS received an application fro$ petitioner 7NI1ED RESIDEN1S O= DOMINIC,N 5I**, INC. +7NI1ED, for brevit!-, a co$$unit! housin# association co$posed of non.real propert! o6nin# residents of a#uio Cit!, to ac%uire a portion of the Do$inican 5ills propert!. On =ebruar! ', &((3, PMS Secretar! Elfren Cru9 referred the application to the 5OME INS7R,NCE >7,R,N1? CORPOR,1ION +5I>C-. 5I>C consented to act as ori#inator for 7NI1ED.0 ,ccordin#l!, on Ma! (, &((3, a Me$orandu$ of ,#ree$ent 6as si#ned b! and a$on# the PMS, the 5I>C, and 7NI1ED. 1he Me$orandu$ of ,#ree$ent called for the PMS to sell the Do$inican 5ills propert! to 5I>C 6hich 6ould, in turn, sell the sa$e to 7NI1ED. 1he parties a#reed on a sellin# price of P@/.33 per s%uare $eter. 1hus, on Aune &', &((&, 5I>C sold '.B) hectares of the propert! to 7NI1ED. 1he deed of conditional sale provided that ten +&3- per cent of the purchase price 6ould be paid upon si#nin#, 6ith the balance to be a$orti9ed 6ithin one !ear fro$ its date of e;ecution. ,fter 7NI1ED $ade its final pa!$ent on Aanuar! 0&, &((', 5I>C e;ecuted a Deed of ,bsolute Sale dated Aul! &, &(('.

Petitioner alle#es that so$eti$e in &((0, private respondents entered the Do$inican 5ills propert! allocated to 7NI1ED and constructed houses thereon. Petitioner 6as able to secure a de$olition order fro$ the cit! $a!or.B 7nable to stop the ra9in# of their houses, private respondents, under the na$e DOMINIC,N 5I** ,>7IO RESIDEN1S 5OME*ESS ,SSOCI,1ION +,SSOCI,1ION, for brevit!- filed an action/ for in8unction doc"eted as Civil Case No. 00&4.R, in the Re#ional 1rial Court of a#uio Cit!, ranch B. Private respondents 6ere able to obtain a te$porar! restrainin# order but their pra!er for a 6rit of preli$inar! in8unction 6as later denied in an Order dated March &), &((4. 4 Chile Civil Case No. 00&4.R 6as pendin#, the ,SSOCI,1ION, this ti$e represented b! the *and Refor$ eneficiaries ,ssociation, Inc. + ENE=ICI,RIES, for brevit!-, filed Civil Case No. 00)'.R before ranch 4& of the sa$e court. 1he co$plaint @ pra!ed for da$a#es, in8unction and annul$ent of the said Me$orandu$ of ,#ree$ent bet6een 7NI1ED and 5I>C. 7pon $otion of 7NI1ED, the trial court in an Order dated Ma! '@, &((4 dis$issed Civil Case No. 00)'.R. ) 1he said Order of dis$issal is currentl! on appeal 6ith the Court of ,ppeals. ( De$olition Order No. &.(4 6as subse%uentl! i$ple$ented b! the Office of the Cit! Ma!or and the Cit! En#ineer<s Office of a#uio Cit!. 5o6ever, petitioner avers that private respondents returned and reconstructed the de$olished structures. 1o forestall the re.i$ple$entation of the de$olition order, private respondents filed on Septe$ber '(, &(() a petition&3 for annul$ent of contracts 6ith pra!er for a te$porar! restrainin# order, doc"eted as COS*,P Case No. ().'/0, in the Co$$ission on the Settle$ent of *and Proble$s +COS*,P- a#ainst petitioner, 5I>C, PMS, the Cit! En#ineer<s Office, the Cit! Ma!or, as 6ell as the Re#ister of Deeds of a#uio Cit!. On the ver! sa$e da!, public respondent COS*,P issued the contested order re%uirin# the parties to $aintain the status quo. Cithout filin# a $otion for reconsideration fro$ the aforesaid status quo order, petitioner filed the instant petition %uestionin# the 8urisdiction of the COS*,P. 1he issues 6e are called upon to resolve are2 & IS 15E COMMISSION ON 15E SE11*EMEN1 O= *,ND PRO *EMS DCOS*,PE CRE,1ED 7NDER EFEC71IVE ORDER NO. /4& ? 15E O==ICE O= 15E P5I*IPPINES DsicE EMPOCERED 1O 5E,R ,ND 1R? , PE1I1ION =OR ,NN7*MEN1 O= CON1R,C1S CI15 PR,?ER =OR , 1EMPOR,R? RES1R,ININ> ORDER ,ND 157S, ,RRO>,1E 7N1O I1SE*= 15E POCER 1O ISS7E S1,17S G7O ORDER ,ND COND7C1 , 5E,RIN> 15EREO= DsicEH ' ,SS7MIN> 15,1 15E COMMISSION ON 15E SE11*EMEN1 O= *,ND PRO *EMS DCOS*,PE 5,S A7RISDIC1ION ON 15E M,11ER, IS I1 EFEMP1ED =ROM O SERVIN> , C*E,R C,SE O= =OR7M S5OPPIN> ON 15E P,R1 O= 15E PRIV,1E RESPONDEN1SH 1o the e;tent that the instant case is deno$inated as one for declarator! relief, 6e initiall! clarif! that 6e do not possess ori#inal 8urisdiction to entertain such petitions. && Such is vested in the Re#ional 1rial Courts.&',ccordin#l!, 6e shall li$it our revie6 to ascertainin# if the proceedin#s before public respondent COS*,P are 6ithout or in e;cess, of its 8urisdiction. In this 6ise, a recountin# of the histor! of the COS*,P $a! provide useful insi#hts into the e;tent of its po6ers and functions.

1he COS*,P 6as created b! virtue of E;ecutive Order No. /4& dated Septe$ber '&, &(@(. Its forerunner 6as the Presidential ,ction Co$$ittee on *and Proble$s +P,C*,P- founded on Aul! 0&, &(@3 b! virtue of E;ecutive Order No. '/&. ,s ori#inall! conceived, the co$$ittee 6as tas"ed :to e;pedite and coordinate the investi#ation and resolution of land disputes, strea$line and shorten ad$inistrative procedures, adopt bold and decisive $easures to solve land proble$s, andIor reco$$end other solutions.: It 6as #iven the po6er to issue subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum and to call upon an! depart$ent, office, a#enc! or instru$entalit! of the #overn$ent, includin# #overn$ent o6ned or controlled corporations and local #overn$ent units, for assistance in the perfor$ance of its functions. ,t the ti$e, the P,C*,P did not e;ercise %uasi.8udicial functions. On March &(, &(@&, E;ecutive Order No. 03/ 6as issued reconstitutin# the P,C*,P. &0 1he co$$ittee 6as #iven e;clusive 8urisdiction over all cases involvin# public lands and other lands of the public do$ain and accordin#l! 6as tas"ed2 &. 1o investi#ate, coordinate, and resolve e;peditiousl! land disputes, strea$line ad$inistrative procedures, and in #eneral, to adopt bold and decisive $easures to solve proble$s involvin# public lands and lands of the public do$ainJ '. 1o coordinate and inte#rate the activities of all #overn$ent a#encies havin# to do 6ith public lands or lands of the public do$ainJ 0. 1o stud! and revie6 present policies as e$bodied in land la6s and ad$inistrative rules and re#ulations, in relation to the needs for land of the a#ro.industrial sector and s$all far$ers, 6ith the end in vie6 to evolvin# and reco$$endin# ne6 la6s and policies and establishin# priorities in the #rant of public land, and the si$plification of processin# of land applications in order to relieve the s$all $an fro$ the co$ple;ities of e;istin# la6s, rules and re#ulationsJ B. 1o evolve and i$ple$ent a s!ste$ for the speed! investi#ation and resolution of land disputesJ /. 1o receive all co$plaints of settlers and s$all far$ers, involvin# public lands or other lands of the public do$ainJ 4. 1o loo" into the conflicts bet6een Christians and non.Christians, bet6een corporations and s$all settlers and far$ersJ cause the speed! settle$ent of such conflicts in accordance 6ith priorities or policies established b! the Co$$itteeJ and @. 1o perfor$ such other functions as $a! be assi#ned to it b! the President. 1hereafter, the P,C*,P 6as reor#ani9ed pursuant to Presidential Decree No. )0' dated Nove$ber '@, &(@/.&BIts 8urisdiction 6as revised thus2 ;;; ;;; ;;;

'. Refer for i$$ediate action an! land proble$ or dispute brou#ht to the attention of the P,C*,P, to an! $e$ber a#enc! havin# 8urisdiction thereof2 Provided, that 6hen the E;ecutive Co$$ittee decides to act on a case, its resolution, order or decision thereon, shall have the force and effect of a re#ular ad$inistrative resolution, order or decision, and shall be bindin# upon the parties therein involved and upon the $e$ber a#enc! havin# 8urisdiction thereofJ ;;; ;;; ;;;

Notabl!, the said Presidential Decree No. )0' did not contain an! provision for 8udicial revie6 of the resolutions, orders or decisions of the P,C*,P. On Septe$ber '&, &(@(, the P,C*,P 6as abolished and its functions transferred to the present Co$$ission on the Settle$ent of *and Proble$s b! virtue of E;ecutive Order No. /4&. 1his reor#ani9ation, effected in line 6ith Presidential Decree No. &B&4, brou#ht the COS*,P directl! under the Office of the President.&/ It 6as onl! at this ti$e that a provision for 8udicial revie6 6as $ade fro$ resolutions, orders or decisions of the said a#enc!, as e$bodied in section 0+'thereof, to 6it2 Powers and functions. K 1he Co$$ission shall have the follo6in# po6ers and functions2 &. Coordinate the activities, particularl! the investi#ation 6or", of the various #overn$ent offices and a#encies involved in the settle$ent of land proble$s or disputes, and strea$line ad$inistrative procedures to relieve s$all settlers and landholders and $e$bers of cultural $inorities of the e;pense and ti$e. consu$in# dela! attendant to the solution of such proble$s or disputesJ '. Refer and follo6.up for i$$ediate action b! the a#enc! havin# appropriate 8urisdiction an! land proble$ or dispute referred to the Co$$ission2 Provided, that the Co$$ission $a!, in the follo6in# cases, assu$e 8urisdiction and resolve land proble$s or disputes 6hich are critical and e;plosive in nature considerin#, for instance, the lar#e nu$ber of the parties involved, the presence or e$er#ence of social tension or unrest, or other si$ilar critical situations re%uirin# i$$ediate action2 +a- et6een occupantsIs%uatters and pasture lease a#ree$ent holders or ti$ber concessionairesJ +b- et6een occupantsIs%uatters and #overn$ent reservation #ranteesJ +c- et6een occupantsIs%uatters and public land clai$ants or applicantsJ +d- Petitions for classification, release andIor subdivision of lands of the public do$ainJ and +e- Other si$ilar land proble$s of #rave ur#enc! and $a#nitude. 1he Co$$ission shall pro$ul#ate such rules of procedure as 6ill insure e;peditious resolution and action on the above cases. 1he resolution, order or decision of the Co$$ission on an! of the fore#oin# cases shall have the force and effect of a re#ular ad$inistrative resolution, order or decision and shall be bindin# upon the parties therein and upon the a#enc! havin# 8urisdiction over the sa$e. Said resolution, order or decision shall beco$e final and e;ecutor! 6ithin thirt! +03- da!s fro$ its pro$ul#ation and shall be appealable b! certiorari onl! to the Supre$e Court. ;;; ;;; ;;;

In the perfor$ance of its functions and dischar#e of its duties, the Co$$ission is authori9ed, throu#h the Co$$ission, to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum for the appearance of 6itnesses and the production of records, boo"s and docu$ents before it. It $a! also call upon an! $inistr!, office, a#enc! or instru$entalit! of the National >overn$ent, includin# #overn$ent.o6ned or controlled corporations, and local #overn$ents for assistance. 1his authorit! is li"e6ise, conferred upon the provincial offices as $a! be established pursuant to Section / of this E;ecutive Order.

In Baaga v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems ,&4 6e characteri9ed the COS*,P<s 8urisdiction as bein# #eneral in nature, as follo6s2 Petitioners also contend in their petition that the COS*,P itself has no 8urisdiction to resolve the protest and counter.protest of the parties because its po6er to resolve land proble$s is confined to those cases :6hich are critical and e;plosive in nature.: 1his contention is devoid of $erit. It is true that E;ecutive Order No. /4& provides that the COS*,P $a! ta"e co#ni9ance of cases 6hich are :critical and e;plosive in nature considerin#, for instance, the lar#e nu$ber of parties involved, the presence or e$er#ence of social tension or unrest, or other si$ilar critical situations re%uirin# i$$ediate action.: 5o6ever, the use of the 6ord :$a!: does not $ean that the COS*,P<s 8urisdiction is $erel! confined to the above $entioned cases. 1he provisions of the said E;ecutive Order are clear that the COS*,P 6as created as a $eans of providin# a $ore effective $echanis$ for the e;peditious settle$ent of land proble$s in #eneral, 6hich are fre%uentl! the source of conflicts a$on# settlers, lando6ners and cultural $inorities. esides, the COS*,P $erel! too" over fro$ the abolished P,C*,P 6hose functions, includin# its 8urisdiction, po6er and authorit! to act on, decide and resolve land disputes +Sec. ', P.D. No. )0'- 6ere all assu$ed b! it. 1he said E;ecutive Order No. /4& containin# said provision, bein# enacted onl! on Septe$ber '&, &(@(, cannot affect the e;ercise of 8urisdiction of the P,C*,P Provincial Co$$ittee of Loronadal on Septe$ber '(, &(@). Neither can it affect the decision of the COS*,P 6hich $erel! affir$ed said e;ercise of 8urisdiction. >iven the facts of the case, it is our vie6 that the COS*,P is not 8ustified in assu$in# 8urisdiction over the controvers!. ,s $atters stand, it is not the 8udiciar!<s place to %uestion the 6isdo$ behind a la6J&@ our tas" is to interpret the la6. Ce feel co$pelled to observe, thou#h, that b! reason of the a$bi#uous ter$inolo#! e$plo!ed in E;ecutive Order No. /4&, the po6er to assu$e 8urisdiction #ranted to the COS*,P provides an ideal breedin# #round for foru$ shoppin#, as 6e shall e;plain subse%uentl!. Suffice it to state at this sta#e that the COS*,P $a! not assu$e 8urisdiction over cases 6hich are alread! pendin# in the re#ular courts. 1he reason is si$ple. Section 0+'- of E;ecutive Order /4& spea"s of an! resolution, order or decision of the COS*,P as havin# the :force and effect of a regular administrative resolution, order or decision.: 1he %ualification places an un$ista"able e$phasis on the administrative character of the COS*,P<s deter$ination, a$plified b! the state$ent that such resolutions, orders or decisions :shall be bindin# upon the parties therein and upon the agency having jurisdiction over the same.: ,n a#enc! is defined b! statute as :an! of the various units of the >overn$ent, includin# a depart$ent, bureau, office, instru$entalit!, or #overn$ent. o6ned or controlled corporation, or a local #overn$ent or a distinct unit therein.: &) , depart$ent, on the other hand, :refers to ane ecutive depart$ent created b! la6.:&( Chereas, a bureau is understood to refer :to an! principal subdivision of an! depart$ent.: '3 In turn, an office :refers, 6ithin the fra$e6or" of #overn$ental or#ani9ation, to an! $a8or functional unit of a depart$ent or bureau includin# re#ional offices. It $a! also refer to an! position held or occupied b! individual persons, 6hose functions are defined b! la6 or re#ulation.: '& ,n instru$entalit! is dee$ed to refer :to an! a#enc! of the National >overn$ent, not inte#rated 6ithin the depart$ent fra$e6or", vested 6ith special functions or 8urisdiction b! la6, endo6ed 6ith so$e if not all corporate po6ers, ad$inisterin# special funds and en8o!in# operational autono$!, usuall! throu#h a charter. 1his ter$ includes re#ulator! a#encies, chartered institutions and #overn$ent. o6ned or controlled corporations.: '' ,ppl!in# the principle in statutor! construction ofejusdem generis! i.e., :6here #eneral 6ords follo6 an enu$eration or persons or thin#s, b! 6ords of a particular and specific $eanin#, such #eneral 6ords are not to be construed in their 6idest e;tent, but are to be held as appl!in# onl! to persons or thin#s of the sa$e "ind or class as those specificall! $entioned,:'0 section 0+'- of E;ecutive Order /4& patentl! indicates that the COS*,P<s dispositions are bindin# on administrative or e ecutivea#encies. 1he histor! of the COS*,P itself bolsters this vie6. Prior enact$ents enu$erated its $e$ber a#encies a$on# 6hich it 6as to e;ercise a coordinatin# function.

1he COS*,P dischar#es %uasi.8udicial functions2 :Guasi.8udicial function: is a ter$ 6hich applies to the actions, discretion, etc. of public ad$inistrative officers or bodies, 6ho are re%uired to investi#ate facts, or ascertain the e;istence of facts, hold hearin#s, and dra6 conclusions fro$ the$, as a basis for their official action and to e;ercise discretion of a 8udicial nature.: 'B 5o6ever, it does not depart fro$ its basic nature as an ad$inistrative a#enc!, albeit one that e;ercises %uasi.8udicial functions. Still, ad$inistrative a#encies are not considered courtsJ the! are neither part of the 8udicial s!ste$ nor are the! dee$ed 8udicial tribunals. '/ 1he doctrine of separation of po6ers observed in our s!ste$ of #overn$ent reposes the three +0- #reat po6ers into its three +0- branches K the le#islative, the e;ecutive, and the 8udiciar! K each depart$ent bein# co.e%ual and coordinate, and supre$e in its o6n sphere. ,ccordin#l!, the e;ecutive depart$ent $a! not, b! its o6n fiat, i$pose the 8ud#$ent of one of its o6n a#encies, upon the 8udiciar!. Indeed, under the e;panded 8urisdiction of the Supre$e Court, it is e$po6ered :to deter$ine 6hether or not there has been #rave abuse of discretion a$ountin# to lac" of or e;cess of 8urisdiction on the part of an! branch or instru$entalit! of the >overn$ent.: '4 1here is an e%uall! persuasive reason to #rant the petition. ,s an additional #round for the annul$ent of the assailed status quo order of COS*,P, 7NI1ED accuses private respondents of en#a#in# in foru$ shoppin#. =oru$ shoppin# e;ists 6hen a part! :repetitivel! availDsE of several 8udicial re$edies in different courts, si$ultaneousl! or successivel!, all substantiall! founded on the sa$e transactions and the sa$e essential facts and circu$stances, and all raisin# substantiall! the sa$e issues either pendin# in, or alread! resolved adversel! b! so$e other court.:'@ In this connection, Supre$e Court ,d$inistrative Circular No. 3B.(B dated =ebruar! ), &((B provides2 Revised Circular No. ').(&, dated =ebruar! ), &((B, applies to and #overns the filin# of petitions in the Supre$e Court and the Court of ,ppeals and is intended to prevent the $ultiple filin# of petitions or co$plaints involvin# the sa$e issues in other tribunals or a#encies as a for$ of foru$ shoppin#. Co$ple$entar! thereto and for the sa$e purpose, the follo6in# re%uire$ents, in addition to those in pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and e;istin# circulars, shall be strictl! co$plied 6ith in the filin# of co$plaints, petitions, applications or other initiator! pleadin#s in all courts and a#encies other than the Supre$e Court and the Court of ,ppeals and shall be sub8ect to the sanctions provided hereunder. &. 1he plaintiff, petitioner, applicant or principal part see"in# relief in the co$plaint, petition, application or other initiator! pleadin# shall certif! under oath in such ori#inal pleadin#, or in a s6orn certification anne;ed thereto and si$ultaneousl! filed there6ith, to the truth of the follo6in# facts and underta"in#s2 +a- he has not theretofore co$$enced an! other action or proceedin# involvin# the sa$e issues in the Supre$e Court, the Court of ,ppeals, or an! other tribunal or a#enc!J +b- to the best of his "no6led#e, no such action or proceedin#s is pendin# in the Supre$e Court, the Court of ,ppeals, or an! other tribunal or a#enc!J +c- if there is an! such action or proceedin# 6hich is either pendin# or $a! have been ter$inated, he $ust state the status thereofJ and +d- if he should thereafter learn that a si$ilar action or proceedin# has been filed or is pendin# before the Supre$e Court, the Court of ,ppeals or an! other tribunal or a#enc!, he underta"es to report that fact 6ithin five +/- da!s therefro$ to the court or a#enc! 6herein the ori#inal pleadin# and s6orn certification conte$plated herein have been filed. 1he co$plaint and other initiator! pleadin#s referred to and sub8ect of this Circular are the ori#inal civil co$plaint, counterclai$, cross.clai$, third +fourth,

etc.- part! co$plaint, or co$plaint.in.intervention, petition, or application 6herein a part! asserts his clai$ for relief. '. "ny violation of this Circular shall be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint! petition! application or other initiatory pleading! upon motion and after hearing. #owever! any clearly willful and deliberate forum shopping by any other party and his counsel through the filing of multiple complaints or other initiatory pleadings to obtain favorable action shall be a ground for the summary dismissal thereof and shall constitute contempt of court. =urther$ore, the sub$ission of a false certification or non.co$pliance 6ith the underta"in#s therein, as provided in Para#raph & hereof, shall constitute indirect conte$pt of court, 6ithout pre8udice to disciplinar! proceedin#s a#ainst the counsel and the filin# of a cri$inal action a#ainst the part. De$phasis suppliedE ;;; ;;; ;;;

1he said ,d$inistrative Circular<s use of the au;iliar! verb :shall: i$ports :an i$perative obli#ation . . . inconsistent 6ith the idea of discretion.: ') 5ence, co$pliance there6ith is $andator!.'( It bears stressin# that there is a $aterial distinction bet6een the re%uire$ent of sub$ission of the certification a#ainst foru$ shoppin# fro$ the underta"in#s stated therein. ,ccordin#l!, ; ; ; DfEailure to co$pl! 6ith this re%uire$ent cannot be e;cused b! the fact that plaintiff is not #uilt! of foru$ shoppin#. 1he Court of ,ppeals, therefore, erred in concludin# that ,d$inistrative Circular No. 3B.(B did not appl! to private respondent<s case $erel! because her co$plaint 6as not based on petitioner<s cause of action. 1he Circular applies to an! co$plaint, petition, application, or other initiator! pleadin#, re#ardless of 6hether the part! filin# it has actuall! co$$itted foru$ shoppin#. Ever! part! filin# a co$plaint or an! other initiator! pleadin# is re%uired to s6ear under oath that he has not co$$itted nor 6ill he co$$it foru$ shoppin#. Other6ise, 6e 6ould have an absurd situation 6here the parties the$selves 6ould be the 8ud#e of 6hether their actions constitute a violation of said Circular, and co$pliance there6ith 6ould depend on their belief that the! $i#ht or $i#ht not have violated the re%uire$ent. Such interpretation of the re%uire$ent 6ould defeat the ver! purpose of Circular 3B.(B. Indeed, co$pliance 6ith the certification a#ainst foru$ shoppin# is separate fro$, and independent of, the avoidance of foru$ shoppin# itself. 1hus, there is a difference in the treat$ent K in ter$s of i$posable sanctions K bet6een failure to co$pl! 6ith the certification re%uire$ent and violation of the prohibition a#ainst foru$ shoppin#. 1he for$er is $erel! a cause for the dis$issal, 6ithout pre8udice, of the co$plaint or initiator! pleadin#, 6hile the latter is a #round for su$$ar! dis$issal thereof and constitutes direct conte$pt.03 , scrutin! of the pleadin#s filed before the trial courts and the COS*,P sufficientl! establishes private respondents< propensit! for foru$ shoppin#. Ce la! the pre$ise that the certification a#ainst foru$ shoppin# $ust be e;ecuted b! the plaintiff or principal part!, and not b! his counsel.0& 5ence, one can deduce that the certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal part!, an assurance #iven to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pendin# cases involvin# basicall! the sa$e parties, issues and causes of action. In the case at bar, private respondents< litan! of o$issions ran#e fro$ failin# to sub$it the re%uired certification a#ainst foru$ shoppin# to filin# a false certification, and then to foru$ shoppin# itself. =irst, the petition filed before the COS*,P conspicuousl! lac"ed a certification a#ainst foru$ shoppin#. Second, it does not appear fro$ the record that the ,SSOCI,1ION infor$ed ranch B of the Re#ional 1rial Court of a#uio Cit! before 6hich Civil Case No. 00&4.R 6as pendin#, that another action, Civil Case No. 00)'.R, 6as filed before ranch 4& of the sa$e

court. ,nother #roup of ho$eless residents of Do$inican 5ill, the *,ND RE=ORM ENE=ICI,RIES ,SSOCI,1ION, INC. initiated the latter case. 1he aforesaid plaintiff, ho6ever, does not hesitate to ad$it that it filed the second case in representation of private respondent, as one of its affiliates. In the sa$e $anner, the certification a#ainst foru$ shoppin# acco$pan!in# the co$plaint in Civil Case No. 00)'.R does not $ention the pendenc! of Civil Case No. 00&4.R. In fact, the opposite assurance 6as #iven, that there 6as no action pendin# before an! other tribunal. ,nother trans#ression is that both branches of the trial court do not appear to have been notified of the filin# of the sub8ect COS*,P Case No. ().'/0. It is evident fro$ the fore#oin# facts that private respondents, in filin# $ultiple petitions, have $oc"ed our atte$pts to eradicate foru$ shoppin# and have thereb! upset the orderl! ad$inistration of 8ustice. 1he! sou#ht recourse fro$ three +0- different tribunals in order to obtain the 6rit of in8unction the! so desperatel! desired. :1he 6illful atte$pt b! private respondents to obtain a preli$inar! in8unction in another court after it failed to ac%uire the sa$e fro$ the ori#inal court constitutes #rave abuse of the 8udicial process.: 0' In this connection, 6e e;pounded on foru$ shoppin# in $iva Productions! %nc. v. Court of "ppeals00 that2 Private respondent<s intention to en#a#e in foru$ shoppin# beco$es $anifest 6ith undoubted clarit! upon the follo6in# considerations. Notabl!, if not onl! to ensure the issuance of an in8unctive relief, the si#nificance of the action for da$a#es before the &a'ati court 6ould be nil. Chat da$a#es a#ainst private respondent 6ould there be to spea" about if the Paraaque court alread! en8oins the perfor$ance of the ver! sa$e act co$plained of in the &a'ati courtH Evidentl!, the action for da$a#es is pre$ature if not for the preli$inar! in8unctive relief sou#ht. 1hus, 6e find #rave abuse of discretion on the part of the &a'ati court, bein# a $ere co.e%ual of the Paraaque court, in not #ivin# due deference to the latter before 6hich the issue of the alle#ed violation of the sub( judice rule had alread! been raised and sub$itted. In such instance, the &a'ati court, if it 6as 6ar! of dis$issin# the action outri#htl! under ,d$inistrative Circular No. 3B.(B, should have, at least, ordered the consolidation of its case 6ith that of the Paraaque court, 6hich had first ac%uired 8urisdiction over the related case ; ; ;, or it should have suspended the proceedin#s until the Paraaque court $a! have ruled on the issue ; ; ;. ;;; ;;; ;;;

1hus, 6hile 6e $i#ht ad$it that the causes of action before the &a'ati court and the Paraaque court are distinct, and that private respondent cannot see" civil inde$nit! in the conte$pt proceedin#s, the sa$e bein# in the nature of cri$inal conte$pt, 6e nonetheless cannot i#nore private respondent<s intention of see"in# e;actl! identical reliefs 6hen it sou#ht the preli$inar! relief of in8unction in the &a'ati court. ,s earlier indicated, had private respondent been co$pletel! in #ood faith there 6ould have been no hindrance in filin# the action for da$a#es 6ith the re#ional trial court of ParaMa%ue and havin# it consolidated 6ith the conte$pt proceedin#s before ranch '@B, so that the sa$e issue on the alle#ed violation of the sub judicerule 6ill not have to be passed upon t6ice, and there 6ould be no possibilit! of havin# t6o courts of concurrent 8urisdiction $a"in# t6o conflictin# resolutions. ?et fro$ another an#le, it $a! be said that 6hen the Paraaque court ac%uired 8urisdiction over the said issue, it e;cluded all other courts of concurrent 8urisdiction fro$ ac%uirin# 8urisdiction over the sa$e. 1o hold other6ise 6ould be to ris" instances 6here courts of concurrent 8urisdiction $i#ht have conflictin# orders. 1his 6ill create havoc and result in an e;tre$el! disordered ad$inistration of 8ustice. 1herefore, even on the assu$ption that the &a'ati court $a! ac%uire 8urisdiction over the sub8ect $atter of the action for da$a#es, 6ithout pre8udice to the application of ,d$inistrative Circular No. 3B. (B, it cannot nonetheless ac%uire 8urisdiction over the issue of 6hether or not petitioner

has violated the sub 8udice rule. ,t best, the &a'ati court $a! hear the case onl! 6ith respect to the alle#ed in8ur! suffered b! private respondent after theParaaque court shall have ruled favorabl! on the said issue. Ce also noted several indications of private respondents< bad faith. 1he co$plaint filed in Civil Case No. 00&4.R 6as prepared b! the ,SSOCI,1ION<s counsel, ,tt!. Conrado Villa$or Catral, Ar. 6hereas the co$plaint filed in Civil Case No. 00)'.R 6as si#ned b! a different la6!er, ,tt!. 1ho$as S. 1a!en#co. Cith re#ard to the petition filed 6ith the COS*,P, the sa$e 6as si#ned b! private respondents individuall!. ,s to the latter case, 6e noted that the petition itself could not have been prepared b! ordinar! la!$en, inas$uch as it e;hibits fa$iliarit! 6ith statutor! provisions and le#al concepts, and is 6ritten in a la6!erl! st!le. In the sa$e $anner, the plaintiffs in the three +0- different cases 6ere $ade to appear as dissi$ilar2 in Civil Case No. 00&4.R, the plaintiff 6as ,SSOCI,1ION of 6hich private respondent Mario Padilan 6as head, 6hile the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 00)'.R 6as the ENE=ICI,RIES. efore the COS*,P, private respondents the$selves 6ere the petitioners, led a#ain b! Padilan.0B Private respondents also atte$pted to var! their causes of action2 in Civil Case No. 00)'.R and COS*,P Case No. ().'/0, the! see" the annul$ent of the Me$orandu$ of ,#ree$ent e;ecuted b! and a$on# 7NI1ED, the PMS, and 5I>C as 6ell as the transfer certificates of title accordin#l! issued to petitioner. ,ll three +0- cases sou#ht to en8oin the de$olition of private respondents< houses. It has been held that foru$ shoppin# is evident 6here the ele$ents of litis pendentia or res judicata are present. Private respondents< subterfu#e co$es to nau#ht, for the effects of res judicata or litis pendentia $a! not be avoided b! var!in# the desi#nation of the parties or chan#in# the for$ of the action or adoptin# a different $ode of presentin# one<s case. 0/ In vie6 of the fore#oin#, all that re$ains to be done is the i$position of the proper penalt!. , part!<s 6illful and deliberate act of foru$ shoppin# is punishable b! su$$ar! dis$issal of the actions filed.04 1he su$$ar! dis$issal of both COS*,P Case No. ().'/0 and Civil Case No. 00&4.R is therefore 6arranted under the pre$ises. Ce shall refrain fro$ $a"in# an! pronounce$ent on Civil Case No. 00)'.R, the dis$issal of 6hich 6as elevated on appeal to the Court of ,ppeals 6here it is still pendin#. C5ERE=ORE, the petition is hereb! >R,N1ED. 1he status quo order dated Septe$ber '(, &(() issued in COS*,P Case No. ().'/0 b! respondent Co$$ission On 1he Settle$ent Of *and Proble$s +COS*,P- is hereb! SE1 ,SIDEJ and the petition filed in COS*,P Case No. (). '/0 and the co$plaint in Civil Case No. 00&4.R are hereb! DISMISSED for lac" of 8urisdiction and foru$ shoppin#. Costs a#ainst private respondents. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo! &endo)a! *uisumbing! and Buena! ++ .! concur.

Foo&%o&"$
&

,nne; : : of the Petition, Rollo, p. 0'. Me$orandu$ Order No. )/ dated ,pril 03, &()@.

'

5I>C li"e6ise a#reed to act as ori#inator in a separate $e$orandu$ of a#ree$ent for one other applicant, the &&/3& ,ssociation, Inc., of a different portion of Do$inican 5ills.
0

,nne; :E: of the Petition, Rollo, p. @@. Co$plaint, ,nne; :=: of the Petition, Rollo, pp. @(.)0. ,nne; :>: of the Petition, Rollo, p. )B. ,nne; :5: of the Petition, Rollo, pp. )/.(&. ,nne; :I: of the Petition, Rollo, pp. ('.(0. C,.>.R CV No. /00'4. ,nne; :,.&: of the Petition, Rollo, pp. '4.0&. ,ano! et al. v. Socrates! et al., '@) SCR, &/B, &@' +&((@-.

&3

&&

In relation thereto, Section &, Rule 40 of the &((@ Rules of Civil Procedure states2 :-ho may file petition. K ,n! person interested under a deed, 6ill, contract or other 6ritten instru$ent, 6hose ri#hts are affected b! a statute, e;ecutive order or re#ulation, ordinance, or an! other #overn$ental re#ulation $a!, before breach or violation thereof, brin# an action in the appropriate Re#ional 1rial Court to deter$ine an! %uestion of construction or validit! arisin#, and for a declaration of his ri#hts or duties, thereunder ;;;;.:
&' &0

1he $e$bership of the co$$ittee 6as as follo6s2 Secretar! of ,#riculture and Natural Resources Chair$an S$all =ar$ers Co$$ission Chair$an ,ction Officer Deput! >overnor, *and ,uthorit! Me$ber 7ndersecretar! of Austice Me$ber 7ndersecretar! of National Defense Me$ber P,N,MIN Chair$an Me$ber Chief of Constabular! Me$ber Co$$issioner on National Inte#ration Me$ber Director of *ands Me$ber Director of =orestr! Me$ber ,#rarian Counsel Me$ber *and Re#istration Co$$issioner Me$ber

&B

1he co$position of the co$$ittee 6as li"e6ise chan#ed. 1hus2 Secretar! of Natural Resources Chair$an

P,N,MIN Secretar! Me$ber Deput! E;ecutive Secretar! Me$ber 7ndersecretar! of ,#riculture Me$ber 7ndersecretar! of Austice Me$ber 7ndersecretar! of ,#rarian Refor$ Me$ber 7ndersecretar! of National Defense Me$ber Chief of Constabular! Me$ber Co$$issioner of *and Re#istration Me$ber Chief, Citi9ens *e#al ,ssistance Office Me$ber Director of *ands Me$ber Director of =orest Develop$ent Me$ber Director of Mines Me$ber Currentl!, the COS*,P is a constituent unit of the Depart$ent of Austice, per oo" IV, 1itle III, Chapter &&, section 0' of E;ecutive Order No. '(', other6ise "no6n as :1he Revised ,d$inistrative Code of &()@.: 1he provision reads2 :1he Co$$ission on the Settle$ent of *and Proble$s shall be responsible for the settle$ent of land proble$s involvin# s$all lando6ners and $e$bers of cultural $inorities. It shall also perfor$ such other functions, as are no6 or $a! hereafter be provided b! la6.:
&/ &4

&)& SCR, /((, 43@.43) +&((3-. Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue, et al. v. Santos, et al., '@@ SCR, 4&@, 403 +&((@-.

&@

Section ', Introductor! Provisions, E;ecutive Order No. '(', other6ise "no6n as the :,d$inistrative Code of &()@.:
&)

%d. 1he definition adds2 =or purposes of oo" IV, this shall include an! instru$entalit!, as herein defined, havin# or assi#ned the ran" of a depart$ent, re#ardless of its na$e or desi#nation.:
&(

%d. 1he second sentence of the definition states2 :=or purposes of oo" IV, this shall include an! principal subdivision or unit of an! instru$entalit! #iven or assi#ned the ran" of a bureau re#ardless of actual na$e or desi#nation, as in the case of depart$ent.6ide re#ional offices.:
'3 '&

%d.

%d. Definitions of a re#ulator! a#enc!, chartered institution, and #overn$ent.o6ned or controlled corporation are as follo6s2 :+&&- .egulatory agency K refers to an! a#enc! e;pressl! vested 6ith 8urisdiction to re#ulate, ad$inister or ad8udicate $atters affectin# substantial ri#hts and interest of private persons, the principal po6ers of 6hich are e;ercised b! a collective bod!, such as a co$$ission, board or council. +&'- Chartered
''

institution K refers to an! a#enc! or#ani9ed or operatin# under a special charter, and vested b! la6 6ith functions relatin# to specific constitutional policies or ob8ectives. 1his ter$ includes the state universities and colle#es, and the $onetar! authorit! of the state. +&0- /overnment(owned or controlled corporation K refers to an! a#enc! or#ani9ed as a stoc" or non.stoc" corporation, vested 6ith functions relatin# to public needs 6hether #overn$ental or proprietar! in nature, and o6ned b! the >overn$ent directl! or throu#h its instru$entalities either 6holl!, or 6here applicable as in the case of stoc" corporations, to the e;tent of at least fift!.one +/&- per cent of its capital stoc"2 Provided, that #overn$ent.o6ned or controlled corporations $a! be further cate#ori9ed b! the Depart$ent of the ud#et, the Civil Service Co$$ission, and the Co$$ission on ,udit for purposes of the e;ercise and dischar#e of their respective po6ers, functions and responsibilities 6ith respect to such corporations.: PNOC Shippin# and 1ransport Corporation v. Court of ,ppeals, '(@ SCR, B3', B'' +&(()-.
'0

Midland Insurance Corporation v. Inter$ediate ,ppellate Court, &B0 SCR, B/), B4' +&()4-.
'B '/

' ,$ Aur 'd, ,d$inistrative *a6 N'(. Section &, ,rticle VIII, &()@ Constitution. >at$a!tan v. Court of ,ppeals, '4@ SCR, B)@, /33 +&((@-.

'4

'@

Don 1ino Realt! and Develop$ent Corporation v. =lorentino, 0&B SCR, &(@, '3B.'3/ +&(((-J Codo! v. Calu#a!, 0&' SCR, 000, 0B' +&(((-.
')

Robern Develop$ent Corporation v. Guitain, 0&/ SCR, &/3, &43 +&(((-J Melo v. Court of ,ppeals, 0&) SCR, (B, &3' +&(((-. 1he circular is $andator! li"e6ise for labor cases +e.g, Maricalu$ Minin# Corporation v. National *abor Relations Co$$ission, '() SCR, 0@), 0)B D&(()E-, and election cases +*o!ola v. Court of ,ppeals, 'B/ SCR, B@@, B)B D&((/E-.
'( 03

Melo v. Court of ,ppeals, supra.

Escorpi9o v. 7niversit! of a#uio, 034 SCR, B(@, /30 +&(((-J =ar Eastern Shippin# Co$pan! v. Court of ,ppeals, '(@ SCR, 03, /0 +&(()-.
0& 0'

=il.Estate >olf and Develop$ent, Inc. v. Court of ,ppeals, '4/ SCR, 4&B, 400 +&((4-. '4( SCR, 44B, 4@&.4@B +&((@-.

00

Petitioners in COS*,P Case No. ().'/0 6ho also clai$ed da$a#es in Civil Case No. 00)'.R include Ponciano asilan, Pacito Moisa, Dionisio ,nas, Noli Dan#la, Napoleon allesteros, Do$in#o Canutab, Marcelino >abriano and Aonathan de la PeMa +See Rollo, pp. 4@.4)0B 0/

=irestone Cera$ics, Inc. v. Court of ,ppeals, 0&0 SCR, /'' +&(((-.

Pruban"ers ,ssociation v. Prudential an" O 1rust Co$pan!, 03' SCR, @B, )B +&(((-.
04