1

City of Taguig Plaintiff-Appellee v. City of Makati Defendants-Appellants

CA-G.R. No. 98377 March 8, 2017

FACTS:
On November 22, 1993, Taguig filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, a Complaint
against Makati for a Judicial Confirmation of the Territory and Boundary Limits of Taguig and a
Declaration of the Unconstitutionality and Nullity of Certain Provisions of Presidential Proclamation
2471 and 518.

In its complaint, Taguig averred that areas comprising the Enlisted Mens Barangays (EMBOs) and
the Inner Fort in Fort Andres Bonifacio (Fort Bonifacio) are within its territory and jurisdiction.

Makati filed its answer, stating that it has claim rightful ownership over the disputed areas.

RTC: Rendered its decision on July 8,2011 in favor of Taguig. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
xxx xxx xxx
1. Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation is confirmed part of the territory of the Plaintiff
City of Taguig:
2. Proclamation No. 2475, Series of 1986 and [Proclamation] No. 518 Series 1990 are
hereby declared UNCONSITUTIONAL and INVALID, insofar as they altred boundaries
and diminished the areas of territorial jurisdiction of the City of Taguig without benefit of a
plebiscite as required in Section 10, Article 10 of the 1987 Constitution.
xxx xxx xxx

On July 28 2011 - Makati filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) Ad Cautelam before the RTC.

At the same time (July 28,2011), Makati also filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgement for the CA,
(docketed as CA-Gr SP No. 120495) challenging the RTC decision on the ground that it was
rendered by Judge Briccio Ygana (Judge Ygana) after he had already retired from office.

RTC on MR: Rendered its decision on December 19, 2011 ruling that Makati was guilty of Forum
Shopping.

Omnibus order of RTC on MR: Dated February 13, 2012 opined that the finding of facts and
conclusions of law in the Decision dated July 8, 2011, are all in order and soundly based.

On January 5, 2012, Makati filed its Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelam questioning the RTCs decision
and order. On October 5, 2012, Makti filed its Appellants Brief Ad Cautelam.

On January 23, 2011 Taguig, in response filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground of forum
shopping.
 2

CA: On July 30, 2013 it ruled in favor of Makati. It essentially held that the RTC erred:
xxx xxx xxx
2. in declaring the disputed areas as part of the territory of Taguig;
3. in declaring Presidential Proclamation No. 2475, and Presidential [Proclamation]
No.418
as unconstitutional and invalid since it said proclamations did not alter the boundaries
of the disputed areas but instead confirmed that the same are under the jurisdiction of
Makati.

On September 3, 2013, Taguig filed an MR assailing the CAs July 30, 2013 decision.

In the meantime, the CA case (CA-Gr SP No. 120495) reached the Supreme Court (SC).
SC: On July 15, 2016 in the case of City of Taguig v. City of Makati Gr No. 208393
the SC found Makati guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping for pursuing
2 simultaneous remedies:
1. a Petition for Annulment of Judgement under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Court; and
2. a MR Ad Cautelam

Hence, Taguig filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of Forum Shopping.

ISSUE: Whether Makati committed willful and deliberate forum shopping

RULING (CA on MR): YES.

CA granted Taguigs Motion to Dismiss for Forum Shopping.

The CA now draws guidance from the SCs pronouncement in City of Taguig v. City of Makati Gr No.
208393, to wit:

It cited the case of Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development
Corporation, where it was explained that:

Forum shopping is committed by a party who instituted 2 or more suits in different courts,
either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or
related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, on the supposition that
one or the other court would make a favorable disposition or increase a partys chances of
obtaining a favorable decision or action.

In City of Taguig v. City of Makati Gr No. 208393, the SC found that Makatis resort to 2
simultaneous reliefs was not justified, disregarding even Makatis similar claim herein that its MR Ad
Cautelam and Appeal were mere precautionary measures. In this light, in the absence of any
justification on the part of Makati, the CA draws the conclusion that Makatis simultaneous availment
of he aforementioned reliefs was not a by-product of mere thoughtless or negligence but of a willful
and deliberate act of Forum Shopping.

Taking account too of the fact that this is the second time that the SC has found Makati to have
violated the rule on Forum Shopping.

Digest prepared by:

Beast
LPU-Makati.
3