Espiritu v.

Tankiansee
G.R. No. 164153 (June 13, 2011)
Facts:
Petitioner filed a Petition for Issuance of Shares of Stock and/or Return of Management
and Control with the Regional Trial Court of Manila against UOBP Group. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 02-103160 and raffled to Branch 46. Thereafter Respondent
intervened, meanwhile Petitioner filed a Notice to take Depositions of respondent. The RTC-46
denied the deposition. Aggrieved, Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals which was denied by the CA. From this adverse decision, Petitioner appealed to the SC,
meanwhile, pending resolution before the SC, the trial court rendered a Decision on Feb. 2, 2004,
in the main case, therein, the Petitioners filed an appeal to the CA. Problem arises when the SC
required the CA to elevate the complete records to the SC.

Issue:
Whether Petitioners are guilty of Forum Shopping

Ruling:
Petitioners appeal before the Court of Appeals is the appropriate and adequate remedy, and the
certiorari petition, subject matter of this case, constitutes forum shopping. Section 1, Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, clearly provides that a petition for certiorari is available only when there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for
certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and the
availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for
certiorari. As the Court has held, these two remedies are mutually exclusive.

Petitioners certiorari petition, questioning the order which denied their resort to
deposition has been superseded by the filing of their subsequent appeal before the Court of
Appeals in the main case. a certiorari petition may only be availed of if there is no appeal, or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. We find that petitioners appeal
from the February 2, 2004 Decision of the trial court in the main case is the appropriate and
adequate remedy in this case as it challenges the aforesaid interlocutory orders and the decision
in the main case.