SANTOS V. HEIRS OF LUSTRE (REMEDIAL)

Forum shopping exists when the elements if litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount o res judicata in the other. Among its elements are identity of the parties, identity of the subject matter, and identity of the causes of action in the two cases.

The dispute in this case centers on whether there exists identity of causes of action and identity of parties between Civil Case No. 1330 and Civil Case No. 2115.

Concededly, the causes of action in Civil Case No. 1330 and Civil Case no. 2115 are identical. There is identity of causes of action if the same evidence needed in the first case will sustain the second action, and this principle applies even if the reliefs sought in the two cases are different. Without a doubt, the same evidence will be necessary to sustain the causes of action in these two cases which are substantially based on the same series of transactions. In fact, similar reliefs are prayed for in the two cases. Both complaints ultimately seek the cancellation of the title of the alleged transferees and the recovery of the subject property.

Despite this similarity, however, we hold that respondents are not guilty of forum shopping because the element of identity of parties is not present.

The determination of whether there is identity of parties rests on the commonality of the parties' interest, regardless of whether they are indispensable parties or not. The issue of whether the additional parties are indispensable parties are not acquires real significance only when considering the validity of the judgment that will be rendered in the earlier case. This is so because if the additional parties are indispensable parties, then no valid judgment can be rendered against them in the earlier case in which they did not participate, and this will foreclose the application of res judicata which requires the existence of a final judgment.

without question, a co-owner may bring an action to recover the co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. In such case, the other heirs are merely necessary parties.

However, if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, as in civil Case No. 1330, the action will not prosper unless he impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable parties. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. The trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over the indispensable parties who are not impleaded in the case and judgment thereon cannot be valid and binding against them. a decision that is null and void for want of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court is not a decision in contemplation of law; hence, it can never become final and executory.

DOMINGO V. RAYALA (ADMINISTRATIVE, REMEDIAL, JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Rayala accuses the Solicitor General of forum shopping because it files a motion for reconsideration of the decision on CA-GR SP No. 61026 and then filed a comment in GR 155840 before this Court.

We do not agree.

FORUM SHOPPING is an act of a party, against an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly securing a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.

There is forum shopping when the following concur:

1. identity of the parties or at least of the parties who represent the same interest on both actions;
2. identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and
3. identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.

When the Republic opted to file a motion for reconsideration, it was merely exercising a right. That Rayala and Domingo had by then already filed cases before the SC did not take away this right. Thus, when this Court directed the Republic to file its Comment on Rayala's petition, it had to comply even if it had an unresolved motion for reconsideration with the CA, lest it be cited for contempt.

As to the substantial issue, RA 7877 defines SEXUAL HARASSMENT as follows:

Section 1. Forms of Sexual Harassment - Sexual harassment may be committed in any of the following forms;

1. overt sexual advances;
2. unwelcome or improper gesture of affection;
3. request or demand for sexual favors including but not limited to going out on dates, outing, or the like for the same purpose;
4. any other act or conduct of a sexual nature or for purposes of sexual gratification which is generally annoying, disgusting, or offensive to the victim.

Rayala insisted that his acts do not constitute sexual harassment because Domingo did not allege in her complaint that there was a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor as a condition for her continued employment or for her promotion to a higher position.

Respondent's insistence is unconvincing.

Basic in the law of public officers is the THREE-FOLD LIABILITY RULE, which states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal, and administrative liability. An action for each can proceed independently of the others. This rule applies with full force to sexual harassment.

The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. The CA correctly ruled that Rayala's culpability is not to be determined solely on the basis of RA 7877 because he is charged with the administrative offense, not the criminal infraction of sexual harassment. It should be enough that the CA, along with the Investigating Committee and the Office of the President, found substantial evidence to support the administrative charge.

Yet, even if we were to test Rayala's acts strictly by the standards set in RA 7877, he would still be administratively liable. It is true that this calls for a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor. but it is not necessary that such demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude from the acts of the offender.

Likewise, it is not essential that the demand, request, or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that respondent's acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee, which was clearly manifested by the fact that Domingo filed for leave of absence and requested transfer to another unit.

SANTOS V. COMELEC (REMEDIAL, ELECTION)

The petition is impressed with merit. As shown in the records, respondent was guilty of forum-shopping.

FORUM-SHOPPING is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of 2 or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.

For it to exist, there should be:

1. identity of parties, or at least such as would represent the same interest in both actions;
2. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
3. identity of the 2 preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

Considering that respondent was indubitably guilty of forum-shopping when he filed SPR No. 37-2002, his petition should have been dismissed outright by the COMELEC. Willful and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case and constitutes direct contempt of court.

A valid exercise of the discretion to allow EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL requires that it should be based "upon good reasons to be stated in a special order." The following constitute "good reasons" and a combination of 2 or more of them will suffuie to grant execution pending appeal:

1. public interest involved or will of the electorate;
2. the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and
3. the length of time that the election contest has been pending.

To deprive trial courts of their discretion to grant execution pending appeal would, in the words of Tobon Uy v. COMELEC, bring back the ghost of the GRAB-THE-PROCLAMATION-PROLONG-THE-PROTEST techniques so often resorted to by devious politicians in the past in their efforts to perpetuate their hold to an elective office. This would, as a consequence, lay to waste the will of the electorate.

OPORTO V. MEMBERS OF BOARD OF INQUIRY AND SICIPLINE OF NAPOCOR (EXHAUSTION OF ADMIN REMEDIES, FORUM SHOPPING)

Oporto failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

The DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES mandates that whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted. This rule is based on the practical principle that the administrative agency should be given a chance to correct its error and that relief first sought from a superior administrative agency could render court action unnecessary.

In this case, Oporto appealed the decision of the NAPOCOR President to DOE Secretary. Obviously, he was under the impression that the Secretary had administrative appellate authority over NAPOCOR President's decision. but without waiting for the Secretary's action, Oporto filed with the RTC a petition for prohibition under Rule 65. In so doing, Oporto compounded an earlier error with yet another blunder, namely, forum shopping.

By going to the court without awaiting the action of the Secretary, whom he recognized as a superior administrative authority, Oporto violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Oporto committed forum shopping.

In yet another display of flawed logic, Oporto insists that he had been denied due process - an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion - and if indeed, the DOE Secretary is not the proper forum for an appeal, then the appeal should be deemed as not having been filed at all. Thus, Oporto argues, there would be no incidence of forum shopping.

There is FORUM SHOPPING when the following elements concur:

1. Identity of the parties, or at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions;
2. Identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and
3. Identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.

The filing of the petition for prohibition with the RTC while the appeal with the DOE Secretary was yet unresolved is unmistakably a case of forum shopping, as it yielded the full concurrence of all the three elements enumerated above.

Due process is not a mantra, the mere invocation of which shall warrant a reversal of a decision. Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

Oporto was not deprived of due process in this case as he had in fact filed his answer ans a Joint Position Paper explaining to the Board the reasons for the discrepancy of the inspection and delivery date. He was likewise able to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the NAPOCOR President's decision. It should be emphasized that despite the opportunity to do so, Oporto did not present any new substantial defense other than to say that the alleged error was not his own doing and that it was a simple case of oversight.