G.R. No. A.C. No. 9162 (Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1698), August 23, 2023.
Teresa P. Sierra, Complainant, vs. Atty. Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro and Atty. Carmina A. Abbas, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Teresa P. Sierra charged respondents Atty. Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro and Atty. Carmina A. Abbas with violation of the rules of professional conduct for “willful and deliberate forum shopping.” The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Agreement for the sale of Sierra’s townhouse unit to Atty. Alejandro. After discovering issues with the property’s title, Atty. Alejandro sought to back out and demanded a refund of his payment, while Sierra demanded he vacate the property.
On August 12, 2004, Atty. Alejandro, through counsel Atty. Abbas, filed a petition for declaratory relief (Civil Case No. Q-04-53435) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 220 of Quezon City (Branch 220-Quezon City), praying for a writ of mandatory injunction. The court denied the application for injunctive relief. Respondents later moved to convert the case to an ordinary civil action for specific performance with damages, which was granted, but the prayer for injunctive relief was again denied. Subsequently, Atty. Alejandro filed a notice of dismissal under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, citing improper venue, and the first case was dismissed by order dated February 15, 2005.
On March 14, 2005, Atty. Alejandro, through Atty. Abbas, filed a new action for specific performance with damages (Civil Case No. 05-228) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62 of Makati City (Branch 62-Makati City), again praying for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. Branch 62-Makati City granted the prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. In her answer in the second case, Sierra raised the affirmative defense of forum shopping, arguing that respondents pursued the same injunctive relief already denied in the first case.

ISSUE

Does the IBP-CBD or IBP-BOG have jurisdiction over the issue of forum shopping which the Branch 62-Makati City already took cognizance of and resolved with finality?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint. It held that the trial court which first took cognizance of the issue of forum shopping—Branch 62-Makati City—had exclusive jurisdiction over that issue and the main case until its final termination. The Court emphasized that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of a complaint exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of others, including all incidents such as the issue of forum shopping. Branch 62-Makati City, in its Decision dated June 25, 2010, had already resolved with finality that respondents did not commit forum shopping, noting that the first case was dismissed before the second was filed and there was no simultaneous litigation involving the same parties and causes of action. The IBP-CBD and IBP-BOG, therefore, had no jurisdiction to pre-empt or reverse the trial court’s disposition. Furthermore, the Court found complainant Teresa P. Sierra guilty of contempt of court for committing forum shopping by raising the same issue in two different forums (the trial court and the IBP) and fined her PHP 20,000.00.